Correct. The Bible is not a science textbook, and should not be used as such. However, Creation (which science studies), should point back to a Creator and His Word, the Bible. And to a person of faith, Creation does point back to a Creator. Unfrotunately, evolution as a means to origins intentionally uses the "unknown" to promote a specific theory, which works out beautifully because nothing can be shown confidently correct nor incorrect. The theory behind evolution is merely conjecture based on the objective evidence we have today - however - God is never considered, therefore evolution MUST come up with a way for life to have evolved from mere chemicals to rational, thinking minds. What's interesting here is that in order to begin a theory like this, one must first reject a Creator, then comes the conjecture. The devious thing about the theory is that once in place it can then be used to persuade those who believe, not to believe. Evolution attacks faith every chance it gets when ironically it has to be taken on faith itself by its own believers.
No, they have to reject ancient tribal beliefs about how the world started, handed down through generations of oral tradition, mixed with slightly less ancient beliefs, and eventually put into text.
They do not have to reject the creator itself.
I think, when asked how life started, an evolutionist would have to say "We don't really know."
What's interesting here is that in order to begin a theory like this, one must first reject a Creator, then comes the conjecture.
I don't think that's true at all. The existence or non-existence of a Creator is wholly irrelevant to evolution. Could evolution work with a Creator? Sure. Could evolution work without a Creator? Sure. The fundamental point is that evolution does not talk about how life arose, only how it changes.
Correct. Real science does not require a decision on the existence of God. When real science comes up to a supernatural event, it faces a discontinuity that it simply cannot address.
I am an amatuer astronomer. I can look up in the night sky and fully realize that night sky implies a very old universe. However, that doesn't mean the universe is very old. God set up a system with physical laws, the very real implication of which is that the universe must look old. The supernatural governs natural reality in a way that natural reality cannot observe outside of faith.
The question science tries to answer is akin to which vine did the wine Jesus made supernaturally come from? At first glance, it may look like a certain variety of a certain age, etc., but you would be wrong. Science can only tell us what something looks like, not what it is. Minus the supernatural, real science will be correct. With the supernatural, variables are introduced that science is incapable of accounting for.
Those who attack faith using science aren't acting as science, but as a competing religion. They refuse to see this, it would undermine their position.