That is -- evolution is just a *theory*. The Holy Text and Revelation -- those are Truth. Higher truths than the evidences -- still truth is truth and the evidences are truthful in there essence. What we make of those bones, artifacts, geology, chemsitry, physics, and measurements and mathematical constructions is subject to the variances of interpretation of what they mean and how they fit together. Those change over time. Those are subject to vanity and politics, and the ebbs and tides of fashion.
There is a hypothesis that teh Bible is the word of God. But, since it cannot be validated or falsified, it remains a hypothesis and cannot be elevated to the level of a theory.
Agree with that.
That is -- evolution is just a *theory*.
And agree with that as well. I believe that the geological column represents hundreds of millions of years. I believe that species have come and gone.
But I don't agree with certain aspects of Darwinian evolution. I do not think that life as we know it know could have evolved through mutation or chance. But I do believe that life has an innate ability, through its own power, to reach a higher potential and awareness.
I've never had a problem with any part of science -- if you add n+1 enough times you get n+1. Whatta concept! But it's so hard to explain replicating clays to a three year old. A good place to start for many cultures is to teach children verses from Sacred text. Maybe something about the red mud of the Shatt el-Arab. I feel I'm in a good place knowing my place in the cosmos but I worry about the Newdows making such a stink over 4 small words in the pledge of allegiance. I really think he's doing more harm than good, especially to the three year olds he claims to be defending... Can't we just let it go?
The Bible is just a *book*. What one needs to understand is that a "theory" within the scientific community undergoes rigorous testing. Theories are so very easy to disprove, one only needs verifiable and testable procedures showing that the theory is false. And then, poof, it's gone. Believe it or not, scientists don't care to waste their time working with theories that will yield useless results. If Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection were frail it would have been disproven a long time ago, like Lamarckian's theory of evolution. But it simply has not been disproven, and no, the 2nd Law of Thermo hasn't disproven it. :)
If my car is making a knocking sound, I could have a theory as to what that sound is. The car mechanic would formulate his own theories and subject the car to testing, if reality does not comport with a certain theory (of which there may be many) then the theory is discarded. This is where the similarity with a scientific theory ends though.
A scientific theory serves as a model for discovering additional properties about our environment. A theory should help guide our way to increased understanding of the world around us - and this has been the case with natural selection. It has not only answered past questions but has served as a pointed to further knowledge - just one trite example is the field of genetic algorithms which are used on Wall Street to model the movements of markets, among other things.
There's also the Germ Theory of Disease, the Atomic Theory of Matter. These, too, are "just theories" - but we, as a people, have learned so much from their application. Lives are made better because we use these theories to discover and master those things around us which we used to be victim to. Darwin's theory of natural selection should be no threat to Christianity - it has served as the foundation for practically all of modern biology and has aided mankind in gaining an understanding of his environment.