If we allow scientific theories based on theology, can we discard that theology if we find what looks to be evidence that theory is wrong? Scientific theories are subject to consensus in order to try and provide the hightest degree of objectvity. You can't do that with theology, and still maintain an individual right of freedom of religion.
It's true that nobody can produce evidenct the God did not create man. This is call "proving a negative" and is generally impossible in nearly all cases.
If we make that acceptable as the basis for validation of scientific theory then anyone who can come up with any hypothesis, no matter how improbable, they can get demand that it be accepted and taught as viable theory. We don't let people do that, for good reason.
You can do that with theology. In fact in the history of the traditional church that is exactly what happens. And it happens in many churches today. The members of the church decide and weigh what are valid beliefs and doctrine. They then enforce these doctrines and beliefs on those who wish to be part of that church. There's a litmus test. That's a good thing. People are free to leave and worship elsewhere.
When a church controls the state, as the Roman church once dominated state powers, then those beliefs become part of government policy. I don't think that's a good thing.
But it seems like you're putting a higher standard on religion than you're putting on science. Certainly not all scientists who study evolution believe in exactly the same way. As you pointed out, it's consensus, but it's not uniform consensus. If a scientist dissents from the consensus what happens to his belief? Is it banned from the textbooks because it goes against the consensus? Are schools not allowed to present it because it goes against the consensus?
It's true that nobody can produce evidenct the God did not create man. This is call "proving a negative" and is generally impossible in nearly all cases. If we make that acceptable as the basis for validation of scientific theory then anyone who can come up with any hypothesis, no matter how improbable, they can get demand that it be accepted and taught as viable theory. We don't let people do that, for good reason.
Well yes and no. It depends on whether or not you accept an objective source as valid or not. If scientists were to accept the bible as an authoritative source of information (fat chance I know but play along) then it would be fairly easy to validate hypotheses. But alas even among those who call themselves Christians there are those who don't believe that the bible is an authoritative source of information. Or they believe that there are other authorities besides scripture whose opinion holds as much weight.
I think the central issue is this: Who gets to decide the beliefs that influence society, culture, laws and morals? As it stands now science wants exclusive control over this area. And no religion should have exclusive control either. But they should have an opportunity to present information on a specific subject if they can present a coherent theory that's consistently based upon a source of objective information. But I expect that, like evolutionary teaching, it will have to go through the court systems before becoming legal to teach something that was legally taught 80 years ago.