W,
Both science and Genesis believe life came about at some finite time in the past. What they disagree on is the method. Now, I'll tell you upfront that there are some theologians who accept evolution as being true--they are called theistic evolutionists. I'm not one of them, and most of the people here aren't. Rich Deem, the owner of the site, isn't. The biggest problem with evolution from a theological perspective is the historicity of Adam. Some people believe that God used evolution to create man and then picked one "manlike" creature and turned
him into the biblical Adam, but that still doesn't square with Genesis 2-3. You still have Eve being created miraculously and being called "the mother of all the living." You still have the whole Garden of Eden incident, etc.
Most theistic evolutionists, then, take Gen 2-3 as some sort of pious myth. That, however, creates problems in the NT, because the NT treats Adam as being a real person. In fact, if you get right down to it, the entire doctrine of salvation rests on the doctrine of the Fall, which presupposes a literal Adam. No Adam = No Fall = No need for the Cross.
Concerning evolution itself, I know that it's the height of blasphemy to say this, but it's not science. At best, it's forensic science. But fundamentally, it isn't science at all. It's a philosophy. Take, for example, the field of homology and consider the following picture:
So here we have the limbs of various vertebrates. They are certainly structurally similar, and this is taken to be evidence for evolution. More specifically, it is taken to mean that all of these came from a common ancestor. But there are several problems with this.
First, taken this way, it really is no evidence for evolution at all. It could just as well be evidence of common
design rather than common
descent. Frankly, it's evidence for neither as it fits into both systems rather well. But secondly, there are many structures throughout nature that are very similar but we know have no common descent. The common example of this are the octopus and human eye. They are very similar, but clearly that does not mean they have the same ancestor (for more on this, look up the phenomenon of convergence). So, actually, it turns out not to be very good evidence for evolution at all.
Darwinists recognized this years ago, so they decided to redefine homology. It was no longer the study of structural pattens in nature. Under the original system, the octopus and human eyes were clearly homologous. But since that proves that homology is no evidence for evolution (too many counter-examples are available), it was redefined to mean features inherited from a common ancestor. Now, we can't call the octopus and human eyes homologous, but we can call the bat and human arm homologous, because the latter to are known to have descended from a common ancestor.
Do you see the problem here? Under the new definition, homology ceases to be evidence for evolution, because you can only declare things homologous
once you know they evolved from a common ancestor. Thus, you have to presume evolution to claim things are homologous. You cannot, then, turn around and use your presumption as evidence of your position!
Now, evolutionists have the right to define homology however they will. But note that this is philosophical. They decide,
before they see the data, that evolution is true and that things are homologous if they already know them to be from a common ancestor. That presumption is philosophical, not scientific.
At the end of the day, a non-theist has NO choice but to believe in evolution. The non-theist believes evolution is true no matter what the evidence is for or against it, because it is a necessary consequence of his worldview, and that, my friend is the rub. Evolution isn't a science. It's the necessary consequence of a philosophy.
In that case, the issue of squaring Genesis with evolution becomes a moot point. We don't have to. Contrary to popular belief, you can be very rational and reject evolution. And I'm convinced
by the evidence I've seen that evolution does not tell the right story of reality. Intelligent Design does.