I tend to avoid talking about evolution and biblical creationism because I think it clouds the issue. When faith systems are fundamentally rotten, then that is where the focus should be. Without the old tribal rituals, the old tribal fairy tales about creation become quite irrelevant. Science presses forward, unwavering. New techniques, new understanding, and new discoveries are applied to the old evidence with regularity. Science is ever-changing, and will eventually chase away the god that dwells in the gaps of knowledge.
I do accept evolution as a viable explanation of the observed. I don't like to go into too much detail about that, only to say that I consider it a much simpler explanation. Certainly, "God did it" is a much easier process to assert, but that explanation carries with it a whole host of other problems, detailed on this site.
Evolution makes sense to me. It is sound logical reasoning to think that healthy, competitive life forms will survive and reproduce more frequently than their relatively disadvantaged contemporaries will. It is a very small step, not a large one, to assume that over long periods of time sufficient differences would occur between populations that they can no longer be called the same thing, and indeed could become biologically incompatible for procreation. That is evolution.
The goal of Creation "Science" (and this goal is sometimes stated) is to find all scientific evidence that supports the biblical account of creation, and to seek "alternative" explanations for evidence to the contrary. In other words, they start with the conclusion and find the slivers of data that can be construed to support it, rejecting everything else. Under that same method, one could "scientifically" support the notion that the Earth is flat. Don't believe me? Check out the Flat Earth Society. It took me a little while to finally recognize that these people were joking. Very well done.
Sites like the Flat Earth Society, and others that are not joking, make an important point about religious fundamentalism. So-called scientific evidence, and biblical evidence for that matter, can be used to support virtually any religious, philosophical or political opinion. Such influence has never really damaged the integrity of science, but it has held it back a few times. Beliefs that the Earth was flat or the center of the universe were certainly pushed on the scientific community, but reason and evidence win out in the end.
The idea that evolution is part of a great atheistic plot to discredit the one true god is absolutely ridiculous. These atheist scientists are trying to advance their godless view of the universe! The problem is, these same people will tell me that most scientists are Christians. You think you know more than all these scientists? Yes I do. Two-thirds of the world is not Christian, and most hold the belief that Christianity is false. Majority opinion is neither proof nor disproof of personal beliefs.
If Fundamentalist Christians who believe in creationism really think their scenario is historical fact, then the so-called scientific community will eventually get around to proving it, no matter what influence there is. If it is historical fact, no agenda will ever stop it. But Christians must realize that many of their own (in the field of science) have sought out evolutionary evidence and marveled at the "hand of God" that they find in it. Just like with the flat Earth notion and the geocentric view of things, Christianity will simply change to fit the new incontrovertible evidence.
Most major Christian denominations, including the big one, the Roman Catholic Church, have been forced to accept evolution as the "process God used to create life on Earth." Certain fundamentalist groups have refused to change, and I think they have good reason (no joke). If the Church gives leeway on anything, such as the age of the Earth or the creation of life, then all things in Genesis and indeed all of the early books attributed to Moses become open to widespread skepticism. If the church declares the creation story or the story of Adam and Eve to be Israelite folk tales, then the same thing can be said about the Exodus, the parting of the Red Sea, Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah, Cain and Abel, Noah and the Flood, the Tower of Babel, and on and on. The first five books of the Bible could then only laughingly be categorized as "History". I can't believe they were ever categorized as such in the first place.
I understand why the Fundamentalists wouldn't want to give one single inch. But my view on this issue is a simple "wait and see" approach. Eventually one view, or an entirely different approach, will win out with reason and evidence. Science will take care of that. Religion should stick with what it knows best: Explaining the as-to-date unexplainable. That's all it can really do.
Well, I guess it can also spend a great deal of time defending its ridiculous old superstitions and fairy tales, but that's more of a fundamentalist religious thing.