I think when it comes to evolution, it's not often viewed as the "ultimate" explanation.
That wouldn't be science talking.
There are people that do not think it necessitates a God in the picture. The thing to keep in mind about people like Richard Dawkins is that while he is an ardent "atheist" (I think he's more of an agnostic), he still permits room for the possibility, while very small, for something outside his worldview.
That space still exists. There are scientists that admit to being wrong, even after a career of believing in a particular scientific dogma, and it's something that is celebrated as courageous. We are constantly learning.
There is no such space for fundamentalist Christians. It's unyielding adherence to church doctrine and deadening confirmity.
The reason evolutionists are so combative is partially the fault of creationists. There are a number of scientific/evolution papers that mention creationists, even in passing, because evolution is so poorly understood in the public realm that profoundly unscientific ideas like "intelligent design", backed by unethical and questionable think tanks, such as Discovery Institute, are permitted to encroach on public policy and to be smuggled into science classrooms.
The problem with evolution is largely an American one, which should clue us on the some of the underlying problems here.
The fact is the Genesis narratives were written by an ancient Near Eastern people to their people, which is abundantly clear these people had an ancient worldview, which has been routinely ignored, but is undeniable to an honest person.
It's a known fact that ancient Near Eastern cultures used myths. These people were storytellers. The OT authors are part of that, like it or not.
It does not demote God, it means God comes down to where we are at. He speaks to us in our cultural and intellectual limitations.
The notion that God wanted to provide a journalistic account of material origins to a people thousands of years ago is ridiculous. This was a time where virtually all people believed in god(s), and the world was explained this way. It was not a matter of whether the gods created the world, were responsible for the functions and phenomena around this, it was a matter of which one to subscribe to.
We see a polemic message in the Genesis creation account that can be understood to demote other gods, such as one associated with the moon, for example. This is a message of God's abode and the relationship to the Israelites place.
Show me the evidence for the flaccid and contentious doctrine of inerrancy? Show me the evidence that apostle Paul was incapable of error. We have thousands of years of Christians getting it wrong.
I don't think Paul's theological statements depend on his science.
I hope it's not going to rest on the line from 2 Timothy, which would be spurious at best.
The belief in the literal understanding of the Genesis creation accounts do not rest on facts, but a hermeneutics choice made by Christian. It's speculation. It's an understanding based on cultural, and it's your culture that is tell you to ask certain questions of evolution.
There is, however, overwhelming evidence for evolution. The reason it's not satisfactory with Christian isn't because it isn't telling a clear message, it's that Christians don't want to hear it.
It's that simple.
Yet, I hope and pray for the best for everyone, really.
