I think nvrgnbak related my feelings about the subject rather succintly:
My point is, it's hard to say what happened when none of us were here.
Science offers explanations based on observations. These explanations are not static.
However, my ability to accept this is reliant upon my understanding that the bible is a book of stories, myths and legends, with some basis in truth in many cases, but highly unreliable as a source for facts regarding the nature of our world and our universe.
Similar to what is being discussed in another thread regarding the herbivorous nature of certain animals of obviously carnivorous nature, religionists tend to rely upon the bible as a source for absolute truth first and then deny actual scientific observation when the data opposes what the bible says. Creation can't be a natural phenomenon without being molded by the hand of God, because the bible says otherwise, they say. And yet, when it suits them, so many will deny (or manipulate interpretation of) certain lines of reasoning within the bible... such as its, to my mind, definitive stance against homosexuality. It baffles me as to how one can be a Christian and yet rationalize homosexuality. Yes, I've heard all the arguments, but they seem to me like frightened rationalizations. (Nope, not a Christian myself and so hold absolutely nothing against gays. Just don't see how, for example, a gay can also be Christian when the bible calls for their deaths.)
I suppose it's much easier to deny scientific theory regarding the development of life upon earth than to stand against individuals we may see day to day with alternative lifestyles.
I suppose one would have to accept the bible as a fallible piece of work to begin with to accept scientific attempts to explain it all. And if one does that, doesn't it call the entire rest of the work into question? House of cards...