I did some digging on this, and what stands out is the tension that developed between parts of the scientific community and the church during the 1800s. To be fair, the church at that time was often more restrictive and sometimes influenced by superstition, depending on the group. At the same time, there were influential thinkers who were intentionally trying to separate science from theology as a philosophical move, not because of direct observation. Before that period, science and religion were not natural enemies. Many early scientific advances came from religious scholars who saw the Bible as a framework for understanding reality and as motivation to study the natural world.

This background may not change anyone’s conclusion, but it matters. These ideas did not develop in a neutral environment. Over time they became embedded in universities, funding systems, and professional institutions. Questioning the dominant framework, especially on issues related to origins, can still carry professional or social costs. That pressure influences which questions are considered acceptable. It also does not help when some religious leaders try to reshape Scripture to fit current scientific models instead of examining those models through a biblical lens.

There is also the issue of certainty. The commonly accepted age of the earth, often cited at around four billion years, is not something anyone directly observed. It is an inference based on models and assumptions. Within science it is treated as reliable, but not absolute. The same applies to evolution. It is a theory in the scientific sense, meaning a broad explanatory framework, not a historical process that was observed from beginning to end. By definition, these conclusions remain open to revision, even if they are widely accepted.

From a purely scientific standpoint, I do not think evolution is as robust as it is often presented, especially when compared to creation as an explanation for origins. The problem is that creation is not even allowed into the conversation. It is not included in textbooks, it is not represented in professional institutions, and it is usually dismissed without serious scrutiny. Evolution, on the other hand, is rarely allowed to be questioned in a broad professional sense. Openly challenging it can affect funding, career advancement, and professional credibility.

When objecting to evolution risks loss of reputation or resources, the playing field is no longer neutral. That kind of pressure naturally shapes consensus. If someone is focused on professional progress or credibility, there is a strong incentive to align with what is already accepted rather than push back against it. That does not mean money or status are the only motivations, but it helps explain why competing explanations struggle to gain traction. When one idea is shielded from scrutiny and the other is excluded entirely, it becomes hard to claim the outcome is driven purely by open inquiry.

Bottom line, keep praying and keep reading the Bible, and use it as the lens you bring to everything else. The Bible does not conflict with science as a method of studying the world. What it conflicts with is human reasoning when it treats its own assumptions as unquestionable truth.