But you have not addressed my point, which was a tag-on to NoNukes. You have no problem with science changing, and probably even consider this to be a good thing (as do I). So why do you object to change in theology?
I find it strange that the words of an omnipotent and omniscient deity would turn out to be wrong. At least with science we admit that we are not all knowing nor all powerful, and build skepticism right into the process. However, religion claims absolute morality based on absolutely being right, and in the most dogmatic sense.
I never said there aren't different interpretations of the Bible on some subjects. However, some of the above stretch the Biblical base quite a bit. I don't think theistic evolution can be Biblically justified.
Such is the dilemma the church has put itself into. It is a bit like geocentrism. A religion will die a quick death if its theology is shown to be wrong by mountains of evidence. The RCC knows that the quickest way to end Christianity is to require people to ignore facts in order to be Christians. If the Bible can be so easily proven wrong on subjects about life and the movement of the planets, why should we trust it on matters of faith and morality?
There's no dilemma. The Bible is always true even if human beings are fallible.
So says a fallible human about a book written by fallible humans, translated by fallible humans, and interpreted by fallible humans.
Besides, show me ONE religion that's ever "died a quick death" even when out of touch with the mountains of often bogus evidence science piles on us.
Heaven's Gate, Davidian, the recent apocalyptic cults that got their predictions all wrong, just to name a few.
Also, you have never shown that any of evidence is bogus. If I ever did want to destroy religion, all I would need to do is trot people like yourself in front of a crowd. I would show them the damage religion does to one's ability to reason and use logic.