I'm always fascinated with those who see the book of Genesis as a literal contract. Creationists. My understanding is that Genesis is an allegory / story to help understand how we exist. As I have a M.Sc., I also see an opportunity for evolution.
To me, the Earth is close enough to the sun to stay warm, but also not too close. We also have around 97% of the same DNA as chimps, but we have something really really special about our species. Both are scientific facts...miraculous? Evolution and Faith can coexist, but some Protestants who reject the Catholic teachings on allegory can't balance them. So, I smile.
How about them Muslims? In Ottawa there are a few. One is very adamant about the purity of his religion, because the 'Book' hasn't changed in 1400 years. Same Book = purity. One could point out that there are strict gender valuations. But the response I like is 'if the Book is pure, why are there so many different interpretations of it, like Sunni and Shi'ia?"
I can understand fascination in a foreign concept...or those who hold foreign concepts, but understanding the Scriptures, especially the Old Testament, in a literal sense is in conformity with the teachings of the Church. The Holy Father Pius XII exposed this in his encyclical letter Humani Generis:
'22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some even against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council's definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters. They even wrongly speak of a human sense of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the only infallible meaning, lies hidden. In interpreting Scripture, they will take no account of the analogy of faith and the Tradition of the Church. Thus they judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth.
'23. Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church's vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.
'24. Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical "Providentissimus," and Benedict XV in the Encyclical "Spiritus Paraclitus," as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical "Divino Affflante Spiritu."
'38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies. This Letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.
'39. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.'
The undefined concept labeled "evolution" cannot exist, whether with faith or with anything else. Until people define what they're talking about, the rest of us have no idea. Sure, some concepts which describe what we observe in nature and fall under the hypothesis labeled "micro-evolution" very well could be true...but, as one learns in freshman Biology, a hypothesis can never be proven, only supported or refuted. This means that the hypothesis we call "evolution"...whatever it actually is...remains in the realm of possibility until supported by objectively observed fact. Once that is the case, it falls in the realm of probability. No number of supports to a probability will ever make the probability a certitude, though. So, the most "evolution" possibly has going for it is a "probably."