Ok the first part is fine.
What do you mean by the second part? What second half of your religion? I didn't realise religion was half creationism.
Are you suggesting that if you have faith you can't also be completely scientific? I think a lot of scientists would take serious issue with that.
DCKing made a great response so I'll quote him again:
There are a lot of things in the Bible that are contradictory to current knowledge or current morality. Those are often rejected by most religious people. Although this is for the best for everybody, picking only the parts you like about a book pretending to be the end-all book of truth as the basis for what you think is true is often considered hypocritical.
The same goes for most sciences. If you accept knowledge of physics, biology (anything that has to do with biology really, most notably medicine), geology, chemistry in the case of Islam, and possibly even mathematics (Bible does very much seem to claim pi = 3) then you hold truths contradicting those of the Bible. It is therefore that science and religion (technically only religions that dictate scientific facts in scripture, but that's all the major ones) are factually mutually incompatible. The intellectual hypocrisy worsens the more you need to work with that knowledge as a scientist. Moreover, if you reject certain truths found through science because the Bible says otherwise, the intellectually honest thing to do is to reject the scientific method, which makes you unsuitable to be a scientist.
The thing is, people are generally not troubled by contradictory beliefs and it is therefore that a huge amount of people still think that. I don't in general have a problem with people having some sort of faith, as long as they have the clarity of thought to realize that it's contradictory and people should not take them seriously for it.
Adding to that, my edit from the previous post:
So the Catholic Church being like "oh we're so modern now! We believe in evolution!" is completely superficial and reeks more of being a PR thing where they want to stay relevant in the midst of a time and society where even religious people are going "hey, wait a minute....that sounds really dumb."
I'm gonna use the Catholic Church as an example but this also pertains to Protestants who also "play both sides" on the evolution issue.
The fact that the Church has to "update" its morals, beliefs, and "canon" every hundred years should automatically raise huge red flags to its believers. I mean, it's supposed to be the "word of God." Why was x ok back then but not ok now, and vice versa? Why are we throwing Genesis out but believing the rest of it? Was Noah's ark just a metaphor? Why is that a metaphor but this isn't? Contraceptives are a sin today but maybe not in fifty years? Why is all of this decided by a committee of three old guys in Vatican City?
If you look at it from an outside point of view, it makes perfect sense. The Church needs to stay relevant by constantly changing itself so that it matches reality, or it risks losing its influence and power. Why doesn't this alarm its members more? Well, in my opinion, a large part of being a believer especially today is constantly trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Bend reality to fit your religion. So it makes sense that many believers buy into it.
I actually take it back. I fully embrace the fact that many believers support evolution now, because it's the first step to becoming an atheist. Eventually you'll start to question, "hey,
WHY am I spending all this freaking time and effort trying to fit all of these square pegs into these round holes?" and that's when religion starts to crumble and science becomes your truth. I know this because that's exactly what happened to me, and many, many other atheists.
