In my book, The World That Then Was, I discuss various creation models that have been held by Christians in the past. The fascinating part about the discussion is that both faith-based and science-based arguments must be considered. Ultimately, the question becomes, "Should we look at the Bible through the lens of science?" or "Should we look at science through the lens of the Bible?"
There are ministries that attempt to answer these questions. Those who think that we should see the Bible through the lens of science will say that we need to look at the Book of Nature, that God has provided us, in order to understand the passages. When they refer to the "Book of Nature" what they are really referring to is the mainstream way of interpreting scientific evidence. Unfortunately, the mainstream approach has been high-jacked by interpretations that are in direct contradiction to clear teachings in the Bible.
When we look at science through the lens of the Bible, we do not disregard scientific evidence. In fact, literalists do more justice to the scientific evidence than those who view the Bible through the lens of science. For instance, when we look at creationism, the idea that God created the world as the Bible describes, there are two main schools of thought. The first would be the young earth creationists (YECs). YECs believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago. The second would be the old earth creationists (OECs) which would be a group that thinks the world is significantly older, if not the same age as mainstream science.
Let's take a look at the Gap Theory. People, who believe in the Gap Theory, generally accept the idea that the world is billions of years old. They do so because mainstream science says the earth is really old, but also because they believe that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. In Genesis 1:1, they claim that was the initial creation, in which God created a world before Adam and Eve, a time when Satan fell. They believe that science provides sufficient evidence that the world is much older than what YECs claim it to be. The problem they have is that science would not provide any evidence that there were angels that lived on earth before humans were created.
Young Earth Creationists don't try to harmonize their account with mainstream science. Thus, they don't make such trivial errors in their logic. YECs look at the evidence and conclude that, in light of what the Bible says, the mainstream scientific understanding of the evidence is incorrect. They provide evidence in nature that supports the idea that the earth is significantly younger than what mainstream science claims.
The majority of people, who believe in evolution, believe that humans evolved from apes because of science class and such teachings in our culture. However, the institutional understanding of this evidence is that mankind DID NOT evolve from apes, but from an ape-like creature. The institutional understanding is that mankind and apes have a common ancestor, not that one evolved from the other. Nonetheless, it is the humans evolving from apes narrative that has kept the theory of evolution alive. The evidence is far more complicated than an oversimplified diagram that portrays chimps progressively evolving into humans. Would as many people buy into evolution if they truly analyzed the evidence? It is doubtful. But because the narrative is powerful, the ignorance of the masses is allowed and the institution goes unquestioned.
Biblical creationists do the best that they can to account for all of the scientific evidence. They take the Bible seriously and use science to explain God's good design.