I accept that science in general and evolution in particular makes no judgement as to the existence of God. There is no conflict between evolution and God. There is no conflict between evolution and the Bible. There is a conflict between evolution and a narrow, literal interpretation of the Bible. Science has shown that such a literal interpretation of the Bible (especially concerning Earth history) is incorrect. Science has not shown that faith in the Bible is incorrect. Science has not shown that faith in God is incorrect.
Accepting that the theory of evolution is a well supported, valid scientific theory does not mean that one must reject the existence of God, nor that one must reject the basic tennets of the Bible. There is no dicotomy, i.e. that one must either believe in God and the Bible or in evolution. The existence of devout Christians who accept evolution proves such a dicotomy to be a false one.
Thus the creationism/evolution debate, for the most part, boils down to acceptance or rejection of the literal truth of the Bible in general, and Genesis in particular.
The Ontario Centre for Religious Tolerance provides a very good summary of the creation/evolution issue. See also The Institute for Biblical and Scientific Studies.
large store of information generated by the talk.origins newsgroup on creation/evolution.
Combating young Earth creationist arguments
The A-files: A series of files
containing information about various aspects of the famous fossil
Archaeopteryx. Is it a bird? Is it a reptile? Could it leap
tall trees in a single bound?
The Reptile to Mammal transition:
A brief discussion of one of the most well documented transitions in
the fossil record.
in co-exisiting groups.
Lunartic arguments about the age of the
Dave Matson's article refuting arguments for a young Earth.
A large store of information generated by the talk.origins newsgroup on creation/evolution.