I was raised Catholic (!) and never had any reason to question the scientific consensus when it jarred with the literalist interpretation of the Bible.
I was raised Roman Catholic as well, and for us there was no conflict because our interpretation of the Bible was always contextualist rather than literalist. Or, as one of my high school religion teachers once put it, "The Bible is all true
, but it isn't factual
." There are scientific truths and there are metaphysical truths, and these are not the same things nor are they arrived at in the same way.
What I really don't get about the Creationist--sorry, Intelligent Design
--mindset is why it conceives of the theory of evolution as a diminution
of God's greatness rather than an augmentation
of it. When I was still theist, it awed me that there could be an intelligence so incredibly sophisticated that it could conceive and execute a divine plan spanning not thousands of years but billions
of years consisting of an infinite number of dynamic processes most of which precede too slowly for our dull intellects to even pick up on.
Of all the world's mythico-religious systems, Buddhism and Hinduism strike me as the only ones which truly embraced the vastness of the cosmos from their very inception. Compared to their unfathomable kalpas
of millions or even billions of years, the 6,000 to 8,000 years generally presented as the age of the Earth in the Judaeo-Christian tradition looks laughably paltry.
Could nature have "invented" endothermy in mammals, birds and dinosaurs? That's endothermy developing three times.
Since birds evolved from dinosaurs, it only counts as two.