The argument about creation versus evolution is one that has gone on for quite some time so that evolutionary theories have infiltrated Christian institutions - churches and schools alike. Many are starting to be swayed by the arguments for evolution and are more often seeking to interject evolutionary thinking into the scriptures. There is a slight problem with that however that causes one's interpretation of the scriptures to become very skewed. In the science world, there are essentially two forms of science: historical science and observable science. Historical science is the study of things of which a person was not present to physical observe those things as a form of evidence. Observable science is the type of science where a person does have the opportunity to observe certain things as evidence. The two forms of science don't really mix well together. Thus, one must be careful in how one conducts historical science.
Since one was not there in past history, one must be careful not to make presumptions and approach one's science with a certain set of biases, lest one risk the possibility of coloring the truth to ensure one's results match one's presumptions. This is the problem that often occurs when dealing with the origins of the universe. When one discusses the origins of the earth, one is dealing with historical science because no one was there to see what happened. One cannot come up with ideas and then seek to support those ideas through observable things because what ends up happening are the problems that exist in the theories of evolution and other such arguments. There are many holes and irreconcilable points within those arguments because one powerful truth haunts those secular theories - we weren't there so the theories cannot be proved. Instead, how one should properly conduct historical science is by examining the testimonies of those who existed at a certain point in history and then examine what is observable to ensure that it matches the testimony. The Bible claims that it is the inspired Word of God. Thus, though it was penned by men, it is the dictated ideas and truths concerning God.
Since the Bible teaches that God existed before the universe as an eternal transcendent being, then His testimony regarding the formation of the universe and life in it is the most valid because He was present during its formation as Creator. Thus, as a Christian, there should be little confusion. One should simply approach the scriptures in faith with the understanding that its contents are truth - that God said what He meant, and meant what He said. Then one can take those truths, examine the world today, and match up the facts to verify if the contents of the Bible are indeed fact. Upon taking this approach, one will find that the Bible's claims are 100% true. The challenge is that when one examines the creation account, the testimony seems so backwards to human reasoning and teaching. Thus, when reading the Bible, one is immediately forced to humble one's self, surrender one's own logic and "wisdom" and consider the testimony of the Living God without bias. For example, in Genesis 1:2, the scriptures state that the earth was formless. The Bible begins the creation account acknowledging that God existed before everything, then references earth before the formation of any other form in space. Genesis 1:2 contradicts the theories of secular science.
Once again, since the context is historical science, one must observe the testimony of those who were present and match it up with what can be observed to verify its truth. Genesis 1:2 testifies that the formless earth was empty so that darkness covered over it. Genesis 1:2 states that the Spirit of God hovered over the watery depths of the surface of the waters of earth. One of the toughest questions for evolutionists and secular scientists to answer is, "How did all of our water get here?" The earth is made up of mostly water. Many state that water covers 70% of the earth's surface (more or less). Our planet is mostly made up of water. How did it get here? Evolutionists claim that water molecules may have been dropped off by comets and other massive water-containing rocks in space. The speculation is that as they collided with one another or hit the earth, they dropped off those water molecules so that water was formed on the planet. Compare the two forms of science. Today we cannot observe the formation of water. Today we can observe that water changes forms from a gas, to a liquid, to a solid and so forth. However, water does not multiply and reproduce more water. In fact, we can observe that when water sits around long enough, it evaporates and requires a pretty intense series of processes to become liquid again. The speculation of evolutionists does not match what can be observed, especially when one considers the likelihood of many rocks from space hitting earth enough times to drop enough water but not destroy it as a planet.
The Bible matches what one can observe. Today one can observe an abundant amount of water that uniquely exists on this planet just like the Bible says and the way it got here was by God. The evolutionist theories don't explain how earth took shape and form. The Bible says that God took formless water and gave it its form so that there is direct and specific purpose that God has for Earth as He gave it its form and shape for a reason. One must also consider that the water was formed in the midst of darkness, which traditionally refers to wickedness and evil in the Bible. What is darkness doing or evil doing in the midst of the earth if nothing has been formed yet? It is possible that this refers to the existence of Satan since Isaiah 14 testifies that he was expelled from heaven before the formation of the world. If this is true, then it can be seen that God formed the world in the midst of the devil as if He was building a stage to host the events that would involve him. This again, shows that God had purpose in the manner in which He was creating the world and everything in it. The formation of the world according to the Bible, was not a series of accidents and random events. The first two verses of the Bible demonstrate that God had purpose and calculated reason in His work. Whether one understands that purpose does not negate the existence of God demonstrating reason and a plan. Lastly, Genesis 1:2 explains that "the Spirit of God" hovered over the waters. Recall that in Genesis 1:1 God was referred to as Elohim to describe His triune nature. In Genesis 1:2, the Bible testifies of the existence of His other form - the Holy Spirit. The Hebrew word that is used to describe "the Spirit of God" is "ruwach" and is also translated into "breath." Thus, the Bible describes the breath of God hovering over the formless waters of the earth as He was giving it form. This is the same word used to describe the manner in which God gave life to mankind as He "breathed" life into him. Upon examining these details, one can see that in the first two verses of the Bible, both God the Father and the Holy Spirit are involved in creation. Guess who is referred to next.