So Richard Dawkins makes a good point that when religion makes a scientific statement, it's only fair game for scientists to examine such claims and evaluate them. Religion, in his view, is only a matter outside of science so long as religion makes no claims about science.
His example is as follows.
What would happen if archeologists found some sort of great scientific evidence, DNA or such, that pretty much conclusively showed Jesus not only lived, but really was born of a virgin. And it gets published and peer reviewed and all that. How many theologeans (at least christian ones) would hesitate and say, "Well, that's science, religion is a matter of faith."
They only use that excuse when science doesn't agree with them. Again, we see religion has a big double standard.
Errr...By religion, im going to assume you mean Christianity ...since that's probably what you mean.
Anywho, I would definitly disagree with you. Christianity , on the Theory of Evolution and Big Bang Theory stand point (yes, its they theories believe it or not) says that the earth was created in 7 days along with man. But when you say that there is a "double standard" when it comes to accepting science and not accepting science you are truly wrong. Religion, namely Christianity, does not reject science, but rather embraces it. However, it does reject "Psudoscience", and theory that is not backed up by fact.
A couple (out of many) faults of Evolution -
1) There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present. (No, Lucy does not count, she was fully human. A very short human, but a human none the less *46 chromosomes*)
2) "Natural Selection", the mechanism of evolution is incapable of changing one organism into another. A dog will produce a dog, and an amoeba will make more amoebas (if you want to call it that). By itself, natural selection cannot advance a species, and it cant do it with the aid of mutation either. Beneficial mutation, while being a 10^4,478,296.17 chance does not affect the offspring of the organism because mutations do not create new genetic potential, they just alter the existing genetics.
A couple (out of many) supporting facts of creationism -
Fossil Record - I think this says enough...
"Since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a…portion of the geologic column…the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time…over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance."
-Woodmorappe, John, "The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment," Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 18, no.1 (Terre Haute, Indiana, June 1981),pp. 46-71
and another
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.
--Nilsson, N. Heribert, as quoted in Arthur C. Custance, The Earth Before Man, Part II, Doorway Papers, no. 20 (Ontario, Canada: Doorway Publications), p. 51
Whew...well my hands are tired of typing so im going to stop now. This is just an alternate perception that is different from the mainstream one today (and more truthful, and scientifically sound)