Christianity vs 'Well established science'

This article is referring to this comment posted on Victor Reppert's blog.

First I want to state that I agree that "It is the mark of a true Christian to show 'faith seeking understanding' and to be intellectually honest with respect to science and learning." Mr. Walters says this, however, as if there is a vast difference between intellectual honesty regarding science and learning and theological or even Biblical honesty. Nevertheless, this is a small matter.

What I really want to address is the following: "If as Polkinghorne says we see science as a manifestation of our being made in the image of God we should certainly "study to show ourselves approved unto God" and accept the well-established results of science, including evolution and the latest results of neuroscience."

The reference to 2 Timothy 2:15 is, in my opinion, abused here. The KJV is used, and I do not think that "study" is the more accurate word to use, nor is it, if it were to be used, to mean "study" as we mean study. I think the NAS and HCS are better Bible's to use here, which translate the word "be diligent." It is an exhortation to maintain and more importantly to show one's pursuit of righteousness by having righteous works. Not to study books and pursue intelligence. Am I saying the Bible does not condone or even that it admonishes the pursuit of intellectual integrity? of course not. However, this verse should not be used as an appeal to show that we can show ourselves approved to God by studying.

I do not think that science is a manifestation of our being created in the image of God. Rather I see science as a way to know and more importantly glorify God by exploring His creation. His image is projected by us more so by our emotions, and by love in the giving of ourselves, and by our souls, and by our minds. It would not be prudent to interpret the latter in the list as pursuing intelligence. We must have a mind to understand the law and law is to show us our sin. We need a mind to know God's law, and to obey it...or not to.

Lastly, the inclusion of evolution with the "well-established results of science" is ambiguous. As it has been stated before historical science(or origins science or forensic science) is truly based on best-guess. Why is evolution the best guess? And why should it be presupposed that Genesis is 'creation myth?' Is it because it doesn't agree with the secular uniformitarian time-scale (along with many other aspects of secular science but uniformitarian geology is always touted as fact by even certain theologians)? I contend that evolutionary theory is not the result of science but of science gone bad just as sin is the result of the pursuit of good in the wrong way.