Theists: What is your stance on evolution?

[Ferrocyanide]

Magic and science rarely occupy the same space.

That depends on where one happens to be.

To the ignorant , science can seem to be magic.


I remain ignorant of exactly how computers work (code is magic to me)

As for the very idea that the universe may in fact have come from nothing---that does me head in.

Some theists have difficulty in telling the difference between science/technology and magic.
Some of them do reason that a TV, VCR, DVD player may seem magical to someone from a more primitive culture.
I agree that that can happen and has happened as has mentioned Oldandeasilyconfused Cargo cults.

So, where does one draw the line? What is real and what is magic?
I think this is called the Demarcation problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem

A section of the text from wikipedia:
The demarcation problem in the philosophy of science and epistemology is about how to distinguish between science and non-science,[1] including between science, pseudoscience, and other products of human activity, like art and literature, and beliefs.[2][3] The debate continues after over two millennia of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in various fields, and despite a broad agreement on the basics of the scientific method.[4][5] The debate has consequences for what can be called "scientific" in fields such as education and public policy.[6]:26,35

An early attempt at demarcation can be seen in the efforts of Greek natural philosophers and medical practitioners to distinguish their methods and their accounts of nature from the mythological or mystical accounts of their predecessors and contemporaries.[7]

Aristotle described at length what was involved in having scientific knowledge of something. To be scientific, he said, one must deal with causes, one must use logical demonstration, and one must identify the universals which 'inhere' in the particulars of sense. But above all, to have science one must have apodictic certainty. It is the last feature which, for Aristotle, most clearly distinguished the scientific way of knowing.[2]
— Larry Laudan, "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem" (1983)

G. E. R. Lloyd noted that there was a sense in which the groups engaged in various forms of inquiry into nature set out to "legitimate their own positions",[8] laying "claim to a new kind of wisdom ... that purported to yield superior enlightenment, even superior practical effectiveness".[9] Medical writers in the Hippocratic tradition maintained that their discussions were based on necessary demonstrations, a theme developed by Aristotle in his Posterior Analytics.[10] One element of this polemic for science was an insistence on a clear and unequivocal presentation of arguments, rejecting the imagery, analogy, and myth of the old wisdom.[11] Some of their claimed naturalistic explanations of phenomena have been found to be quite fanciful, with little reliance on actual observations.[12]

Many historians of science are concerned with the development of science from its primitive origins; consequently they define science in sufficiently broad terms to include early forms of natural knowledge. In the article on science in the eleventh edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, the scientist and historian William Cecil Dampier Whetham defined science as "ordered knowledge of natural phenomena and of the relations between them".[23] In his study of Greek science, Marshall Clagett defined science as "first, the orderly and systematic comprehension, description and/or explanation of natural phenomena and, secondly, the [mathematical and logical] tools necessary for the undertaking".[24] A similar definition appeared more recently in David Pingree's study of early science: "Science is a systematic explanation of perceived or imaginary phenomena, or else is based on such an explanation. Mathematics finds a place in science only as one of the symbolical languages in which scientific explanations may be expressed."[25] These definitions tend to focus more on the subject matter of science than on its method and from these perspectives, the philosophical concern to establish a line of demarcation between science and non-science becomes "problematic, if not futile".[26]
-----------------------------------------

So, a modern day scientist, who happens to be a theist, can reason that the gods have advanced technology.
If his Bible tells him (the theist scientist) that the jewish god is omniscient, doesn’t that mean the god is an ultra-scientist?
Does this mean that all the doors of possibilities are unlocked?
Can this god turn a wooden stick into a snake, a woman into a pillar of salt, make water appear and make it rain for 40 days ........and more.
This theist scientist will end up believing anything his leaders tell him since he has convinced himself that nothing is impossible for the jewish god.