With Darwinism or evolution, there is nothing to be tainted save for piles of assumption, guesses and hypothesis stated as fact. Science and Christianity are not in conflict. The conclusions drawn based on assumption after assumption is what ends up in conflict.
Let's see how this works in science. Scientists decided to agree that beyond a certain point in time, all men were hunter/gatherers. Based upon their findings of what they call primitive weapons - stone knives and bear skins. They may or may not proffer that people don't stop being hunter gatherers; but, beyond a certain point in time, they will not accept that men were other than that. Now, it is not even arguable that the oldest recorded civilization raised crops. They also fought wars with bows and arrows and spears. Yet if bows, arrows and spears were the only thing we could find of them, they would be considered hunter gatherers. This is because the data is being interpreted in context of scientific belief rather than fact.
A more prominent example might be the mystery of how a 21st dynasty Pharoah who supposedly ruled and died before a 22nd dynasty Pharoah of Egypt, could have instead died after the 22nd dynasty king and be later buried in a tomb constructed next to his assumed forruner - so close in fact that sections of the 22nd dynasty tomb had to be modified to allow for the assembly of the 21st dynasty tomb. Many scientists reject this - even refuse to consider the facts because it interferes with the facad they have created to fit their beliefs. The facts show the 21st dynasty king died last - therefore, the conclusion is that the 2 dynasties ruled simultaneously. The impact is obvious. If we remove 1 dynasty of family rule from the timeline of history, the rest of the timeline must be adjusted forward to compensate. This destroys their explanation of things the way they've seen it for years. And that's the problem with pontificating on things one cannot make factual statements about for lack of supporting facts.
The truth is, that based on the methods we have, there is no possible way to date anything with any measurable certainty beyond our own lifespan. This is true because all methods of date testing involve unknowns that cannot be tested. Ultimately, that leads to speculation - not facts. falsifiable results create facts. Carbon dating can never be proven accurate because it assumes multiple things - but two primarily: the constancy of atmospheric carbon levels, and non-contamination of samples. Neither of these two things are falsifiable. Therefore the results produced based on these assumptives are not falsifiable and therefore unfactual. 1000 years from now, some archeologist will uncover packing peanuts in a landfill. everything around it will have biodegraded, and in absence of other evidence, either a comet hit the planet and deposited this strange material which modern science cannot duplicate - or some advanced civilization created it at a time when everyone was supposed to be hunter gatherers. I can tell you what the pointy headed scientists would stick with - the comet. Hocum's razor doesn't allow them to wander out of their own beliefs or world view. BTW, the razor is a convenient red herring when other argumentation is failing - beg reason but make it sound scientific.
The Bible doesn't offer that all men before a certain period were hunter gatherers. Nor is there any factual proof of this. Men hunt today and camp out today. That doesn't make them hunter gatherers - nor does it preclude advanced societies. The Bible deals with a smaller portion of time and is arguably more accurate in it's conclusions than science has been - despite the naysayers that fraudulently contend that the Bible says the earth is flat - ain't in there.
The Bible also didn't get the name Shishak confused. The proper name or 'short' name of Ramsees II was Shisha. Some will ask, 'there is a k missing, why?' The Jews historically will purposedly misspell the name of a hated enemy when they put it in writing. There is no Biblical reason to believe that Ramsees wasn't Shishak. There are factual reasons which show us he was, and that the "traditional" candidate, Shoshenk, could not have been. It isn't the Bible arguing with facts or with science. It's the beliefs of certain scientists projected on science and fact that is at odds. Scientists ignore - even destroy evidence if it harms their story. Evidence just disappears. You know, like the huge skeletons with red hair found in Western US cave burials that were 7+ feet tall on average. All that remains of them is the photographic evidence - the actual remains just vanished. Why? Because they cause problems to the stories generated by secular scientists with agendas. Plain and simple.
Arguably more accurate?
Woman created from man's rib? Talking serpents? Adam & Eve as the first humans? Noah fitting all of the land-dwelling species on the Ark? Jonah & the whale?