My 2 cents go something like this:
Firstly, science is all just theory which is yet to be proven wrong. Big concepts from the past have been proven wrong, but the current scientific knowledge is all corroborated by evidence.
Evolution has evidence in the fossil record, and in computational evolutionary biology, so as a hypotheses, it stands. Therefore over the age of the earth going back through evolution gives an initial collection of molecules classed as being 'alive'. Experiments such as the Miller-Urey experiment, and similar subsequent experiments, have shown that organic molecules required for life today can be made by non-biological conditions thought to be present around the time of biogenesis. However, they have, as of yet, failed to produce a living organism through this process.
Partially, this may well be down to time, as life had thousands of years to evolve, and these experiments don't have those timescales, but this is compensated for by increased concentrations. The failure to produce life means that this is the only point in the history of life that current scientific knowledge has to concede a God is a possible scientific theory. Whether life can be produced by simulating these conditions in the future remains to be seen.
With the idea of a soul, this could be the product of evolution also. Organisms have evolved to perform better as a group, as it gives them a competitive advantage against a lone organism in a 'survival of the fittest' situation. As a by-product of group living, more 'moral' organisms (obviously when brain power had evolved to the point of decision making), would therefore be selectively favoured, as their actions would be most beneficial to the group, so in times of hardship, the group would act favourably towards this individual. Over the period of time that life has been on earth, this theory allows a strong moral obligation to develop in organisms, and to us, humans show the most advanced understanding of this.
Equally, humans have evolved to the point of being able to think beyond morals, and make immoral (and amoral) decisions. Most 'normal' (I hate using that word) humans have a common concept of what is right and wrong, but some may think beyond this for personal benefit, as our imagination (also a by-product of evolution as it allows us to visualise a way out of danger) allows us to consider them, this can be seen as the origin of immoral actions. An individual will look at perhaps the offer of infinite money for themselves (or even a cure for all disease and world peace) in return for killing Hitler as morally justified, so they are looking beyond the moral decision to murder someone. This creates the 'sin' in the world.
So, by applying scientific theory (which is unproven, but not proven wrong as of yet) morals can be deduced. The bible simply writes down this moral code, in a form of stories aimed to educate. When it was written, scientific theory was not at a point to inform some of the stories in it. The bible is the work of humans, who make mistakes, explaining the contradictions and apparent errors. As for the story of Jesus, unless someone can produce a skeleton, and prove empirically it belonged to Jesus, then there is no evidence for it. I believe (and this is therefore beyond science) that the stories of Jesus, and other prophets,etc, in the Bible, simply draw together an oral history of the time and try and link it together to strengthen the messages it contains. Prior to the theory, and subsequent understanding, of evolution, God was used to explain anything science could not, and this hasn't change today. The Big Bang explains the evidence remaining today for the start of the universe, but offers no corroborated theory for what caused the Big Bang, and so that currently must be attributed to a 'God' under current scientific understanding, as must life. You can argue Gods are just a way of explaining the unknown, which may well be true, but until there is empirical evidence to the contrary, Gods can still be considered a scientific theory, albeit one amongst many competing theories for certain events in history.
So when it comes to practising religion, I'm agnostic, because I scientifically cannot rule out a God, but I do not practice a 'religion' as such, but simply follow my moral code which evolution has given me.
Jesus thats long winded!
Edit: Just realised
how long winded that was! Well done if anyone read it all! And feel free to pick holes in my logic, I'm sure there are some, but thats just how I currently interpret the universe.
