A theory that is contrary to the understanding of "first" humans, a soul (there was once a creature that was not human... and then it's kid earned a soul for being smart enough??), sin and death, etc.
All animals have souls. Some even say plants have souls, though I think that goes a bit too far. Christians managed to grapple with heliocentrism, and now we'd laugh at the idea that such a thing would pose a challenge to religious faith. The same will eventually happen with evolution...
Is this the same for all articles of faith? If it appears contrary, we must be ready to reject it?
Why is current scientific though automatically correct? In contrast to a heliocentric universe, we have less evidence, and many more counter-theories.
Actually, I am stubbornly waiting to read something that refutes the geocentric compatibility of Einstein's theory of general relativity. For example, from Martin Gardner's book, Relativity Simply Explained
(Dover Books 1997; p.158):
"One could just as legitimately assume the Earth to be fixed and the entire universe, with its great spherical cloud of black-body radiation, to be moving. The equations are the same. Indeed, from the standpoint of relativity the choice of reference frame is arbitrary. Naturally, it is simpler to assume the universe is fixed and the Earth moving than the other way around, but the two ways of talking about the Earth’s relative motion are two ways of saying the same thing."
Of course Sauron would probably just say that Martin Gardner is an idiot and leave it at that. There is a simplistic elegance to this argument but it is not fulfilling.