Most of us are so entrenched in our particular theological tradition that we are rarely able to understand why certain words and phrases deserve excision from the Biblical text. A textual-critical philosophy that did not remain theologically neutral could not retain it's integrity for long. Unfortunately, theological neutrality is anathema for many protestant fundamentalists.
Textual criticism is a science. It's authority rests on theories that are vindicated by empirical evidence. In this way, textual critics and evolutionists are one of a piece, because they engage in cold, hard, unflinching empiricism. If you've got a problem with one, why not have a problem with the other. Why should any portion of our faith be subject to science? Why not stand for the "faith once delivered to the saints?" Truly this is the thinking of the KJVO. And this is the thinking of literal 6-day creationists. You are willing to chalk up conflicting evidence to a lack of knowledge, rather than come to the conclusion that the Bible, as you perceive it, is in error.
What these controversies both have in common is that they challenge our perspective of Scripture. Here is the million dollar question: instead of saying, the Bible is right, we are just misinterpreting the evidence; why not simply say, science is right, we are just misinterpreting the Bible? Neither perspective challenges the validity of science or Scripture, but the latter forces us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions concerning Scripture, something the evangelical world has opaquely resisted since the dawn of Christian modernism.
What if God desires to drive us self-styled "Bible believers" to our knees in humility and our hearts and minds to a renewed understanding of how God manifests Himself, including His truth, through the community of believers, the ekklesia?