Which explains the origin of the earth?
That was one of the questions in a recent poll by The Economist. People in the US and the UK were asked to choose among these answers:
1) the theory of evolution
2) The Bible
3) "Intelligent design"
That's easy. Of the three choices, only The Bible even attempts to explain the origin of the earth. A broad definition of the theory of evolution may include possible explanations for the origin of life -- narrower definitions are limited to explaining how life has changed since its origin -- but "the origin of the earth" is the province of astronomy or geology, not biology. What I've seen of "intelligent design" is mostly whining about alleged gaps in the theory of evolution, rather than attempts to develop scientifically testable explanations of the origin of the earth or anything else, so that's out.
"None of the above" was not an option, so that leaves The Bible. It doesn't provide enough detail to allow other deities to replicate the creation process, however, so its "explanation" wouldn't be publishable in a scientific journal. (For example, the first two chapters disagree about whether birds were made before or after humans. This sort of thing can happen when a manuscript is pasted together from earlier papers and grant proposals, but it would certainly have been caught and corrected by peer review.)
Also, the origin of gods isn't explained. Given strong selection for benevolence, potence, and science, maybe gods capable of creating planets (or at least life) could evolve from a selfish, impotent, and unscientific replicator. But who, or what, would impose that selection? And how did the first replicator originate? Peer review of The BIble by more experienced Creators would have ensured that these important details were included.