A Subject That May Take a While (Part 3).

It's been a while, but I've been trying to actually find out about this stuff before I post it. I didn't learn much, but I was looking for the answer to two different questions. First, can christians, who study the bible and use its teachings as a kind of moral compass, also believe in evolution? I thought the answer to this was obvious, in an odd sort of way; of course christians can believe in evolution, despite the fact that it makes them normous hypocrits. I liked this thought. It gave christians at large some kind of process for rational thought while also making them seem unable to even accept their own beliefs as wholly true. It would seem that I am wrong.
I've always known that the bible is supposed to not be taken literally, but apparently it's also true that christians see the creation story as just that; a story. When it comes down to it, christians (I'm citing my father here) seem to be of the belief that God didn't create the world in seven days as the bible says. Instead he says that many christians believe in evolution, but also see the human body as full of connections and functions that are beyond simple evolution. Thus, the divine touch of God.
The other question I put to my dad is one that is a personal issue I've had with christianity for a long time--the "Father" thing. I'm no scholar, but it's always seemed plain that the basic idea of God, being in the masculine form, is rubish. By looking at the basic makeup of the sexes, both male and female, it would appear that the roles should be reversed. To put it more plainly, if man is made in the image of God, and God is the creator, then why would God give the enormous gift of human creation to the female instead of the male of the species? The roles are reversed here. Instead of males being the sex given the gift of creation, it has been seen throughout the last, oh, couple thousands of years, that men are far more prone to destruction than creation. When I asked my dad about this, he gave me the answer that christians don't actually put a male or female face on God. Culturally, he said, God has been placed in the masculine, though few people of the christian faith believe that God is of one sex or the other.
This brings up more questions though. Okay, christians don't believe that God is male. That's fair. I don't believe it, but whatever. If christians don't believe that God is male though, then why is it "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit"? Why is the masculine form "God", used instead of the feminine "Goddess"? Why does the bible use the masculine as well, if God is only culturally masculine? I'm not sure. I'd like to know. Is there any debate within the church to change these inconsistencies? Since we're now much more enlightened than we have been in past, when the gospels were written, will the cultural domination that men have held for centuries possibly be challenged. I seriously doubt it. It has been more than 3 or 4 thousand years since women were able to occupy a much more elevated position in society. A position that put them in much greater charge of the gathering of food and the tending to fields, to household inventions and the domesticating of animals. Now, women worship at the altar of a male God, just like everyone else instead of the Gods who occupied the same space as the Goddesses. Once again, I don't get it.