I don't know what you mean here by "postulate", but an idea is not invalidated simply by raising questions. The trouble with the creationist view is that it not only ultimately doesn't explain anything (except to say "God makes it happen") but it asks us to accept a "reality" contrary to what we can observe and comprehend.
Many evolutionary theories at least attempt to explain observations within the realm of the observable universe.
We agree. My response was to your objection that a solution might raise more questions than it answered.
The trouble with the creationist view is that it not only ultimately doesn't explain anything (except to say "God makes it happen")
I was determined to not be moved off of the subject. Since you seem to have the ability to think, I'll respond.
If it is as you say, that the creationist view explains nothing and hides behind God for explanations, then what threat could it possibly be to evolution? Why don't the evolutionists simply grind creationism into the dust of history with their logic and proof? Something evolutionists either won't believe or won't admit is that creationists have the same evidence evolutionists have for the formation of theories regarding the origin of the earth and of life. It is the interpretation of the evidence that differs. It is true we have slightly less evidence than you do. That is primarily because we don't need to manufacture evidence to support our view; No Nebraska man, no Piltdown man, no Lucy.
Many evolutionary theories at least attempt to explain observations within the realm of the observable universe.
No, they most definitely do not, as is illustrated on this thread. When the evos encounter a brick wall, they shrug it off and move on. Why is it you are the only one willing to even think about the problem of the origin of matter? I don't believe the average evo has ever given any thought to the presuppositions underlying the worldview necessary to support darwinism.
It explains a lot. It explains that the world is not a random set of coincidences. Science proves that it is not on a daily basis.
but it asks us to accept a "reality" contrary to what we can observe and comprehend.
Wrong again! We indeed can comprehend (quite well!) that the Sistine Chapel ceiling did not come about by a bunch of paint cans falling up. We know it was made by an intelligent being whether we are aware of his name or not. So we definitely can comprehend intelligence even though we cannot see it, touch it or make love to it.