In my opinion, when one only considers the scientific evidences for origins, agnosticism is the only intellectual honest position available.
I suppose I would agree with this. I do know of many excellent scientists and others who accept scientific evidence for origins who have a deep faith in God, but who use spiritual 'evidence' for that basis. They accept scientific explanations for HOW God created the world, but maintain, based on their own faith, that God was the original creative force who used evolution/Big Bang/etc. as his/her/its means for that creation. You're right that no one has all knowledge of the universe, nor are we likely to ever have that. There should be room for both faith in God and scientific inquiry.
Believers of the Bible are forced to rely on historical evidences for proof of their faith
I take it that you rely on historical (prophecy) proofs as a basis for your faith. I respect that, but would question why it is necessary? Do you believe in God because Daniel made a vague pronouncement thousands of years ago or because you have felt God's influence in your own life today?
Nostradamus also made predictions that have been shown to be true, at least with a certain amount of interpretation. My point here is that if you are looking hard enough for something, you are likely to find it regardless of whether it was there or not to begin with. This is a perrenial problem in science, which we must constantly guard against in our research. Prophecies can be made vague enough that they can surely come true regardless of what actually transpires. Your own experiences and your personal relationship with God is not so sucesptible to interpretation.
In your post you said that the Bible cannot be verified by scientific investigation. I fully agree with you here, and am inherently suspiscious of anyone who claims to have proven the existence of God logically or scientifically. Newton tried to do precisely that by applying logic and math to the patterns he saw in the prophecies until they worked. I have not read the million or so pages I am told he wrote on the subject, but suspect that he again searched hard enough that he found his answer, even if he had to create it in the process. Descartes tried to do the same thing when he attempted to go from "I think, therefor I am." to prove the existence of a benevalent deity. His work was a landmark in philosophy because of his attempt to reduce human perception to its most basic level and use logic to build a stable philosophical framework from scratch. The method was enthusiastically adopted, but the framework he came up with was rapidly discarded and is given little credence in philosophical circles today.
Most Biblical students who consider the text in its entirety, take the text literally unless the text clearly sets up the context as allegorical.
I really must disagree with you here. The majority of Christians I know, including some who are VERY conservative in their views on religion, do not take the Bible as literally true. They find truth in the lessons it teaches and the relationship they establish through its message to God. The precise details are unimportant in the face of its overall message. My own mother, who has worked in the church for years and studied the Bible as a hobby is currently in seminary to become a pastor. She does not take the Bible as literally true.
I respect your belief, but you must realize that you must challenge not only biology to come to terms with a literal Biblical interpretation, but physics, mathematics, geology, astronomy, anthropology, and a hundred other subdisciplines. Alternatively, you can set your belief above any scientific reasoning process, which I fully respect. In that case, though, there is little point in arguing with me about scientific minutiae which you could never reconcile with your faith anyway. My beef with creationism is not about faith in God. It is entirely to do with the pseudo-scientific arguments I see posted so often.
Your point about our limited, linear perception of time is true, but I fail to see how that resolves the science/religion conflict. I have always thought that a literal interpretation of the Bible requires a fairly linear perception of God.
Thanks again for your post, and I look forward to reading your response and continuing this discussion.