Replies

Testing, direct observation, repeatability, exploration, and the like must also be involved.

All 4 of these things are done with evolutionary biology, as I have already explained. You just refuse to see it or are unable to understand it. The scientific community, well-trained in these matters, is well aware of the implications and necessity of evidence and draws their conclusions accordingly.

You have already admitted that your religious views trump any scientific explanation in your mind, so I am still inclined to ask about this, as I am curious as to how your draw your conclusions. I'd be satisfied (for now) with an honest attempt at an answer to any of the following, rephrased as direct questions where necessary:

Many parts of the Bible are written in parables, including many of Jesus' most famous preachings. The Creation story does not anywhere explicitly set itself aside as an exception to this possibility. Why is it not possible that the account in Genesis is a parable containing the message of God's awesome creative power?
The Bible's original audience had no conception of modern science, so the story was written at a level simple people in a simple time could understand. The message of creation is timeless, but why would you expect a specific account of events to an ancient audience to apply as a restriction to knowledge based on modern scientific inquiry?
As I pointed out before, many parts of the Bible are not specifically internally consistant. Matthew, Mark and Luke give different accounts of the identity (and genders) of the 3 people to which Peter denied Christ. (You never addressed this point) Matthew and Luke give two very different geneologies of Joseph, the stepfather of Jesus. If the meaning of the Bible is always 100% literal history, how do you reconcile these internal contradictions?
Some statements in the Bible are completely absurd when taken too literally. Do you really believe that the descendants of Abraham during David's time were literally as numerous as all the grains of sand on the seashore? How many trillions of people would this be?
Some parts of the Bible seem to even support an evolutionary origin of man:
Ecclesiastes 3:18
I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals."
Why is not possible to interpret statements such as this as support of our evolutionary origin, especially when Genesis 1 is phrased in such a non-specific form?
Most creationists interpret Genesis super-literally, in contrast to scientific knowledge, whereas the Book of Revelation, are interpreted and distorted to a great extent to fit the belief that we are now living in the end times. The meaning of "Babylon", for instance, is commonly reinterpreted to mean the United States or another powerful nation. If Revelation can be interpreted this loosely by fundamentalists, why can't Genesis accomodate scientific knowledge about human evolutionary origins?

All 4 of these things are done with evolutionary biology, as I have already explained. You just refuse to see it or are unable to understand it.

I have no where stated that evolutionary biology in no way engages in "direct observation, repeatability, exploration, and the like." But I am well aware that the results in no way merit the conclusion that all biological life is derivitive of a common ancestor. When science does what it is supposed to do, it's results will coincide with the basic phenomenological events cited in biblical texts.

You have already admitted that your religious views trump any scientific explanation in your mind . . .

The biblical texts and my religious views are not the same thing in essence. They are not coterminous. My religious views are to be subject to the texts as a whole, and the Author of those texts. It is the texts and their Author that make clear there would be no science without the creative act and ongoing involvement of the Creator. As far as I can tell, you neither recognize those texts as being authored by the Creator, nor are you willing to submit your own reason to either the texts or their Author.

The very first sentence of the biblical texts, for you, must be subject to your experience and reason first, and from there you judge what kind of literature you think it might be. I am not given to do such a thing. As long as you are, it is best that you be left to your own authority. Besides, it makes you sound more wise and educated.

The Bible's original audience had no conception of modern science . . .

The original audience for the biblical texts is all people throughout all generations. Your assertion that it was "dumbed down" for an unscientific bunch of nimrods is simplistic on the face of it. One would think, if the Creator of all things visible and invible desired to communicate with the crown of His creation, He would do so in human language, and in a manner that spells out both convincingly and plainly where we came from, where we are going, and why.