I suppose there's no way for you to understand this, because you assume others think the way you do. But --
'Science' is not my 'god'. I don't believe that there is such a thing as a 'god' in the sense that you mean it. I don't believe that 'science' or 'scientists' are inerrantly wrong. I assume that, in fact, everything we *think* we know is certainly not completely correct. In fact, I believe that the claim that something -- anything -- is 'inerrantly wrong without question', like people claim about the bible, or the Koran, is the first sign that a person is not thinking critically.
I question everything, and then try and draw conclusions as to what is the most likely given current data.
You're under a serious misconception if you think 'science' is a 'god' to people who don't have a 'god' at all . . . and perhaps that's the beginnings of your misunderstanding of science.
Perhaps the best way to phrase it for you: it's the 'scientific method' that I subscribe to, not 'the opinion of scientists'.
Good, I was hoping you would say something to that effect. Now your thinking outside your comfort zone. Old Earth/Macroevolution does not meet Scientific Method:
1. OBSERVATION
2. EXPERIMENTATION
3. REPRODUCTION
4. FALSIFICATION
Since you subscribe to the Scientific Method you cannot take Old Earth/Macroevolution as fact.
To believe Old Earth/Macroevolution is to have faith in Science and Scientist. To overlook all the flaws. It is to have faith in the powers of man to know all, though he does not know what he does not know.