[MEGoody]

"Suppose biologists were to suddenly, en masse, agree with this position. How, then, would they be able to determine the difference between questions whose only possible answer is "God made it that way", and questions for which a less terse answer is appropriate?"

For us creationists, the answer is always "God made it that way." The only scientific question is, what (if any) natural laws did He set in place to make it happen, and what good for mankind can come from learning how those natural laws operate.

[snarks_when_bored]

For us creationists, the answer is always "God made it that way."

There is no operative difference between that answer and the answer "just because".

The only scientific question is, what (if any) natural laws did He set in place to make it happen, and what good for mankind can come from learning how those natural laws operate.

Well, there are at least two questions there, but, that aside, the second question doesn't appear to be a scientific question. As for the first question, isn't evolution theory in fact an attempt to understand what are the natural laws that underlie the development of life? How else would one characterize it? Surely you're not suggesting that there are no natural laws underlying the origin and development of life, are you?