You're putting Him in a box, a box made by men demonstrably hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular. Your telling me to repent for accepting the Word at face value certainly tells the tale; you are in my opinion not only not Christian, you're actually anti-theist. You're here to mock and belittle Biblical literalists for one, but your primary interest is the defense of evolutionary theory.
There have been several FReepers in the past who have sought to cloak themselves with the mantle of Catholicism, under the same mistaken impression that began our exchange, that the Vatican accepts evolutionary theory to the exclusion of any other understanding based on the book of Genesis. I pointed out that you were mistaken about that, then. It appears that you continue to be mistaken, and do so willfully.
So, again, in my opinion, you're here to pontificate upon that which you do not accept, looking for any foothold to further your actual core belief, which is evolutionary theory.
I'd love for you to prove me wrong in this, but only time will tell whether you'll show yourself to actually be a good Christian, or end up zotted and over at Darwin Central regaling all the other zotted former FReepers with tales of your exploits and derring-do among the despised Creationists.
Does your version of objective reality include resurrection of the dead 2,000 years ago, or men taken up bodily into the heavens never to return (Enoch, Elijah), or a woman who was a virgin giving birth to a child who was God? Apply the materialism you've accepted elsewhere to these Biblical occurrences. Can they possibly meet a scientific standard of objective reality?
You are conflating science with a philosophy of "materialism". Militant, aggressive atheists enthusiastically agree with you, btw, insisting on the same identification. But most in vast range of perspectives between militant fundamentalism and militant atheism find it gratuitous. (Including non-religious philosophical theists like me.)
You might indeed apply "materialism" (depending on what you mean by the term) critically "to these Biblical occurrences," but I can't imagine how you would apply a "scientific standard" thereto. Science, as science, generally doesn't have any way of addressing unique events that are part of an historical narrative, nor does it have any reason to do so.
You're putting Him in a box
You're putting God in a box yourself. And, again, the same box in which "scientific" atheists would confine Him. Your only disagreement with these atheists is as to whether or not the box exists.
Your disagreement with Christians like Gautier, and non-Christians like me, and many others, excepting literalist creationists and aggressive atheists, is whether God fits in that box. We think He doesn't.