Yes, I simply do not understand why so many seem to get their knickers in a knot discussing "possiblities" on "how" the creation event transpired, given that all agree that it was an act of our God.
I know this discussion isn't mine, and I'll not step between you guys, but here is the way I think about the two different domains -- science and Scripture.
First, science is valid. It is a valid means to discover much about the general revelation -- our cosmos, our earth, and the innermost workings of cells, atoms, etc. The scientific method is derived from a Christian worldview (though now largely disavowed by the materialistic/atheist faction that seems to be the holder of all things scientific) whereby an orderly God might give cause to investigation in order to discern His orderliness at a deeper level than what is easily visible to the eye (my paraphrase of other definitions both more succinct or more expressive). The idea of observation, hypothesis, testing, refining the hypothesis, then -- if possible -- framing an actual theory or even a law to deal with the concepts investigated is a great means to both qualify and quantify the world around us. The scientific method has given us great gains in virtually every aspect of life and has, in a sense, removed some of what was once only considered mystery.
Science, however, cannot answer every question, nor can it validate every hypothesis, for some things just cannot be tested in such a way as to validate a hypothesis via the scientific method. The tough cases involving historical issues, cosmological issues, and other issues where no direct observation and testing come into play are those areas where the underlying philosophy of science comes into play, for these are all philosophical issues requiring a philosophical answer (or hypothesis) instead of one based in hard, repeatable experiment. One HUGE question that the scientific method cannot answer or verify is, "What scientific experiment is it that details the fact that only scientific experiment can give us solid answers to some of life's most difficult questions?" Said more simply, "What experiment proves that science is the only way of knowing?" For some things we need something other than science, though the exploration of these difficult topics can still be seen as rightly falling under the banner of science itself.
Creation is just one of the many of these difficult issues. We have, on the one hand, the specific revelation of God. He said it precisely the way He wished for us to know the story. He caused His Word to be preserved and handed down through the ages so that all people could read and learn of both He and of His Creation (plus His plans to redeem said Creation). Because Creation is a one-time historical event, it cannot be replicated via lab experiment, though many have tried. In truth, we cannot know for sure all the parameters involved in Creation, whether viewing it through scriptural or scientific eyes. So, what is done is extrapolation. We view what we can see right now, then extrapolate that data back in time, making educated speculations that lead to hypotheses concerning the advent of the cosmos, of earth, of man, etc. Some would say that these are theories, but I believe that most of what we know of the advent of any of the big areas of life or universe that holds life is yet (at best) in the hypothesis stage, for it cannot be tested nor repeated to confirm that even a theory is in fact reality.
Because we have one view of Creation expressed in the true Word of God (and to be a Christian means that one must necessarily consider God's Word true! -- anything else is to be other than Christian) and one view of Creation that is based in scientific extrapolation and educated speculation. Is it any wonder then that there are two sides (X number of sides!) in this debate?
When we find physical evidence that contradicts Scripture -- the true specific revelation of God -- we must then discern several issues: Have we mis-interpreted the true Word of God? Have we misinterpreted the evidence of Science? Have we allowed our worldview to dictate to us something that is not in fact "truth" on the level required to say that we "know" or that this "is"? So far, the burden of proof is not on the Scriptures, but on Science which in many senses seeks to overturn the Scriptures that long pre-dated any scientific inquiry as to the nature of Creation. But that is not what we find in the 21st century. Instead we find Science pressing God -- requiring God's people to bend the Scriptures to Science. Yet, Science is constantly in flux, always changing, and not yet settled to the point where it can definitively say, "this we know as true" (if they could, it would be a law and not a theory or a hypothesis). The Bible, on the other hand does just that. this is "true" because the "True One" said it.
This... Is what causes some to have their knickers in a knot...
To speak further on this issue, let me say that there is at times a false dichotomy presented by those leaning toward the science end of the spectrum. Because the biblicists (conservative Christian who holds the Word of God to be Truth, whether or not we can argue that truth in scientific terms) holds God's Word above the dictates of Science, he or she is often assumed by the ones knowledgeable in the scientific realm to be sub-par in their understanding, and paraphrasing the sentiment often implied or outright shared, "If they only would understand what we understand, they would change their minds..." What is false about this dichotomy is that we may indeed know and understand, but still reject Science as the end all and be all of knowledge, realizing that God is more sure and more true than philosophy or experimentationaly-derived hypothesis. In other, more simple terms (again), "We chose God over science, but not out of ignorance."
I would include myself in that category. This is a partial view of my current stack of books on the issue of creation/evolution.
