"those alleging macro evoluton as established fact"

That would be unscientific, wouldn't it?

I think the difference is in the paradigm of belief rather than any single fact or set of facts.

I know that I can't take genesis as a literal description of modern science. That falls apart in the first few hundred words.

There was light, day and night and thriving plant biology before there was a sun?

The stars were created 4 days after the earth and apparently the stars were visible at that point, even though the closed is so far away that its light would take 4 YEARS to reach the Earth.

If you accept physics and cosmology, It is wise to accept biology is well. But more importantly, if the bible refutes Darwin, it equally refutes Kepler, Copernicus, Newton and Einstein.

I believe that "Creationists" are bearing false witness. If you have enough knowledge to make a science-based argument for creation as literal truth, and you do not have the courage to also defend the first few hundred words of the Bible as literal truth.

One of the most wonderful things about the Bible, is that it is written in a way that enlightens the truth seeker in every age and at every age.

The story of creation tells the child or the person of remote time past all he needs to know. But to the curious, the logical, knowledge-based seeker, The first few words have a completely different message. It is saying. "You cannot take this literally as science. You must search for deeper meaning."