"Seemingly, the fundamentalist creationist view is that the various sciences have a long history of conspirering to deny God and the works of God."
Science has never 'conspired' to deny God and the works of God, science never has and never will be able to refute God. With the advancement of the sciences, theories will be refuted, evolutionary and creationary. I love science and it is a friend to Creation.
"Do the creationist here truly believe that mainstream biology, geology, etc. beliefs are not a result of solid, valid work?"
I think using the word 'belief' is not quite correct, 'interperetations' would be a more correct word for the subject of the question. Creationists believe that mainstream biology, geology, and other various profession 'uniformitarian interperetations' are and are not the result of 'solid', valid scientific work. now take out the word 'uniformitarian' and you will have valid scientific work. Science cannot 'prove' that uniformitarian evolution has ever happend or happens. A 'proof' requires there to be no space available for an 'interperetation' Something such as addition, we can 'prove' that 1+3=4 by taking 1 object and 3 objects and making them add up together to 4. But evolution seriously requires for it to be a 'proof' that you MUST be able to observe it happening. You can't take small changes and 'theorize' that if you take many of these small changes and add them up to one big change, this is no proof, the evidence can be 'interpereted' different ways logicly.
"Are all these scientists guilty of putting together a vast, complicated story, to replace the obvious and simple story of God and God's creation?"
Technically God is really not 'obvious'. I believe that there is a God and that that God is the Biblical God. Why? Because when I look at the evidence, I can see my interperetation of that evidence and see that it is the most logical and reasonable choice based on what we can observe. Are scientists guilty? Sure, but thats what they believe because of their interperetation of the evidence. But I can look at their interperetation and can say that many of them are touching the borderline of science and pure fantasy, rather than science and theory. To try and 'replace' their theories with a God puts them in so much danger. To dismiss the supernatural is to put the whole idea of evolution in jeopardy.
"Or is the story truly vast and complicated?"
The story of evolution is truly 'vague', and because of how vague it is it is quite complicated when you look at the whole picture.
™ Version 4.2
