So the problem with our creationists and their "two scientificly credible versions of creation but ours has salvation" idea is that it the creationist version is not even remotely scientificly credible. Let me repeat that. Not even remotely. It's not even good fiction.

God first creates the Earth, then the plants, then the rest of the universe. The Genesis version has day and night on day one, before there is even a sun. This would mean that not only is biology wrong, but that astronomy is totally off as well. Right now there is light striking the earth that astronomers say came from distant stars thousands of years ago and distant galaxies billions and billions of years ago. If the creation theory is correct then the whole Milky Way Galaxy can't really exist, because it supposed is to be 80,000 light years in diameter, which would mean that light from the far edges had travelled for ten times longer as the universe itself has existed.

Then of course there is bizarre notion that all animals were herbivores before the fall. This would fail to explain the panda, which is a bear that lives entirely on plants. Panda's are herbivores, but show evidence of having been carnivores in the past. They retain many of the characteristics of a meat eater and are very inefficient plant digestors.

The explanation of the existence of the fossils is equally absurd. It's the heaviest and densist materials that would have settled out of a turbulent flood first, not the stuff that got taken up first. In addition, in some places layers indicate that what was clearly dry land is subsequently covered up by sea.

The notion of an ice ageafter the flood is also not supported by the record. Even creationisms alleged scientific supporters can't prove that it all took place 4000 years ago. The nearest they could place an Ice Age (using faulty logic at that I'd guess) was 8,000 B.C. The fact that such an ice age is mentioned no where in the Bible speaks for itself.

The DNA evidence that has emerged in the past half century has been overwhelming. Not only have we discovered the mechanisms by which variation and selection occur, we've also discovered the remnants of older genes that no longer function within our genetic code. For example, we are descended from mammals with much better senses of smell than we have. Primative mammals, such as mice, have a vomeronasal organ in their noses that allows them to detect pheromones. In humans that organ never develops. Never-the-less many of the genes for the organ are still part of our genetic code. Because the pressure for their selection changed some time in the past, those genes are riddled with mutations that prevent their expression. How on earth does a Creationist theory explain such a thing? Why would God have put those genes there? To confuse us?

So sure, if you want to ignore the vast majority of the conclusions of astonomical, geological, palentological, and genetic evidence, you can decide to believe in Creationism.

The truth is that it is not a matter of choosing between two equally likely stories. The only way to accept the creation story is keep yourself deliberately ignorant. And as for the notion that you can't get salvation without taking the Bible literally, there seem to be a lot of religious people who believe differently.