I am not a Christian so I am not going to answer your questions directly since they assume a belief in the Bible, a belief that I do not have.
I am not a creationist in the sense that most people understand that word. I don't believe the "god created the earth in 6 days" religious doctrine that some Christians have.
I do believe, however, that there is a First Cause. The material universe came into existence at a fixed point, I think this cannot be debated, prior to the material universe, existence was pure energy, we get that from E=MC2 and solving for mass (M) we get M=E/C2. I think that this energy is sentient somehow, probably not in a way we can understand, and the material universe, its laws, the way things work, is according to some sort of design. No, I don't believe that the First Cause is "God" as depicted by the Bible and other "holy" books and religionists. I frankly don't know what the First Cause is, no one else does either.
I do have a problem with the way most people who believe evolution talk to those of us who don't believe it. You act as if evolution is an established fact in the same way that gravity is an established fact. It is not. Evolution is a theory, an unproven theory. Yet, you speak from the assumption that evolution has been proven beyond any doubt, it has not. You assume that anyone who does not believe in evolution is somehow anti-science or anti-thinking, I am not.
I do not believe evolution to be more than a hypothesis for a very simple reason. While there is evidence of adaptation within species, there is zero evidence of a crossing of species boundaries. There is zero evidence that members of species A mutated to the point that now we have species B. Zero. I don't care how much modification you have within species, that is not evolution, that proves nothing.
You also have a bigger problem. Complex biological components, such as the human eye, cannot have evolved from primitive cells. Without all the sub-components, horribly complex sub-components, the eye is useless, so the eye cannot have evolved. Complex biological components, composed of complex sub-components which work together in very sophisticated ways cannot have evolved, they need all the components with all the functions the components provide or they cannot work. There is no way that these evolved.
The blind belief in evolution has retarded our understanding of the human being, our history, our archeology, astronomy, cosmology, and a host of other subjects. The reason for this retardation is this, if one has a blind acceptance of evolution and agrees with the tenet that human beings started out as primitives and then progressed in technology, social behavior, skills, mental capacities, etc, so that "civilization" became progressively "better", then it is impossible to understand things like maps which depict Antarctica as it was before it was covered with ice, cities built in unreachable places where the stone used to build the cities was transported from quarries hundreds of miles away over impassable gorges, ravines, and peaks. Some of these cities can only be reached by expert mountain climbers or helicopter. Structures which are advanced astrological observatories, other structures which accurately depict cosmology that "modern" humans only discovered in the last 100 years, this list can go on and on. Yet, evolutionists would have us believe that the humans who lived during the time that these maps were created, and these cities and other structures were built were "primitives". I could fill up many pages with examples like this, all of these examples have been called "mysteries" by "scientists" who think they are mysteries because they accept the evolution theory as fact. If you are not biased by evolution then these things are not mysteries at all. They were built by advanced humans who knew far more about a great many things than we do.
I don't believe evolution because I see strong evidence that humans were far more advanced in ancient times than we are today and I see no evidence that there has ever been a crossing of the species boundary by any species.
Show me such evidence and I will consider it.
