RJ: I find the young earth interpretation of Genesis to be the best reading of Genesis (because I assume it to be so literal), although I admit there are many people who think that Genesis can be interpreted more figuratively and have good reasons for this. Maybe I doubt modern science more than most. Now, just because someone interprets Genesis more figuratively, they would STILL probably agree on the following conclusions that are crucial to mainstream Christianity: God created everything, all humans sin and sin messes up the perfect intentions God had for creation, God still chooses to interact with people and promises restoration. The rest really is full of details that have less impact on our current state and future destiny.
The Bible actually does a lot to address false teaching based on the Bible. Jesus told us there would be false teachers. I would say Westboro Baptist's teachings are false. The Bible says to test a teacher by their “fruit,” and WBC bears the fruit of division and not love. Just because an idea can be or is misused does not make it false. Eugenics is an offshoot of Darwinism. The way you feel about Eugenics (if you are a Darwinist) is probably similar to the way I feel about WBC. Does eugenics disqualify darwinism? BTW, Darwinism is hard to understand. Does that mean it should be dismissed? No, if it is dismissed it should be dismissed based on other reasons, not because it is hard to understand.
I already shared my belief about OT laws, and it's not something I've made up on my own, it's in the Bible too. OT laws such as capital punishment for witchcraft were not observed by the apostles in Acts. They observed, primarily, forgiveness of sin and spiritual growth through grace by faith in Jesus, accompanied by the sacraments of baptism and communion, abstinence from sexual immorality, and service to one another and those in need (poor, orphans, widows, etc). (I've probably left out a few points of instruction here and there, but you hopefully get the idea: OT Law is something that has been FULFILLED and need not be followed, so long as someone trusts in Christ. When Jesus died on the cross He took on all the death necessary for any witches, just as he took the death I deserved. He also completed every other requirement of the Law. [In fact, it's astounding how the details of Jesus' life match OT themes like the yearly feasts, the ritual sacrifices, and ideas about the tabernacle/temple. For instance, the picture of the empty tomb with the angel matches a picture of the Holy of Holies where the Ark of the Covenant was, which contained manna, Aaron's rod, and the tablets of the 10 commandments, and, of course, Jesus is seen as the Bread of Life, the Good Shepherd and High Priest, and the perfect fulfillment of the Law.] Now, because of the work of Christ, NT commandments are what should be followed. It's outlined well in the Bible.). The apostles clearly say so much and teach all later Christians to do the same as they did.
Finally, I don't think any one person could come close to writing anything like the Bible. Remember, the Bible is actually 66 books, inspired by God and written by numerous different authors from varying periods of history and cultures, written to different audiences for different reasons. And yet it holds an incredibly tight narrative and keeps consistent underlying themes (chiefly, the exaltation of Jesus). It has historic facts (that are confirmed by archeology), beautiful poetry, fulfilled prophesies (as well as prophesies to come), and, perhaps most importantly, it strikes a very relevant and accurate chord with the human condition. Of course one person could not write a book like that. Even a score of authors working together couldn't, at least not after thousands of years of collaboration.
Astreja: I think I could refine my statement and say that, yes, we can know what is good, but not on our own and not without God and the Bible, and not necessarily completely while in these bodies. The Bible says we need to continually have our minds renewed to understand God's good will, and other times it urges us just to trust God when we can't understand. But we need God for all of this. I've never heard the word infantilization before, but yes, in a way, at least compared to God, we are as helpless and ignorant as infants who need told what is best for us and so much more. The Bible does promise that we will know more fully after we leave these bodies, so maybe God will let us “grow up”, just not yet, and even then I still think God will clearly win out as supreme in what He understands of good vs evil. If this bad in any way I don't see how (which is ironic since I am claiming that humans like you and me shouldn't try to decide on our own what is good/evil). For instance, if I was a soldier and I saw horrific evil in war, would I wish my child to know the same about evil that I do? No.
Eh!: I think you present a false dichotomy. Just because I am skeptical of many scientist's conclusions about non-scientific fields such as history (ie, of the earth and origin of life) and philosophy (what is the best way to determine truth?) does not mean that I could never use the scientific method to help contribute to new technology. I am actually an ok problem-solver and contributor within the industries that I have been employed. But, for the sake of argument, if there was a dichotomy between knowing God (and gaining eternal life) and using any technological advancement, I would choose the former. Technology SOMETIMES betters my current situation (while other times it worsens it, see: smartphone addiction) while knowing God is, in fact, the ultimate goal of why I was created (and promises so much more come eternity).