Of course, true science harmonizes with the bible.

Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/19960122/
http://watchtower.org/e/20020608/article_01.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/20040622/article_03.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/20000922/article_02.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/20040122a/article_01.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/t13/
http://watchtower.org/e/20001008/article_03.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/20000122/article_02.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/20001008/article_02.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/lmn/article_04.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/19960122/
http://watchtower.org/e/jt/
References :

All things bright and beautiful, All cancers great and small. Is that what is taught to kids?"

incorrect, what is it that Creationism has left out. You talk about not explaining cancers, and all things bright and beautiful. Cancers are a result of sin entering the world according to Creationism. And if you read up on it, it does actually say that "All things bright and beautiful" were created, especially the stars
References :

Evolution is based on science: The bible story of creation is a fable meant for illiterates 4000 years ago. Seems a lot of people want to stay that way.

There seems to be little question that someone(something) we call God created all that is in the universe about 13 billion years ago. The big argument seems to be as to when God stopped messing with the universe and let things develop on their own. I believe it was 13 billion years ago. I see NO "divine" intervention in anything that has developed since then. I prefer to believe what I can see and test rather than believe in some old book that should have been burned along with the Koran and all other religious nonsense.
References :

Yes evolution is scientific. Your description of the scientific method is not complete. This is not the only way in which science progresses. Some theories (like evolution, the big bang, plate tectonics) are about phenomenon that occur over very large time scales, so long that they are difficult or impossible to literally observe in a human lifetime or reproduce in a lab. What we observe and measure are the effects of the process. We make these observations from a wide range of scientific disciplines (paleontology, archeology, microbiology, genetics, behavioral psychology, animal physiology, etc.) and the best possible theory that explains all of the observed effects in all of these scientific fields is … evolution (descent with modification – gradual change in form and function through time due to environmental pressures).

Having said that, there have been a few cases where we have actually been able to observe evolution in action. A perfect, recent, example of this is how the increased use of antibacterial soaps (due to people's insecurity about germs) has led to increased populations of bacteria that are resistant to these antibacterial materials.

Science progresses most often by proving itself wrong – not by proving itself right. Evolution is science b/c it can be proved wrong – only no one has been able to do this. No observations have been made that don't fit the evolutionary model.
This is the opposite of religious / supernatural ideas, which can not be proved wrong b/c they are believed to be revealed truths and are completely closed to the possibility of … evolution.

BTW, "Reasoning from the scriptures" is a contradiction.

The rest of your argument is flawed b/c your doing nothing but taking quotes from some scientists out of context. And even if you weren't doing this, this is still not an argument ageist the truth of evolution.
References :

And a very outdated one at that. Your citations reference issues that science HAS answered long ago with experiments, no less. The rest falls into the category of "personal opinion". Opinions are fine, we've all got them, but you're way off the mark trying to argue for creationism (or ID) based upon such old, and easily falsifiable views.

Besides, you're assuming that the views expressed by the authors you cite, were roundly accepted at the times of their publications. They were not. Also, some of the sources are not (and were not, even back then) regarded as the best possible.

In short, the ideas you cite are dated, were "weak" when they were made, and are essentially of no relevance today. I'm too tired to write more.
References :
I'm a scientist.

fossil species are classified by race and age, eventhough there are still many gaps or so called ' missing links ' in the tree of species, many connections between older species and newer species have been.

secondly, evolution has been observed in fruitflies. fruitflies have a very large lifespan, if you have one single tribe of them. split the tribe in two, then feed the one cornstarch as food, and the other fructose (fruit sugars). the flies will take about 50 generations (a month or 2) to adapt perfectly to the new foodsource. once they have done so hte interesting fact comes up, that a member of the now fructose sugar tribe, will not be able o breed with a member ofthe cornstarch tribe.

proving that the adaptation has made the species incompatible.

as for religion, thats a toughy, most religious people try to disprove or discredit many scientific theories without having much basis of doing so, some religious people completely shun all scientific progress simply because they feel the bible reads other wise, as others try to mend the gap between science and religion. there is a large stream of religious people that see god as the why evolution as the how, life was created.
References :

Evolution is a theory and always has been and will remain so until a proof is provided. That is why it is called the theory of evolution. That is how it should be taught.

Creationism claims to be a fact and always has been although the facts have had to be changed in small measure over the ensuing millennia to suit contemporary knowledge. Creationism also leaves an awful lot out of the equation.

All things bright and beautiful, All cancers great and small. Is that what is taught to kids? No, it's creatures, because they're nice fluffy things. So what happened to the creation of nasty things like cancers and creepy crawlies and the misshapen things that die as soon as they are born. Were these created by a loving God?

Be honest – both of these ideas are theories, neither have been proved. The only difference is that Science sets out that theories have to be proved, and Religion says they have to be believed. You takes your choice, whatever you feel happiest about. It doesn't matter, the world will still turn, which is something science has proved and religion didn't bother to mention.
References :

But, as you point out, that doesn't mean evolution, broadly stated, is inconsistent with faith. Nothing in science denies the existence of a Creator who designed us and watches over us today.

It just says that, if they exist, they started the process with a Bang 13 billion years ago, and used some sort of evolution as a tool.

Here's a good website from a scientist whose faith is strong:

http://www.reasons.org/
References :