You need education to do science, though. I know some people that have a good understanding of the Bible, through the Holy Spirit, but creationists are not them.
Your question about omnipotence is a good one. The Genesis text must be taken as symbolic in many cases. Often, it is told from a primitive understanding of people at the time.
Do you think that explaining molecular biology would have worked very well 3 or 4 thousand years ago? I don't think so.
"The Genesis text must be taken as symbolic in many cases."
I think this is the crux of the fight over evolution right there. There is a distinct clash of mindsets between those who believe the bible is the inerrant and literal word of god and those who believe it is symbolic, especially Genesis. Many subscribe to the former point of view, while many others find it patently ludicrous. I do not think there is any way that a literalist reading of the bible as an inerrant source can be made consistent with the current (or any) scientific understanding of the world. And so, if any scientific theory conflicts with such a literal reading of the bible, it must be wrong, even if that means going through some pretty bizarre contortions, to contend for example, that the earth is only 10,000 years old.