As a computer programmer, anything that can't be tested and proven correct step by step is hard to accept.
You're not the first computer programmer I've met with wierd ideas about the world.
Maybe working with computers skews your perspective until you come to believe that the entire universe operates like a computer. I dunno. But heed: the universe doesn't operate like a computer. There's limits to what can be known, not the least of which is the uncertainty principle. Science seeks the close-enough model because that's all we can ever have. We don't
stop there, of course - science is a process of continually improving models - but you'd have to be an idiot to conclude that, since we don't know
everything, we don't know
anything.
I can appreciate that you find the fuzziness of real-world models disconcerting. But you'd better get used to it, especially in the biological sciences.
But remember, that very few of history's great scientists are known for agreeing with their peers.
Yeah, yeah. They laughed at Einstein. But they also laughed at Bozo the clown.
Come to think of it they didn't laugh at Einstein.
The point is, only an idiot considers departure from the dominant paradigm as
evidence of correctness. We don't reject creationism because it's different than what we learned in Bio 101. We reject it because the evidence proves it wrong.