OK, I did gloss over one intermediate step in the argument - which is that it seems obvious to me that there are some things science is incapable of explaining, such as morality, metaphysics, history, the foundations of science itself, and qualia.
For me, the question is: if we assume the Bible as data and interpret its implications together with the rest of the data of nature, what kind of beliefs system do we get? Is it one that gives us a coherent explanation about everything? If it doesn’t, then maybe the Bible isn’t good data. But if it does, maybe it is worthy of being taken into consideration.
My reading of the situation is in fact opposite: the amount of the debate over theology and science is precisely because people are trying to be consistent with their theological tradition and methodology. If the Bible can be twisted to say anything you want, then why is Josh going to the trouble of writing a whole book on the GA?
It’s not that simple. Theology and society feedback on each other. (E.g. Christian abolitionists were just a huge force in eliminating slavery as pro-slavery Christians were, perhaps even more.) In fact, even science and society feedback on each other.