Complete vs. Limited or Real vs. Non-Real?

I think the question of “partial” vs. “full” descriptions is correct. It is basically asking what are the domains that Scripture and science are allowed to speak about. Or, a question of which “data set” or “narrative” is given priority when we want to investigate reality: science, Scripture, or something in between? I think whether one calls it partial vs. full or realism vs. non-realism is a matter of semantics. I note that Hans Madueme calls his own position “Scriptural realism” (2014).

On one extreme are YECs who insist that legitimate science can only begin by starting from the narrative framework of Scripture. Some hard concordists would also lean towards this pole (e.g. OECs trying to identify modern scientific phenomena within Genesis 1). On the other extreme are TEs who assume that the scientific, rationalistic, non-supernatural narrative is the default, and that events in Scripture have to be reinterpreted until they fit it. Some might even hold to an absolute version of NOMA, such that Scripture can only speak about certain vague spiritual or moral realities, not anything physical.