In an effort to reconcile atheistic creation myths with the Christian faith, some Christians love to point out that the Bible is not a science book. In fact, much like with all heresies, when it comes to specific areas, the Bible is said to be ambiguous or unclear. It magically becomes clear when they like the conclusion, but no matter how much Genesis seems to be presenting a factual, historical account of the origins of the heavens, the Earth, and everything in them, it simply can't be, because "the Bible isn't a science book". And it's true. The Bible isn't a science book. But this is absolutely fine, since origins isn't a science issue.
First, note the simple difference between science, which is about what happens now, and history, which is about what happened in the past. Which category does origins fit into? History, of course! Wherever we came from happened in the past, and it cannot be replicated today. Compare this with, for example, gravity. Gravity is a scientific fact you can test right now if you want to. Pick something up, release it, it'll fall towards the centre of the Earth until it encounters some resistance, like the floor.
But what experiments can you do to replicate a magical explosion that supposedly happened billions of years ago? In reality, all experimental evidence points to the opposite. There are so many flaws in the Big Bang that some Christians claim, since it would be impossible without God, God must have done it. Better reasoning would be since it's impossible without God, and God didn't do it, it just didn't happen.
Therefore, science is not even in conflict with the book of Genesis as it is written. Not that this would matter, of course, since God, as the inventor of science, is not bound to it. The Bible may not be a science book, but it is a true book, given to us by the Creator Himself. Therefore, on the rare occasions when scripture does make a scientific claim, we can afford to accept it. For example, scripture clearly tells us that living organisms reproduce according to their kinds, just as they were designed to do, and lo and behold, they do! Monkeys make monkeys, men make men. Human beings are not descended from anything that wasn't human; we come from Adam and Eve.
Nevertheless, there are some things in scripture that are not in line with science. Water does not turn into wine, virgins do not give birth, and dead men do not rise on the third day. Yet, I've never encountered a serious Christian who would look for allegory in these miracles. There are some pretty weird cults that say Jesus didn't rise or that God literally slept with Mary, and certain Liberals do try to suggest Jesus' miracles all had a Naturalistic explanation, but if you have even the slightest pinch to the bite that goes with your Christian bark, you know that miracles, though they are unscientific, are possible with God.
So why is origins, which common sense tells us would have to be a miracle, so readily questioned by Christians? Why is this such a ridiculously difficult issue? For centuries, Jews and Christians alike, though we lived alongside many old earth views, have had minimal problems understanding that they're all wrong. But when misotheists like Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin start putting scientific spins on it, suddenly our brains go all mushy, our Bibles become smudged, and our faith dissipates to the point where our view of origins is virtually indistinguishable from those who do not believe in God?
It's true that the Bible is not a science book. But if we believe it is a true book, an assumption without which we have no foundation for our Christian faith, we have no excuse for turning into absolute jellyfish when it comes to origins. It takes 8 pages to find out where we came from, and they're conveniently located at the front of any canonically intact Bible. It's time to stop this futile search for the ever-elusive excuse to deny it.
"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”" - John 5:46-47