I've been puzzled all along why this distinction between interpretive and observational science isn't obvious to you all.
I would say the issue is that all science is basically observational, because the processes we see today inform us of how the natural world works. This is how we understand the natural laws, and this is how we can look at sediment forming today and note that it has the same structure as sedimentary layers in the rocks, so we know how long they take to form. Anything which circumvents such processes is acting in contravention of natural laws. You describe your process of understanding as starting with the bible and everything must fit into this paradigm (apologies for the over simplification), and you describe the alternative as old earth (OE) interpretations as if we start with the conclusion that the earth must be old and try to fit the evidence into this paradigm. But this is completely opposite to how science functions. There was nothing inevitable about the age of the earth, it has just been gradually pushed further and further back as new observations came to light.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
