How is it in disagreement with the scientific method?
You're right, Arphy. The scientific method at its core doesn't address biased observations. Forget I said that.
Perhaps I can rephrase myself by saying that scientists strive for objectivity. To say that they must "interpret" the evidence within a biblical framework implies that you must start by assuming that the Bible is right, and then look at the evidence.
Can an objective scientist not find evidence for YEC? Do they really have to start by interpreting the Bible, and then applying their interpretation to the evidence?
ok we assume it is, because it is written in the style of a historical narrative. So unless the author is being deceptive, then it seems like a good assumption to make. Same goes for a work of fiction. If it is written in a fictional style then we presume that it is fictional.
This is curious, because in my experience many stories are written in what I'd consider a historical narrative style. This isn't necessarily because the writer is being deceptive, it's just that he tends to use that style.
More importantly, I wonder what prompts you to label Genesis as "historical narrative". Is there any telltale sign that gives it away as such?
I won't be able to post much in the next few days, but I think it would make for a good discussion in another thread, if you'd care to start one.