Not at all. I have a deep abiding respect for science. I think it's a shame that it gets trashed by the unsaved and contorted into something which it is not. We can learn a great deal by studying the world around us. We've learned how to communicate with others when we don't even speak the same language. We've learned how to fly all over the world safely and how to prolong life by decades. We've learned to improve the quality of life and increase our free time through greater productivity. These are the things we can learn through science. We can also learn how cells work, how viruses mutate and how to heal many human maladies.
So far, so good.
That said, people with an agenda attempt to use science to disprove the uncompromising truth of the Scriptures. They say that the six day creation is a myth, that the great Flood never happened,
IOW, you totally lose your deep and abiding respect for science when respecting science means you have to toss out one particular, sectarian way of interpreting scripture.
It is the very same science you describe in your first paragraph which confirms the great flood was not world-wide, that the time from the beginning of the earth to the world we know complete with fruit trees and domestic animals was much, much more than six days.
There is no respect for either science or scripture in insisting that your interpretation of scripture is so sacrosanct that you must simply close the door on science and say the rapid creation of the modern world (by which I mean the world as it has been within the last 10,000 years or so) and a world-wide flood were produced by miracles, including the miracle of erasing all evidence of said miracle and replacing it with evidence to the contrary.
It is clearly not respectful of science, but it is not respectful of scripture either for it makes the God of scripture into a charlatan.
and that most of the miracles in the Bible are just stories to entertain. Again, science cannot disprove the supernatural creation of anything. What science DOES prove is that ALL theories of the natural auto-creation of the universe without the hand of God is an absolute impossibility. Science is not God. With science, if something is impossible it cannot be done. With God, all things are possible.
Science make no claim about the nature of the Biblical stories. I certainly don't believe the early chapters of Genesis or other miracle stories in the bible are nothing more than entertainment. There is serious teaching in these stories, teachings much more important that when or in what form the earth first came into being or what the actual extent of a flood was.
You are correct to say science cannot disprove the supernatural creation of anything. But that gives us no right to say that what science does prove is illusory. Science does not prove that God is necessary to the existence of the universe, for it cannot prove anything about God, either positive or negative. So, nothing science can prove makes God unnecessary either. Science cannot say anything is impossible, but it can say some things are impossible within the limitations of natural events. In and of itself however, that is not a licence to jump to a supernatural explanation without a rational warrant for doing do. Merely defending literalism is not, IMHO, a sufficient warrant for raising the "miracle" flag.