@Dan Brooks
You are spot on with the "wouldn't God's science agree with His word" comment! The immediate rebuttal, of course, is that it does and that it is our our interpretation of Genesis, of other OT references to Genesis, NT references to Genesis, and what Jesus Himself says in reference back to Genesis that is wrong, all of it.
I find the claim that the secular conclusions from science is "God's science" difficult because there is an apparent disconnect between what the Bible says and the assertions of billions of years, evolution, no flood, etc... Further, where are all of the scientific journals publishing papers and articles where we see the results of scientific findings alongside with references to scripture showing where the two agree? In fact, where is God Himself ever mentioned in secular science? In fact, should God ever even be inferred in a secular scientific publication, the following is usually what happens:
Hand of God? Scientific anatomy paper citing a 'creator' retracted after furore
The usual response is that God is not a 'scientific' explanation, so should not be referenced. In fact, if you or I 'invoke' supernatural explanations in support of a YEC perspective, we can expect a degree of criticism to accompany. If God is not a scientific explanation; however, then the answer to all questions that science seeks to address can really be anything believed to be scientifically sound, so long as God is not in that answer. This alone, I feel, is possibly the greatest flaw of the secular scientific framework. Separately, while it has its usefulness at times, uniformitarianism does not always help this framework either, and is one of the main drivers behind where long ages comes from. By contrast, while catastrophism does not explain every feature of what is observed here in the present, it is equally valid and necessary to arrive at reasonable conclusions since all scientists to one degree or another believe the earth has had a catastrophic past.
Where I am still not clear on my understanding is how our OEC brothers and sisters make the distinction. See, they admittedly also invoke supernatural explanations when it seems suitable to them. For example, we all accept Jesus was born of a virgin and this defies natural laws; with the new heavens and new earth we will live with Christ for forever and this defies natural laws; every miracle performed and recorded in the Bible defied natural law. Apparently; however, supernatural causes cannot be acceptable as it relates to the creation of the universe--even though we have many passages that tell us God (a supernatural being) was very involved in the creation process.
"From nothing nothing comes" is scientific. (I think it still is, isn't it? Under debate, maybe).
"The universe is something." I think that would be classified as a true statement.
"Therefore the universe came from something." I think that would be a nice logical conclusion.
Now, since it is universally observed (which observation is required in order for anything to be classified as scientific), that anything made has a maker, some consideration should be taken as to the nature of the maker of a given thing.
The maker of a wooden chair just needs to know enough about woodworking in order to have planned and accomplished the fashioning and construction of the chair. It is a functional item, with a useful purpose, so it would require intelligence to accomplish the production of a wooden chair, albeit not necessarily a great intelligence, because the item is not very complex.
A Rolex watch also requires a maker, and one who needs enough intelligence to make all the small intricate parts of the watch, and to make them all work together correctly and properly, and over a long period of time. The maker would have to know how to tell time, and how to cause the made item to also be able to tell time. This item is also quite functional, and also has a useful purpose, but since it is much more complex than a wooden chair, it requires more intelligence, and more labor as well, to accomplish the production of it.
Now the same could be said of a house, a hotel, a hospital, a skyscraper, or an entire city. Each requiring more intelligence, more organization, and more manpower to accomplish it's respective product.
So using this same reasoning, (and I think it is logical reasoning. Correct me if I am wrong), we must assume that the level of intelligence, organization, and power required to accomplish such a thing as an entire universe, and not just any universe, with all of it's nearly innumerable complexities, but a universe in which there is life, and not just life, but an astoundingly wide variety of forms of life, each with their various levels of intelligence, purpose, and function- I say we must assume that the level of intelligence, organization, and power required to accomplish this is utterly incalculable.
I think that conclusion is quite logical, and about as scientific as we can be, since, though we did not witness the creation of the universe, all other things that we know to be made are also known to have a maker, and the making of such made things can be observed. It would I think, therefore be quite an illogical conclusion that the universe itself could not have a maker.
Now if such a maker exists (which, I think, would be the most logical and reasonable assumption to make), and if this maker has communicated to us in some fashion, and if the words of this maker include information on how the maker made everything, would it not be most reasonable to assume that the way the maker said everything was made, is actually the way it was made?
Unless it would be even more logical and more reasonable to assume that the maker is not trustworthy, in absence of reason to assume such a thing, I think there can be no other logical conclusion to make other than that the way the maker said everything was made, is actually the way everything was made.
Now even further, for the Christian, who already acknowledges the Lord God Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, and His Christ, the Lord Jesus, Son of the Most High God, and that the collection of books known as the Holy Bible is the written word of God, and also knows the Almighty God to be most trustworthy- I think it would be rightly incumbent on such a one, even more than another, to take the written word of God to mean what it says, rather than interpreting it into oblivion.
I think that would be a most logical and reasonable, and responsible thing to do.
Just my humble opinion.