I didn't say we should ignore everything else. I said that the Word of God is above all things. And if the Word of God were to say something that seems blatantly different from what we see with our eyes, we must defer to the Word of God.
As noted above, even the word of God is subjected to our perception, use of our eyes, our logic, our biases due to cultural backgrounds and experiences etc. This is why we have things like sects. Because we enter scripture with preconceptions. And this isn't controversial, it's just what it is and anyone who studies scripture knows this.
If you find a contradiction between perception of scripture and perception of creation (which to be fair is also God's work), if you're in a bind of perception vs perception, the only thing we can do is externally corroborate.
Without external corroboration, we would have no means of discerning truth from falsehood (rightful interpretation vs wrongful interpretation) and would likely end up with a false interpretation of scripture and creation.
Else, how would you know that your perception of either scripture or creation, were true?
If scripture said that there is a cake in the oven, two parties might approach that verse in different ways. The Catholics might say "oh, it must be chocolate", while Protestants might think "no, it must be vanilla cake". Each party advances, reading scripture with a separate perception and bias and background.
So how do we solve the dilemma?
I tend to enjoy using analogies with cake.
So let's start with creation. How could we externally corroborate a scientific theory? Well, it's easy with creation because we can just study evidence. The theory of plate tectonics for example, how can we corroborate it? Well use satellites to watch continents move. Or we can observe seafloor spreading and subduction as a secondary external option. Or we could look at rocks to see where continents used to be. Or we could look at things like hotspots.
The bottom line is that with creation, we can investigate the feasibility of our perceptions from multiple angles.
So now we turn to scripture. And let's say that scripture says that there is a cake in an oven in the white house. Purely hypothetical. And let's say Protestants believe that the cake is chocolate and let's say Catholics believe that the cake is vanilla. These flavors representing different biases and interpretations of scripture, but still agreeing in some areas that the cake is real. We'll share certain ideas but there are some details that we don't agree on in scripture.
So what is the solution?
Well the solution isn't to just say, just go with what the scripture says and whatever else is out there that you might see, you can just make it a secondary concept and move on. This response doesn't work because it doesn't address the need for external corroboration. Catholics could say that the cake is chocolate and that's just what scripture says and that's that. But without external corroboration, Protestants will never accept that, and vice versa.
The only real solution is to go to the White House and to open the oven up and to pull the cake out and smell it, taste it, touch it, see it etc. Because then, no person could deny its flavor because everyone has experienced it firsthand. Now we can agree on what scripture says and we know with certainty what it meant and what flavor cake it was referring to.
So the conclusion of all of this is that external corroboration is necessary to resolve disputes between perceptions of scripture. Otherwise it falls on people's subjective biases to resolve disputes, rather than falling on God's objective indisputable creation.
We can dispute the flavor of a cake all day until we see it. And once that created cake is seen, none can dispute it. We are then truly without excuse, as Paul would say. But without seeing, we will forever be stuck in sectarian division.
---------------------------
I think it really boils down to the question of if you don't externally corroborate your perception of scripture with use of observational evidence, then how do you know that your interpretation of scripture is true, in comparison to those interpretations that do utilize external corroboration?
