After some data mining, John Munday managed to conclude:
This exploration shows a multitude of correspondences between the methods of natural science and features of Scripture. From the results, we conclude that –
• it is not only wrong to claim that natural science and Scripture conflict, with respect to methods or routes to knowing,
• it is also right to declare, in the positive sense, that Scripture endorses methods of natural
The basic tenet of scientific exploration is to (a) find and document repeatable interesting observations, (b) formulate theory to explain the observations, (c) most importantly continuously try to falsify the theory, (d) if the theory is proven to be wrong the theory is abandoned or revised. It is the last two parts which make scientific method scientific.
Creationistic approach starts with an infallible premise - the bible. Even in the overwhelming evidence of the false statements in the bible, creationists solve the conflict by invoking unsubstantiated god as the ultimate solution. This is totally unscientific, both in practice and in principle.
The continual spread of the false image of compatibility of bible and science will have adverse effect on the education of the general public.
John Munday used one of my sentence: My question [...] is which account you should believe in, the Bible's or the scientific account? Let me rephrase this: when you are ill, do you depend on prayers or seek modern medical support?