If we use all of the physics we know, we go to the moon and back. We send space probes out that travel for years and we find pretty much what we were looking for.
I guess I am suspicious of any investigative enterprise that always seems to find what it's looking for.
I trust pure science completely. It's the scientists that I don't fully trust. Not that I think them liars (though I have no reason to believe them to be more objective and honest with data than the average non-scientist would be), but I do not trust their omniscience. Neither do many of them. Yes, we have been to the moon and back—but that was when they still thought there were nine "planets" in our solar system. If changes and retractions of this kind, even concerning near-space, are still forthcoming, I would like to retain the right to place a higher confidence in that which does not ever lead me astray, like the scriptures. If they are given by God, as Jesus believed, then, when correctly understood, they will never deceive.
I think it more likely that we don't fully understand scriptures than to say we can see objects that are not really there.
There is always that possibility, as I mentioned. Any data is capable of being misinterpreted, as I said at the outset. It is also possible that we are misinterpreting physical and visible data. Anyone who would deny this possibility must be out of touch with the history of scientific discovery, and seems to be participating in the hubris of modern Scientism. I admit that modern theories and interpretations of data, these days, contradict ancient theories of the proper understanding of Genesis. So what does that tell us? Somebody is mistaken. It seems arrogant to assume, prior to the accumulation of all possible data, that we already know who is mistaken. Science, for all we know, may still be in its infancy—or, more probably, like a child in its "terrible twos"—just knowledgeable enough to be self-confident, but still operating upon very limited experience.
Insisting that cosmology be constrained by a creation myth is crazy.
The insistence that Genesis one is "myth" is a great example of what I have just said. Many informed and intelligent people see it as a myth, and many equally sophisticated people do not. The only real case for the :myth" theory is that historic interpretations of Genesis are in conflict with the theories of science that dominate at the present moment. The same was once true of Galileo's views, Pasteur's views, and Intelligent Design views, in different eras. Those who opposed these minority positions were eventually either shown to be wrong, or at least irrationally prejudicial. Modern science is sometimes self-correcting (as scientists often claim), but it is also an ideological community as resistant to change as is any religion.
Of course, modern biblical scholarship, like secular science itself, has also proclaimed that Genesis one is a myth. Like the secular community, liberal Bible scholars exhibit a loyalty to their ideological preferences, a reluctance to disagree with the scholarly consensus, and a hubris of self-congratulation that they are not like other men, who still believe things about the Bible which have never been disproved, but which have fallen out of fashion. Intellectual communities, like religions, are resistant to change in the face of hostile evidence, and are very good at ignoring or explaining away what they cannot accommodate.
I don't deny that my biblical conservatism is susceptible to these psychological forces, which makes me determined to remain open to a compelling case against any opinion I hold. However, I maintain a high bar for proof of any new idea that contradicts a still-viable long-standing opinion that (according to all extant evidence) was sponsored by the incarnate Son of God. Some are very quick to lower that bar. This is not because they are forced to do so by evidence or logic. I believe they are forced to do so by social pressures.
If those who reach different conclusion from mine feel they have not lowered that bar, and insist that the evidence forces them to abandon older views—more power to them. I retain the right to look independently at the data available to me, and to follow a rigorous, skeptical logic, before abandoning views that have been thought, even among thousands of scientists who are Christians, to be well-established.
On the other hand, I am disinterested in my assessments, because I could not give a rip how old the universe is, nor whether Genesis turns out to be literal or figurative. I am just committed to a greater skepticism than most, when confronted with arguments that depend upon unfounded worldview presuppositions. I have no objection to abandoning ancient foolishness in favor of modern wisdom, but I am resistant to abandoning ancient wisdom for unsubstantiated modern opinions.