Speaking as a multi-degreed professional scientist myself, "Science," defined as the study of facts which can be known and tested, has yet to disprove anything which appears in the Bible, particularly where genetics is concerned.
Actually, where evolutionists strain for postulate relevance, failing to find any of the needed missing links to make their applications of genetic mutative fantasy remotely possible, many like the eminent (formerly of Harvard and formerly of this World--i.e., now deceased) Stephan J. Gould simply gave up and floated the equally unconvincing postulate of "punctuated equilibrium." James Watson, the attributed discoverer of the DNA helix is still in search of the evidence for an extraterrestrial panspermia to explain what evolution fails scientifically to explain to him.
I'll agree with Watson in part, that the Creator I recognize is extraterrestrial, but I am also more inclined to say omnipresent rathern than merely extraterrestrial. A Creator in my view would be greater than any one thing such a Creator created.
The Creator in Bible is quoted an described as having created everything to reproduce "after its kind." No scientific dispute there. Ernst Haekel and his embryonic fish-to-man models, on the other hand, were demonstrated to be the frauds they were even as he tried to invent a point that he knew he couldn't demonstrate. The facts just got in the way. Unfortunately that didn't stop Haekel and unfortunately doesn't seem to matter to some who call themselves "scientists."
Remember that Scientific study is the study of facts approached in an honest and objective fashion, not merely contrived postulates that willingly ignore objective facts that don't support the postulate.
By stating the "challenge" as you do, you reveal that you fail to understand reasoning which utilizes applications of scientific principles. "Science is a two-edged sword" is an interesting metaphor, but it is your postulate that science some how disproves the Bible at all that is the statement which is really "under the knife" and in serious need of some "exploratory surgery."
To acquire such a reasoning prowess, one must be willing to become founded first in a desire for objective study of facts and approach the study with a honest inquiry and let the facts manifest themselves. Where honesty is concerned a scientist must be honest with himself also, and willing to admit at the outset that 3.5 lbs of his grey mater is by definition limited in it's capacity to know all.
If you set up the straw man like that, it is up to you to produce the facts. Absent that, yours is merely a provocative throw-away challenge as much in search of relevance as it is in search of cleverness.
Pass the scalpel, please.