the truth of the Bible is certainly supported to a far greater degree than any other ancient text, by archeology and by bothe sacred and secular historians. It was also written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit over many hundreds of years by many authors; and is both internally and externally consistent in all that is contained therein.
Name another such work that even remotely approaches the reliability of the Bible. The only on I can think of that any group mentions is the LDS and the Book of Mormon, which was allegedly translated by one man and was so poorly written that over 3000 substantive changes have been made ove the last one and one-haf centuries.
I know of no one who holds up the Bible as a science book, but there is nothing in science that is inconsistent with the Bible.
In adition, not all 'science books' contain good science.
Almost anything written as history by the Greeks or Chinese or Egyptians.
I'll assume you're joking here...
This is true in spades for the pseudo-science books written by the creationists (Of Men and Pandas, for example) and by the IDists like Dembski, Behe, and Johnson!
Surely you are not series. One of the admitted motivations of one of the initiators of the "intelligent design movement" was to deflect attention from Noah's Flood because "the scientific arguments are not favourable to supporting Genesis..."
The Flood mythology has a well-known origin from earlier pagan sources in Mespotamia, and probably from even earlier sources in Persia and India.
Almost every aspect of the Flood tale violates physics, starting from condensing so much water vapor to liquid would release enough heat the boil all the oceans! And nobody in the Middle East in 1000 BCE had ever heard of--much less seen--a penguin, kangaroo, or polar bear.
The idea that Noah's Flood ocurred as an historical event is absurd.