I understand that you wish to redefine the word "science" to suit your own theological convictions, but your definition is really the opposite of what the scientific method has been understood to mean, as far back as ancient Egyptians and Greeks.
So I'd suggest to you that redefining words to suit your own needs, while entirely common in politics, is not really acceptable in a field where the goal is set as "truth".
In short you need to be honest enough to admit that the word "science" is what you oppose, not propose.
John Leland 1789: "That is because we're not dealing with scientific theory in the Revealed Word of God, but instead with scientific truth."
All you're doing is playing word games.
Science does not deal in "truth" directly.
The language of science begins with "confirmed observations = facts" and "hypotheses = unconfirmed explanations of facts" and "theories = confirmed hypotheses".
So the word "truth" does not play a direct role in science, except in a generalized, abstract philosophical sense.
And even then the subject is debated, not asserted unconditionally.
All of which makes the definition of "science" the opposite of your Revealed Truth.
John Leland 1789: "To say it even better: no scientific terms can be trusted, and certainly fail as to final authority, which have not been confirmed consistent with the Revealed Word of God."
Here's where you are wrong: science itself is the only authority on what is, or is not, science.
You personally lack any valid authority -- biblical or otherwise -- to claim that your religion is itself "science."
And what science says is science is summarized by the words methodological naturalism and the scientific method.
These have nothing to do with "absolute Truth" -- that's why scientific conclusions are subject to change as the evidence warrants.
And every day there are stories in the news about some old scientific understanding which has just been overthrown by new data.
That's just what science does -- that's how science works.
So, whether science conforms to your personal understanding of Revealed Truth is irrelevant to science.
Science will continue to do what science does.
But science never was, and never will be in the business of saving souls -- that's your church's business.
It just seems to me highly unseemly that you would feel it necessary to lie about science in order to get on with your own work.
John Leland 1789: "Oh! Well then 'SMN' is absolutely useless in the end run."
Sure, no individual person's scientific understandings can survive his or her physical demise, but science itself will continue, as long as there are people with curious minds and the courage to challenge accepted wisdom.
John Leland 1789: "Accept God's Word on Creation literally from Genesis chapter 1 and God will open up your scientific methods beyond anything you can imagine possible."
Yes, many Christian believers are also scientists and doubtless do excellent scientific work.
So science and faith are not incompatible.
John Leland 1789: "So, well repeat: "It is scientific fact, that which those who reject God's word on creation can not fathom..."
More word games.
Science cannot admit or "fathom" what is not based on confirmed observations and confirmed hypotheses.
Your dramatic descriptions of creation fail science's tests.
John Leland 1789: "So, macro-evolution is certainly ruled out."
I say there is no such thing as "macro-evolution" in the sense you use it -- that the term itself is simply a weapon used by anti-evolutionists against the theory of evolution.
Instead, what there is, in reality, are evolution facts and evolution theory and many evolution related hypotheses.
The facts of evolution include: 1) descent with modification and 2) natural selection (aka "survival of the fittest").
Evolution theory simply projects these facts backwards in time millions and billions of years to arrive at common ancestors for all, or nearly all, life on Earth.
And that is theory not just hypothesis because it is confirmed by many facts, including the fossil record, DNA analyses and inputs from virtually every other branch of science.
Evolution hypotheses include speculations on the origins of life itself, speculations such as abiogenisis, panspermia and Intelligent Design.
None of these hypotheses have been confirmed, and the latter two are not even testable scientifically.
So, yes, I rule out your use of the term "macro-evolution" because your use of it is not useful scientifically.
If you really want to learn true science, then I would suggest that instead of conforming your use of words to "science falsely so called" (Bible; NT; 1 Timothy 6:20), which includes those hypotheses and theories, which deny the literalness of the Scriptures (any and all such all the way back to the Greeks and Egyptians), but that you accept the Genesis account of creation literally and sequentially, as given by the inspiration of God.
Accept the Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ, personally, as your only hope of eternal life. Then He will teach you true science, as you submit your will to Him, and to His words as the final Authority in science, history, philosophy, war, peace, . . . . and any other subject that can be listed on a sheet of paper by the hand of man.