Or how about:
Since God created the universe, and since He made statements about the origins of mankind and the history of mankind, and since we believe God is moral and truthful and would not lie to us or deliberately contradict His own statements about Himself or the universe He created:
A. We believe His statements to be true and strive to the best of our ability to understand and obey them.
B. We do not believe His statements to be true, but still want to believe in Him.
C. We reject the statements of God in the Bible as truth.
If A, then perhaps we have misinterpreted the data based on assumptions about what happened in the past (uniformity of natural causes in a closed system). We cannot re-create these conditions in a lab experiment, so we have to rely on our assumptions, or admit that perhaps conditions were not always constant, or our "baseline" may be incorrect. If the data contradicts clear Biblical statements, we have to abandon the Bible or "science", or "do" a systhesis that leaves the Bible neither the Bible nor science science. If A, then we must keep science inferior to Biblical revelation when they contradict, since scientific observations and interpretations are incomplete and subject to human fallibility.
If B, you have much of modern theology, where we have created God in our own image and can pick and choose from the Bible the statements we wish to believe as it suits us.
If C, "let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."
If A we should be aware at all times that our human understanding of the words of the Bible may be flawed, and that clear physical evidence trumps possibly poorly understood divine revelation. Lest we fall into the error of the Catholic Church WRT geo-centrism. At one time it was felt that the words of the Bible were quite sufficient to refute helio-centrism. The argument posed was essentially the same one that you supply above.
Now we know better, and read the relevant passages without requiring the earth to be stationary. Likewise few readers blink at passages describing "Stars falling to earth", yet science tells us that stars are giant fusing balls of gas inconceivably far away. To suggest that the stars were suns like our own, that might have their own planets was considered heresy, punishable by burning at the stake. Would you keep science "inferior" to Biblical revelation WRT those passages too?
Or, more likely, misinterpreted scripture.
If B, you have much of modern theology, where we have created God in our own image and can pick and choose from the Bible the statements we wish to believe as it suits us.
A problem I find most acute in the modern phenomonon of Biblical "literalism," along with its marked tendency to fabricate convenient material for the purpose of back-filling Biblical dilemmas.