It seems that many people (Christians included) start off with the presumption that science is correct. When there is a point that science and the Bible disagree on (whether it be age of the Earth, creation account, or whatever,) they proceed to either allegorize or explain away the Biblical account.

Shouldn't we (as Christians) start out by presuming the inerrancy of God's Word? If there is a scientific conclusion that disagrees with the Bible, shouldn't it be the scientific conclusion that is brought into question? Since we know that God's word is correct and accurate, our first assumption should be "maybe my conclusion/experiment/research is in error" rather than "that passage of the Bible must be an allegory" or "must have been written in a way that 'primitive' humans could better understand it."

As an example, take the creation account. If you read the Biblical creation account without the "benefit" or "insight" of modern science, what conclusion do you come to? It is certainly not the conclusion that man and ape evolved from a common ancestor.

I would say the same thing about the age of the Earth. If you read the Bible without the "benefit" or "insight" of modern scientific discoveries, you would come to no conclusion other than an Earth that is approximately 6,000 years old. The "gap theory" and other explanations didn't come along until science told us that the Earth and universe are millions/billions of years old. Shouldn't we be starting all of our scientific research from the basis that the Bible is accurate and inerrant?