You’re right. OK, here’s how you were wrong:
What does that even mean? Science and theology are two very different things. Science is the study of God’s creation. Theology is the study of how we talk and think about God, with both creation and scripture as reference points. If you’re trying to say that what we learn in creation trumps anything we can learn from special revelation (the Bible, Christian tradition, etc.), then that’s what atheists think. Not us. Of course, there are moments when “natural revelation” should rightly make us re-think our theology. But theology is not trumped if that happens. That implies that theology is a sort of static thing rather than a very human process of seeking and understanding (just like science).
The Book of Genesis portrays a six-day creation (at least, Genesis 1 does. Genesis 2?..well, that’s complicated). Jonah portrays a man eaten by a large fish and surviving. The Gospels portray a man being reconciled to his prodigal son. Revelation portrays a cosmic battle involving dragons and swords coming out of people’s mouths. See what I did there? There’s a big difference between the Bible portraying something, and it dogmatically teaching the literal reality of something. Science and ancient historical studies have both prompted Christians to reconsider what sort of information/revelation Genesis is providing, and how it is providing it. The idea that the Bible’s authority is tied inextricably to the most literal/historical reading possible is what other perspectives believe, not us.
What puzzles me most about your post, George, is why you would state the mission of BioLogos in the most inflammatory way possible, given your self-appointed role as peacemaker among origins perspectives.