Easily. The modern empirical concept of science (with its logical formalism and naturalism) did not exist in the Old Testament era. It was the mythological era. We cannot read such texts as scientific, its an obvious error - anachronism.
I see your poin. Science, as conceived today
is far more rigorous and formal than,
say, the time of Darwin, Newton, Copernicus,
Lucretius, Aristotle.
But the study of nature was carried out, as
also it has been in stone age tribes who learned
the poisons and medicines and the tides and
migrations.
Aridtotle was not very rigorous with his statement
that crocodile top jaw hinges, not the bottom.
Roman theoretical,physics as reported by Lu retius
is fun to read, besides quite ingenious but insistently wrong.
And yet it was science as practiced then, and the future may see present practice as sorely lacking.
Reading Genesis, I see no ' spirotual", ethical, moral,
content whatever in the 6 day creation, very very dubious spiritual content in " flood".
So why is it there?
It's presented as, believed to be factual content.
It's written to be taken as true and those who
wrote it must have believed it was truth..
IF there'd been a flood, mentioning it would be at
least proto- science. A basis in fact upon which to build. And support the chridtian claim
that science grew out of Chridtianity. Flood and all.
Now, I'm no chridtian. I saw a very different book when I read it. I know much of it simply is not factual.
If / since the bible is nine factual, deeply misleading
actually, for what reason would such as the 6 day
creation be written, other than to tell ( what they
believed to be) the truth?