Most of the biology and historical geology texts I checked
(Prothero, 1990, Interpreting the Stratigraphic Record; Drickamer and
Vessey, 1992, Animal Behavior, 3rd ed.; Wallace, Sanders, and Ferl, 1991,
Biology, 3rd ed.; Mitchell, Mutchmor, and Dolphin, 1988, Zoology), in their
discussion of the history of the theory of evolution, have disparaging
remarks about the Biblical account based on young-earth interpretations
(not necessarily current or orthodox young-earth interpretations, e.g. the
claim that the idea of extinction "was repugnant to the theologians'
concept of a caring, all-providing deity".
> "Doctrines of creation, which have a mythical, philosophical, or
>theological basis, are not a part of science because they are not
>subject to objective observations and experimentation by all persons...."
As quoted, this statement says nothing about the accuracy of statements
involving supernatural causes but merely that they are not scientific.
Depending on the definition of science, this is probably true of most
statements that involve the supernatural.