Does the Gen. creation account conflict with science?

The Law of Non-Contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both be true at once (1). If Genesis contradicts with science, what would we expect to see? Science relies on physical descriptions of the natural world, thus if Genesis also works the same way then both cannot be correct. 

The assumption that the Genesis account of creation is purely literal is wrong based on the following. I will now establish the true nature of mythology. 

Mythology - What is a myth? Some would argue that it's a fanciful tale that is false but that's inaccurate. A myth is a body of stories to explain nature, history, or customs. A myth can be false but it can also be true in the sense of abstract representations such as love, truth, beauty, etc. More recent approaches see myths not as historical inaccuracies, but as ways to understand psychological, societal, and cultural truths. In the 19th century, there was a conflict between myth and science. By the 20th century, many theories rejected this 19th century thinking. 

"twentieth-century theories have tended to see myth as almost anything but an outdated counterpart to science […] Consequently, moderns are not obliged to abandon myth for science." 

There are other myths parallel to Genesis (3). Genesis is one of many stories with common elements. It was not a story made entirely from scratch. 

Mythopoeic thought - There is a difference between modern thinking and ancient thinking. The ancients saw each event as a personal act of the divine. Modern thought attempts to unify all natural acts by impersonal laws such as Gravity, Thermodynamics, etc. 

Now that we've established the concept of myth, i will now address several components of the Genesis creation account. 

Genesis and the big bang theory -  It cannot be argued that Genesis contradicts the big bang since the big bang is an explanation of how the universe expanded from a single dense region (5). Genesis is speaking from the perspective of the earth, long after the event of the big bang. 

Genesis and the age of the earth - Many will claim that the Bible argues for a young earth by calculating the genealogies in Genesis 5. This view is flawed as there are genealogical gaps within the Bible (4). Genesis only highlights the most essential genealogies. 

Genesis and the origins of life - Many will claim that Adam and Eve were historical figures or the 1st ancestors of the human race. No where is this idea supported in Scripture. Second, it's not required for Adam and Eve to be historical in order to convey theological truth. According to the source "The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible does and doesn't say about human origins" (6), Paul's commentaries on Gen. 1-3 reflected Jewish thought as opposed to modern thought. The Jews quoted Scripture not as history, but as living truths to be applied. Adam could have very well been an allegorical figure and it still wouldn't affect the theological doctrines of sin, morality, God, and the human condition. Genesis 1-3 concerns itself with the national origins of Israel rather than the entire human species.     

The authors of Genesis likely instilled abstract moral truths and behavioral models for ancient Israelites to follow regarding their God. Modern science relies on universal impersonal laws to explain the physical aspects of nature. Therefore science and the Bible cannot conflict as they have opposing intentions when describing reality.   

Sources:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology

3. http://davelivingston.com/creationstories.htm

4. http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-genesis-genealogies

5. http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory.htm

6. http://www.amazon.com/The-Evolution-Adam-Doesnt-Origins/dp/158743315X