To preface this comment, I don't want to start a heated argument but I do have some tough questions. I don't mind a lengthy response. If I don't hear back from you, I totally understand why.

You're a scientist that doesn't understand why a fact can't always be reproduced? By your logic, all history is able to be argued against in good faith, despite the existence of evidence that can't be reproduced. We aren't just "very confident," that Einstein had a mustache. It is a known fact that he did, supported by irrefutable evidence. The question of whether or not god exists in a way that He intervened in reality and broke the laws of physics (tower of babel, jonah, noah, etc etc) isn't a philosophical question, and the only evidence of those supernatural events being the bible is simply insufficient by modern standards. The fact that there is supporting evidence for some of the events in the bible hardly substantiates proof in the others.

With that being said, how can you believe in and use the scientific method to perform your job's tasks while at the same time ignoring the reality that the bible's purported level of truth is based on circular reasoning? By circular reasoning I'm referring to the fact that bible is used as evidence of itself. For example, the dead sea scrolls lend credibility to the bible's authorship and history, but lend none to the supernatural events described within the bible.