I think it’s context. Folks whose immediate family, friends, and so on tend to disbelieve earth science because they read Genesis 1 as either history or science (when in fact it’s liturgy, a Deed of Title) wind up experiencing enormous “cognitive dissonance” with those scientists whose work helps in any way to establish that this third rock from the sun isn’t really new.
If you’re not from that context, I doubt you have any problems with science at all.
Unless, of course, you are committed to the idea that the teratons of CO2 we put into the atmosphere annually have nothing to do with changing earth’s climate. Folks who value politicians’ understanding of science highly and discount scientists’ poor grasp of politics seem not to like a certain subset of science.
With regard to Genesis 1, and bearing in mind that Genesis 2 posits a different sequence with fewer days, I believe that God said “Let there be light” as in Genesis 1:3, and it was the Word that expressed it, as of the opening verses of the Gospel of John. But that happened 13-odd billion years ago as we know it.
Who on earth am I to second-guess God’s timing, technique, or means of revealing Himself to beings that think via three-pound wet computers? Er, highly fallible beings at that?