I can not argue that it is definitely possible because we are fallible that our interpretations are wrong. However, I don't think J_Edwards would disagree with that either. His statement (correct me if I am wrong Joe) is just saying that the Bible being infallible (despite our infallibility) should be considered as the ultimate authority, not outside sources like science. When I say "science" I am not talking about proven facts (though that is what pure science should be), I am talking about "theories" of the scientific community.
Think of a diagram like the following:
(Please ignore the dots. I can't figure out how to preserve the multiple spaces in between the words to make it look ok. Everything collapses to the left.)
Theology------------------------Science ........|....................................| ........|....................................| Special Revelation....................Natural Revelation
Science and the Bible (Special Revelation) are in different categories, so it makes no sense to compare them. Science is the interpretation of natural revelation. Theology is the interpretation of special revelation (or the result of it..I'm using 'Theology' as shorthand for 'the interpretation of special revelation).
It would make sense to talk about Science vs Theology because those are things we have access to and can compare. We do not have direct access to Special Revelation (words/sentences/paragraphs/etc must always be interpreted) and neither do we have direct access to Natural Revelation (data points must always be interpreted and put into theories)
So I don't think saying "the Bible is the authority for us, not science" is really coherent at all. Most of the time when we say that we mean either: 1. Theology is more authoritative than Science or 2. The 'correct interpretation of the Bible' (correct Theology) is more authoritative than Science
I believe it was Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis www.answersingenesis.org that said something to the effect: "It must be remembered that YE scientists deal with the same indisputable facts that the rest of the scientific community uses. It is the conclusions that are drawn from these facts that are different." He also went on to say that where science (theory) and Scripture collide, it is better to err on the side Scripture.
I disagree with this. I don't think a general statement should be made either way.
1. Sometimes we should go with our Theology and say our Science is probably mistaken 2. Sometimes we should go with our Science and say our Theology is probably mistaken 3. Sometimes we should admit that we don't know how to reconcile them at the present time. One or both could be mistaken. It's ok to not have everything resolved Right Now, especially since we are fallible human creatures.
#3 is difficult for me to accept because a big part of me thinks I have the ability to reason through EVERYTHING and make it all fit together. I am truly finding that the more I learn the more I realize how much I don't know. Becoming comfortable with my one finitude is happening, though it's not easy.
Hopefully that communicates my understanding of the relationships between the various sources of information available to us. It'll be good for us to clear up any differences we have in using the various terms like 'science' and 'theology'.