You're again confusing categories. Scripture and Science do not belong in the same category. Theology (as shorthand for 'the interpretation of Scripture') and Science do, but Scripture belongs in the same category as General Revelation. And, since both are revelations from God, it makes no sense to say that one is over the other.
You fail to realize that GR is not complete without SR. There is a great deal of difference between SR and GR. SR sets forth true propositions, while GR (science, et. al.) is still attempting to define what is true by fallible methodologies. When examining SR we take what is known as true and examine it with fallible methods, (but with the Holy Spirit as our infallible guide), however, when examining science one takes what a fallible man (not an infallible God) presumes may be true and examines it with fallible methods. Without SR one can never fully understand GR.

Unlike another poster insinuated both the OE and the YE views have presuppositions. The only question that remains is what are the true presuppositions to follow? The Bible sets forth what is true about creation. Thus, the term “yom” (day) comes of particular importance. What would a Jew in Moses’ time have thought the term “day” to mean? You stated;

As a point of indisputable fact, 24hr proponents must assume that the first three 'days' of Genesis 1 are abnormal, non-ordinary 24 periods of time because they lack the sun.
However this is not an undisputable fact as you have asserted. While the first three days of Genesis 1 lack the body of the sun, they do not necessarily lack sunlight itself, as God created light on DAY 1 (Gen 1:3-5). The FI does believe God created ALL light, which includes sunlight, doesn’t it? The temporal framework of creation was evening and morning (literally sunset and sunrise--J. Currid). Together they constitute a figure called a merism, which signified the end of light and encompassed the entire period of darkness. Thus DAY 1 began with the entrance of light and it ended at the departure of darkness. Day 2 began with sunrise. As Cassuto comments,

An examination of the narrative passages of the Bible makes it evident that whenever clear reference is made to the relationship between a given day and the next, it is precisely sunrise that is accounted the beginning of the second day.
However, FI says, “how can there be a sunrise without a sun?” It was not until DAY 4 that we see the command of God, “Let there be lights.” However, there is no problem if you stay within the meaning of the text. One of the main functions of the luminaries was to divide the day from the night and as Cassuto again remarks, “To separate one thing from another means to mark the distinction between two things already in existence.” Thus the light of the sun, moon, and stars was already in existence otherwise it could not have been divided. When did it come into existence—DAY 1. Light was in existence prior to the light bodies. There is not discrepancy with the text, only in one’s limited understanding of it. So much for being indisputable and since your premise is faulty your conclusion is in error.

You may do well to read Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry's article entitled, Reformed Theology and Six Day Creation. BigThumbUp

Reformed and Always Reforming,