Looking at any positive statement (something presented as a "fact") that's coming from a perspective other than one's own, we can break down the logical/scientific possibilities into three categories:
1. The statement is 100% accurate.
2. The statement is 100% false.
3. The statement contains a fraction of accuracy and a fraction of inaccuracy.
Let's take the story of creation as presented in the Christian tradition as an example to sort.
If the statement is given in a human language, we can pretty easily rule out the first option. Human language is messy and imprecise at best! So in our example, the story of creation is definitely presented to us with human language, and it's almost always presented to us in myriad versions, all even messier translations where some original version was mushed and squished into a different language, losing connection with the original statement in the process like what happens in the classic party game of telephone. Also, on a more detailed linguistic level, the difference between the style of the communication and the style the listener is used to will have a huge effect on the ability of the listener to comprehend what is actually being expressed. Culture, personality type, emotional state, and the sort of metaphors being used will all affect the effectiveness of the transmission of ideas. In other words, if you're used to talking in practical, measurable quantities, using academic terms, and are feeling emotionally negative, your going to be almost completely confused by a statement made in an emotionally positive, poetic, qualitative manner, such as we find in religious messages, you're going to be losing a whole lot of the statement's actual meaning. So even if an original statement is absolutely accurate from the speaker's perspective, once the statement gets interpreted by your brain, it loses at least some, if not most, of it's accuracy. So we can be pretty sure that from our perspective, the Creation statement, which is highly emotional, highly metaphorical, artistic, and messily copied and translated over the millennia is definitely not in category 1. Unless we're talking about a highly specific form of machine language that is expressing the entire "theory of everything", we can pretty safely say that this category is impossible.
We might automatically then try to dump it into category 2, if we're being intellectually lazy. But if we're being thoughtful, we can see that if something is 100% inaccurate, then logically we could take the exact opposite meaning and get the absolute truth. The opposite of nothing (right) is everything (right), logically. And since we already proved that the chances of a statement being 100% accurate are pretty non-existent, especially when the factor of messy human communication and understanding is in play. So we can logically rule category 2 out, especially for the Creation story, so this one is also pretty safely said to be impossible.
Which, as Sherlock Holmes reminds us, means that now that we've eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be true. So partial accuracy and partial inaccuracy is the only possible, logical category that our statement can fit into.
This means that no matter what useless information we happen to get out of a statement, including the Creation story, or any other explanation/description of what happens in the universe, there will also always be some other information that is accurate, useful, highly descriptive of reality, if we bother to break it down it's components carefully and intelligently.
And we can know, now, that anyone claiming that a statement is totally right or wrong is either really misunderstanding the statement, or is just not being intellectually rigorous. But, of course, all this is neither totally correct, or totally incorrect, if we're being intellectually rigorous!