Joseph, you are making this thread very hard to follow, because you keep mixing in many different concepts, some of which contradict each other.
For example, you cite some poskim who hold that things like lice and the treifos are binding even if the science behind them is proven wrong. So you are contradicting your assertion that Chazal’s science was always right. We are not arguing here about the halachic ramifications, only the scientific facts.
Second, you bring evolution into this. I agree evolution and origin-of-life theories are unproven in science, thus far, and possibly unprovable, since we cannot conduct a 15 billion-year long experiment. But you also throw in things like astronomy, which modern science knows quite well, and are testable, evidenced by our man on the moon, and the fact that the GPS system works as advertised. You do not address the fact that some gedolim said Copernicus was totally wrong and even wrote sfarim to this effect (see Slifkin’s site for a PDF), which we know is not the case. Any attempt to answer this up with relativity is a very big dochak, and not the svara pshutah. Bishloma the psukim use the earth as a frame of reference because it is convenient to tell somebody to make a left turn to get to your house with respect to the earth, and not refer him to astronomical coordinates which will likely get him confused. Dibrah Torah kloshon bnei odom. But here is the point, this Acharon available on Slifkin’s site refused to accept Dibrah Torah as the pshat, and instead tried to refute Copernicus! This shows he is wrong. Your relativity suggestion can only possibly defend the geocentric view from the strong kashya that it is kneged the simple metzius, but cannot refute Copernicus who has no kashya on him to begin with. You need to read the PDF and see for yourself.
Third, you say that the view of the Meor Ainayim that science carries more weight than Chazal is incorrect, and gedolim say not to read it. But you have never addressed my point that the Rambam says the same thing in Hilchos Kiddush Hachodesh 17, 24 that anything proven scientifically or mathematically carries the same weight as divrei neviim. He further says that we do not go by who says a particular idea. We go by the truth of the idea itself, no matter who says it. I believe the source of the Rambam is simply Chochma bagoyim taamin which you also refuse to address. This idea is only reexpressed by Rabeinu Avraham ben HaRambam where he says that Chazal will never expect us to believe anything which goes against our rationality, as far as the aggados go.
Related to this is Point Four where you insists that all aggadtas are to be taken literally and it is kefirah to believe an allegorical interpretation. But Rabbeinu Avraham says that even the Chumash uses exaggerations, such as Arim betzuros bashamayim. The meraglim didn’t mean their cities were fortified in the sky. They simply meant fortified to the Nth degree. Similarly another very long intro to aggadta in the beginning of the Ein Yaakkov (Maharatz Chayos?) also says that Chazal exaggerated, such as 300 cities wiped out by the egg of the Bar Yuchni bird. In addition there are some very hard aggadtas such as Bava Metzia 84a Aivrei d’Rebbe Yishmael, and so on. He also brings views that many of the nissim of Chazal were dreams, such as the proofs in the case of Tanur dBen Achnai of the river reversing direction. In addition, Chazal themselves said Iyov lo hayah vlo nivra. So if Chazal can say about a whole sefer in Tanach that it is only an allegory, then why can we not say about Chazal that some of their words were the same.
My personal kashya on this mehalach is simply what about the concept of sheker. How can you tell us a story if it never happened. At least preface it with mashal lmah hadavar domeh, etc. That is why when I was younger I always believed in the literal, but now am open to other interpretations. I heard from Reb Yaakov Weinberg that the Rashi of Vatishlach es amasa by Bas Paroh may not be literal, and Rabbi Yissochor Frand is my eid, and was in the car with me then.
Point Five, you have never addressed my loads of questions on why we find no reference to modern technology in Chazal such as modern weapons, modern electric lights, modern plumbing, but we do find tons of references to ancient technology. Shouldn’t there be a single detailed reference as to how to construct a single modern device that was predicted 2000 years ago. It would blow everybody’s arguments away. You basically want everybody to believe they had this knowledge as incredulous as that would be, and they hid it from everybody, because you have decided it is one of the ikrei emunah. A) It is likely not one of the ikrei emunah. B) Believing that they deliberately hid it is rather weak, don’t you think? I mean if I say I can turn lead into gold in my basement, but I keep it a secret, will anybody believe me? By definition science is built on observable and repeatable experiments. Private science is not science.