In the above video, there's actually an excellent discussion about how "science" requires a "naturalistic" explanation. If one cannot be discovered, then the Bible is labeled as "inaccurate". After discussing how a land ridge was discovered at the suspected path the of crossing, the video talks about how there's no naturalistic explanation for how the water could be parted, and dismissing it is based on the assumption that God does not exist and/or cannot or does not interfere with the laws of nature.
It reminds me of a dispute I had with a Jesuit priest professor at Loyola University in Chicago. He said that the Gospels were written after A.D. 70. So I asked him what the evidence for that was. He responded that there are references to the destruction of the temple. So I asked, "you mean where Jesus foretold and prophesied the destruction of the temple." He say yes. At which point I replied, "So this is based on the assumption that Jesus was not God and not capable of knowing the future." His normally big smiling face turned into an evil scowl, but he had nothing to say. So I just turned my back and walked out.