Evidence for God from Science

Last night I saw a good portion of Nova's program entitled The Bible's Buried Secrets:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/

In summary it states that

- Jericho, Ai, and others fell apart over a 1,000 year period, not over a generation like the Bible says.
- Many of the sites did not show any signs of violent destruction.
- Therefore the conquest did not happen.
- A god named Yahvu (YHW) was worshiped in Midian around the time
- Moses and a small group from Egypt adopted Yahweh from the Midianites and joined forces with the existing Canaanite population to forge a new culture.
- The Jews were basically Canaanites already living in the region.

There's more, and I'm not representing the argument well. Rather than poke holes in my summary, check out the link since it gives more about it.

I'm used to seeing crackpot stuff on the Discovery channel, but this was Nova. They usually do a pretty thorough job putting together their shows.

The problem I have with the explanation is linked to C. S. Lewis' idea: the majority of the Bible accounts are not the sort someone would make up. For instance, why would Canaanites adopt a story about being descended from some minority tribe newly returned from Egypt? Why would they say they wondered in the dessert when they didn't?

If I were to make up a story, say to unite Native Americans under a new, unified culture, I would make up something that appealed to some common elements in their history. I would want to make them look like great heroes, a noble people worthy of taking control of the nation. I would not depict them as incorrigibly sinful whiners. If someone did write something like this and I were their target audience, I would think it was ridiculous and wait for a more flattering (and true) story.

Also, why would they choose to follow Moses or Joshua at all? Why adopt YHWH en masse? Yet my questions still don't address the evidence some of these archaeologists are using to support their version of the history. I still don't have an answer for the idea that there is little evidence of Joshua's conquest, or that the cities' demises date across a large span of time.

Does anyone know of some resources that do address these findings?

PBS is a a very liberal group of journalists, I've seen enough out of them to know they don't always hang to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I don't have the resources at hand but several here do have your answers.

(thanks, and I do know well that PBS is liberal, and that's why I posted here--to hear another point of view)

Actually, I contacted a professor I had in college. He had his M.div from Harvard Theo. Sem. and specialized in Dead Sea Scrolls studies. He replied within hours and gave a good rebuttal. I include it here for those who might benefit:

Look at "Redating the Exodus and Conquest" by John Bimson. My guess is that the Nova special was dealing with the 13th century conquest date, which is not what the Bible portrays anyway. There are destruction layers in many sites which would fit a 15th century conquest, and the site identification of Ai is in dispute at this time. The Bible portays a 15th century Exodus/Conquest, not a 13th century one.

Further, Glueck's survey, which showed an occupation gap in the Transjordan in the 15th century BC, was shown to be quite flawed by Max Miller's survey of the Transjordan and Edom.

The Jericho problem mainly is that one cannot find evidence that the entire wall collapsed. Well, the Bible doesn't say it did, but it was probably only breached. Rahab's house was intact, and it was built into the wall.

Many Israeli archaeologists argue against any conquest because of political reasons. They want to say to the Palestinians that Israelites are indigenous to the land. They gain politically, but lose theologically.

The actual texts aside, I think that History Channel does a good job on it's Biblical/religious documentaries. They put aside the people who say the Old Testament was a myth AND the literal Bible-thumpers and analyze the physical evidence. It is quite interesting to find that most of the places in the Bible actually did exist. Their interpretation of the Exodus (and the Reed Sea) was quite interesting, as was the Noah's Ark special (was this Discovery?). Their explanations were not very unreasonable either.

The "Armageddon" documentaries are getting to be too much though.

I catch many of the historical programs relating to the Bible on History Channel and Nova. I appreciate and respect the reports questioning many of the "facts" (as they present them). I find it odd that they rarely-- if ever-- have rebuttals from experts like Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig or Zacharias. I have heard "different opinions" from the likes of Benny Hinn and John Hagee.
If you are going to question the history and authenticity of scripture, then fine, do that. But they should consider studies by respected Christian professionals as well.