There is a fundamental problem with biblical criticism. The issue is the two camps starting place. If you are a biblical critic you must start from the point of view of skepticism, hoping to prove the claims of the bible wrong. You look at what the text says of itself and say, is this right? I doubt it is... and today I will find out why.
Even if it's not that intense, you at least say, this text is of no intrinsic value to me, so I will find out if what it says is true or not.
A conservative must approach to book from a basis of faith, expecting it to be true. The issue is, if you believe the book is true, there is little value in spending the time to prove that it is true. This makes the biblical critic angry, he doesn't understand how we can be both intellectual, and accept things at face value.
A conservative can try to prove the bible correct because they are interested in showing the critic, or because it confirms their faith. But he cannot however, set out in a middle ground of "Is this true or not?" If it is not true his beliefs will be rocked to the core, and unfortunately none of the evidence we find is very conclusive.
I remember hearing an argument from Jericho archaeological evidence that there was no evidence of a wall broken down. Which is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard... Its almost as dumb as those people who look for wood from the ark... When the walls fell down, he who rebuilt the city, re-used the stone. He wasn't a moron, why are these scientists?
In the same way, when the ark landed, man didn't walk away and forget about it, he had a MASSIVE amount of wood from which to build homes, build fires etc... Why are scientists looking for it? And why are these scientists given an hour on the Discovery channel and enough money to make a documentary.
Anyhow, I just think about these things as I get further along in my seminary studies... I have no desire to argue these things with biblical critics... if your point is the prove the bible wrong through archaeology (which, some may argue is just as fallible of a form of testimony as reading about these things in the bible), then you clearly have different interests and goals in life, I'm afraid I cannot relate and do not desire to be a part.
The point is, all forms of knowledge from history are a form of faith in the testimony of others. I find this fascinating... we all believe what people say is true, otherwise we would have nothing to know about the past. Even archaeological "fact" is not free from the testimony of others...
This is a little bit scattered... but you get the point
For more reading on this check out pages 45-50 Provan, Iain W., and others, A Biblical History of Israel