Except that, as a person of faith, I'm able to see that an internally-consistent belief system is, in point of fact, a mythology. I don't have a problem with people pointing at Christianity, Creationism, Intelligent Design, Buddhism, Wicca, or any other religion and labeling it "mythology."
The danger, of course, is that science meets most of the criteria for being a mythology, and we can't have SCIENCE labeled that way.
There are multiple avenues in the pursuit of truth. Science is one of them, and it works well for helping us live longer. Religion -- especially "revealed" religion -- is another, and it works well for telling us HOW to live.
The debate over I.D. vs. Evolution is, in my mind, a debate over whether science should be used exclusively in the pursuit of morality. We should not be teaching people that science is the be-all, end-all "way of knowing." But we do not have to discredit it in order to do that.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 07:23 am (UTC)The danger, of course, is that science meets most of the criteria for being a mythology, and we can't have SCIENCE labeled that way.
There are multiple avenues in the pursuit of truth. Science is one of them, and it works well for helping us live longer. Religion -- especially "revealed" religion -- is another, and it works well for telling us HOW to live.
The debate over I.D. vs. Evolution is, in my mind, a debate over whether science should be used exclusively in the pursuit of morality. We should not be teaching people that science is the be-all, end-all "way of knowing." But we do not have to discredit it in order to do that.
--Howard