|
Science and religion are not incompatible. There's no need to choose between one or the other, except in cases of direct contradiction. In those situations, you need to make a decision as to which holds greater weight to you. Is it mountains of observed and (hypothetically, at least) verifiable data, or a book written close to two thousand years ago?
Young Earth creationism takes the Bible very literally. The problem with this is that there's absolutely no corroborating evidence. For some, that's not an obstacle. Me, I'm too much of a sceptic to take such things at face value.
Note that this doesn't make the Bible useless, as some might claim. It just means that a literal interpretation of every passage therein is, in my opinion, the wrong way to go about it. I don't see this as an obstacle, since such a thing is impractical at best anyway. I'm loathe to trot out the tired old Leviticus example; the point stands already.
As an aside, I have no problem with people teaching their children things like creationism and intelligent design at home or in church. Where I take issue is when people try to shoehorn it into the science classroom. Slapping the word theory on something doesn't make it scientific. It doesn't belong there.
__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said
- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame
|