Those theologians who are beginning to take the doctrine of creation very seriously should pay some attention to science's story.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Unfortunately, a lot of the concepts in the Bible are based on ancient mythology that doesn't fit the findings of science.
If historians don't tell stories at the scales of creation myths, someone else will.
I agree with people like Richard Dawkins that mankind felt the need for creation myths. Before we really began to understand disease and the weather and things like that, we sought false explanations for them. Now science has filled in some of the realm - not all - that religion used to fill.
I prioritise story over science, but not at the expense of being really stupid about it.
Fundamentalist Christians, adhering to what is termed 'creation science,' loudly promote the scientific accuracy of the Bible, but they sift or reinterpret science through the tiny mesh of their ideological filter. Not much real science gets through.
God created the world; the laws of nature were created by God. True science tries to find out what God put in the world. The trouble is where scientists speculate about theology and they don't know what they're talking about because they weren't there. They can't speculate about the origins of life because they weren't there.
People think of science as rolling back the mystery of God. I look at science as slowly creeping toward the mystery of God.
I certainly saw science as a kind of calling, and one with as much legitimacy as a religious calling.
I think it's unfortunate when people say that there is just one true story of science. For one thing, there are many different sciences, and historians will tell different stories corresponding to different things.
Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths.