Thanks, but my understanding is still struggling.
I can understand (though I do not share their view) that there are those who profess a particular faith which they feel is incompatible with science, and my instinct is, that is a personal matter with which the state must not interfere. What I do not understand is why those of such a faith do not simply choose to ignore science, as they have deemed it irrelevant, rather than to launch a campaign to change the nature of science as if it could be made compatible with their faith.
That seems as bizzare to me as if I were to launch a campaign to make Buddhism compatible with my love of hunting. I've got enough on my plate campaigning against the socialists in power here (who have outlawed things dear to my heart) to worry about Buddhists...
From my point of view on the same side of the pond as you the solution is quite simple. Let US Public Schools have Religious Education Classes and Religious Assemblies before school. These can reflect the dominant religious beliefs of the local area, with a nod towards the beliefs of others. At my school religious jews simply didn't attend the religious assemblies, they came in at the end for school announcements (though they were still required to attend the RE classes) but most catholics did though the service was protestant. I expect that your experience was similar. My parents expected me to attend the assemblies even though my family is atheist; the experience was seen as an important part of understanding our shared culture. Science in science class. Religion (which is an important part of what binds society together) in assemblies that parents can choose to exclude their children from if they wish, but compulsory RE for all. I'm an atheist, but I have no problem with school time for religious instruction and worship, and I expect despite the anti-evolutionists protests about the "scientific assault on their religion" few on the science/evolution/secular/humanism/theistic-evolution side of the debate would object to that.
There may be a downside to my suggestion from the point of view those who would like the USA to be an even more religious society. Most european countries have some level of compulsory religious content in their public schooling system. Perhaps that is why Europe is now full of Godless Atheists. After all "literacy hours" produce an illiterate population; why should "God hours" produce anything but a Godless population?
You're asking that all who can't take the metaphorical route, and who deem scripture to be hopelessly incompatible with the world, should behave as the Amish do -- reject modernity and live a simple, pastoral life. I share your desire that those who reject the world should peaceably retire from it. Better for them, and better for all, really.
Alas, there is a mindset that seeks to remake the world in the image of its own desires. It's commonly seen in Utopians of all stripes, and of course it's the driving force of ideologically committed Marxists. It's not uncommon in various religious groups. We're currently at war with such folk.
Before I'm accused of equating creationists with Marxists or terrorists, let me state (this is necessary for the literalists among us) that I am not doing so. Rather, I am describing a kind of Utopian urge that is capable of manifesting itself in a number of different and often incompatible core beliefs. The one common feature is the imperative to struggle for aggressive "reform" of the world.
There are those of us who profess a faith that is incompatible with certain interpretations of the evidence. Science is not an enemy of faith, but a means to discover God's creation.
For instance, I do not believe the TOE. Not because it's science (it's not, in the strict definition), but because of the way it evaluates evidence.
I've heard that if you take all the fossils ever discovered, and try to formulate an opinion on the history of life on Earth, it would be the equivalent of taking four random pages from "War and Peace" and trying to formulate the plot.
Sure--there's evidence. Sure--it's even plausible. But there's not enough to state that it's definitive.
I love science. I just don't agree with the interpretations some have put on fossils.
There is a sign on a restaurant called Joe's crab shack, down the street from where I used to live, that I think is analogous of what I think science to be.
It reads, "Free crabs tomorrow." That is the promise of science. The promise is always forthcoming, but never really arriving.
"What I do not understand is why those of such a faith do not simply choose to ignore science, as they have deemed it irrelevant, rather than to launch a campaign to change the nature of science as if it could be made compatible with their faith. "
Wow. Very impressive 2000+ post thread, now in the Smokey Back Room. But I wonder, are you any closer to getting your questioned answered that was in post #1?
Here are a couple of things I would suggest you consider:
You have bought hook line and sinker the notion called 'the nature of science'. I would suggest you review this article discussing something called the cartesian split. It is quite interesting.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1421661/posts
But, I would also suggest you consider something a bit simpler:
GUTS: the Grand Unified Theory of Sex (or why the T.o.Evolution HAS to be, at least, partly, wrong).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1316020/posts?page=164#164
I still think the fight in the USA over science and Religion is really about sex and how it is experienced. And I really think the Europe has experienced the ...ahem, history, it has b/c of a LACK of attention to this issue.