Science isn't flawed?
At one time science DID take into account what was once considered *supernatural* and it found that there were *natural* explanations for those things, like disease. Who knows what we might be missing discovering simply because some scientists are uncomfortable with anything that does not fit in their narrowly defined, restricted world. The problem is that by categorising things into *natural* and *supernatural*, science is shortchanging the world. It is not very open minded to refuse to examine anything that conflicts with your belief system.
Why the emphasis on Biblical *literalism*? It seems that that is the only way scientists can discredit faith; by placing it in a rigid framework that allows for no other interpretation. If *literalism* weren't in these discussions, there would be much more agreement with science than many here would be comfortable with. I guess we can't have anything from the Bible being given any credibility, because then someone might be forced to consider that other aspects of Scripture might also be true.
You finally got something right.
It is because of what you describe as a narrow interpretation that science studied what was once thought to be supernatural. However, it is misleading to assume science accepted a supernatural explanation. It did not and that's precisely why such supernatural subjects were studied. Science works on the premise that there is a natural explanation for the world around us. And guess what? Every time science studied what was once thought to be supernatural, natural explanations emerged.
It seems that that is the only way scientists can discredit faith; by placing it in a rigid framework that allows for no other interpretation.
Two popints. First, science doesn't care one way or the other about religion, Christianity or any other. So to say it is actively trying to disprove the Bible is very misleading. Science comes up with the best fit for the physical evidence. If that contradicts Scripture, it is not science that is to be blamed. Secondly, a lot of people take Biblical literalism very seriously, I'm sure you've seen some of the arguements, not only in these threads, but in a variety of topics. With literalism removed, it would not change the outcomes of science, but it would allow a deeper understanding of creation without the emotional conflict over the decision to use a literal or allegorical interpretation of certain scripture. Evolution would still be the dominant unifying biological theory. But, as you accurately pointed out, a philosphical understanding of God's role as the creator of evolution could be more readily accepted by certain elements of the scientific community. Keep in mind, however, that philosophical view is not a scientific view, but it is shared by some of our fellow Freepers who are well aware of the boundary betwen science and philosophy or religion.