This reminds me of a nationally-publicized legal case near here a few years ago - some people wanted to include the concept of "intelligent design" in the science curricula in their school district. Intelligent design is an attempt to de-religious-ize (
) the term "creationism" here in the U.S. And creationism is generally understood to mean the taking of the book of Genesis literally, as in Fundamentalist Chrisitian perspective.
The motion was defeated, thankfully. In today's world, no sense confusing the kiddies.
Anyway, of course there was a lot of debate back and forth. The creationists felt that science, evolution science specifically, was simply untrue. Their opponents argued that there is no scientific evidence for the creation story.
The most rational comments in the newspaper (with which I agree), said that it is ridiculous to take an either/or position. Why is it so hard to believe that Source, God, Creator, whatever would use means of creation like evolution that we can measure, deconstruct, even reproduce?
Spirituality and hard science are one thing
, just as everything
is part of that one thing. I don't care what the dictionary definitions are. Given enough time (eons, perhaps), science would discover the truth about what we consider spirtuality. There would be no science, no spirituality...just Truth.
My current "spiritual" practice and path involves both, and I'm quite happy with it. I think we are all well-advised to remain flexible and broadminded (not
openminded), and remember that a label is just that.