Check out this talk from NPR Radio Lab's Robert Krulwich... the show's podcast is absolutely amazing (5 stars in iTunes Music Star), and it is an idea I've been wrestling with for a while.
Krulwich's main argument is that humans communicate using two basic tools -- science and storytelling. I think of numbers as the basic unit of science and narrative as the basic unit of storytelling. Krulwich challenges scientists to weave their scientific studies into compelling narratives. Otherwise, competing narratives that may not be supported by science (e.g. creationism) will gain sway in the court of public opinion and conventional wisdom.
So the challenge is to use both tools together -- to weave science into a story and create narratives rooted in science. The Planet Earth series, I think, is a great example of this. They simply tell the story of their main character (Earth) through all sorts of dynamic events or through revealing character studies. It's really amazing to watch, especially since the images are so incredible... that sense of awe that makes you feel the literal sensation of words like "jaw-dropping" and "breath-taking."
This sensation is what makes me defend science so heartily against people who charge that it "dehumanizes" the world, robbing it of "a sense of wonder." I might be making this quote up in my head, but I believe Einstein once said something along the lines of, "the more I study science, the more I am convinced of the existence of God." I think this sentiment is very reasonable.
Surely, science does remove certain wonders, it answers some questions, but as it does so, it opens up the door to such a multitude of beautiful questions. Instead of asking, "When did God create us?" We ask, "How do we think? How do we communicate? What is we?" And certainly science does not resolve other questions like, "Why these forces? Why this order? Why us?" Science is so imbued with a sense of universality and mutual respect that it cannot possibly ignore questions of the ethical realm.
So I disagree so passionately with the argument that science is a demoralizing, demystifying, and dehumanizing force. It's only one part of the equation. Sure, science turns some light bulbs off (of course, God didn't literally create the world in 7, technically 6, Roman calendar days). But science illuminates so many more light bulbs in the human experience; on balance, science is a creator -- of order and curiosity -- not a destroyer. It allows such a sense of wonder in such minute and subtle details and carriers such inherent respect for its living and nonliving subjects that calling it immoral is a complete and total perversion.
