The thing that bothers me in your note is the implication that there is
no objective truth. Christian belief was instrumental in the
development of science because Christianity held to a rational deity who
would create a rational and understandable world. But if we start moving
to the view that 'science is not value-free' it begins to look like
modern Christianity is advocating precisely the opposite of what it
advocated when science developed. Under this modern Christian view of
science, it looks like we are saying that there is no objective truth.
Truth is arbitrated by the 'values' of the individual. Thus YEC science
is true for the YEC and old earth science is true for the evolutionist.
Different values; different sciences.If the last sentence is true, then
no amount of research will be able to convince an evolutionist of the
truth of YEC--you have undermined objective truth. Is this what you
really want? I think it leads to sloppy epistemology and sloppy science.
And if scientific truth is arbitrated by the values of the individual,
then what about religion? There is not a big distance between doing this
to scientific truth to making religious truth relative. One might even
say that it is easier to hold to relative religious beliefs than
relative science. Science at least has observational data, most
religions have only subjective data. The view of science you are
advocating implies that it doesn't matter what you believe about God,
who He is, or what He did so long as you believe something. This type of
belief would mean the end of Christianity as we know it.