Charles Darwin's 200th Birthday

According to Dictionary.com, science is defined as "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." Since we obviously did not spring into existence with an understanding of life's mechanics, (In truth this point is impossible to prove, as everyone alive today was born into a society that possesses at least a rudimentary understanding of existence. For all we know, the entire universe could be a figment of the readers imagination.) science is the process of distilling the kaleidoscope of action and reaction into recognizable and quantifiable patterns.

Charles Darwin contributed significantly to mankind's collective scientific understanding, finding a pattern in the seemingly chaotic play of evolution, blazing a trail that the rest of us could follow with our bumbling brains. He occupies the same lofty tier of history as Albert Einstein, Issac Newton, and Leonardo da Vinci; men whose names will, in all probability, not be forgotten as long as human civilization persists. Their accomplishments brought them resounding fame, but it should be remembered that before they gained such towering proportions in history books, they were no different than the rest of us.

My point is that science is a field of study that conveniently keeps pace with humanity's intellectual evolution, and that all anyone has to do in order to ascend to a similar stratum of history is contribute positively to the general database of scientific knowledge. If one manages to do so with the same inspired savvy, the same daring panache as these intellectual colossi of yore, then that individual's name and achievements will be observed in the same light (however, people will refuse to acknowledge anyone in this fasion until after their death, which might blunt any sense of accomplishment somewhat).

To answer the question then, a balance must be struck between observational analysis and less tangible theories. If someone wants to believe in higher powers, there should be no social restriction to their beliefs, but at the same time religion comes in all forms, some of which might not be conducive to ordered civilization. For example, even though God/s might be vicariously bloodthirsty, I do not advocate sacrificing members of society on alters at the top of skyscrapers just in case. At the other end of the spectrum, a culture based solely on scientific knowledge does not seem like a good option. Focus on a single theory to the exclusion of others can result in crippling social shortsightedness.