[qq=Besimudo]Hence, scientific truths have less impact than mythical ones. My dilemma is when people attach mythical proportions to science. They deliberately attach emotions to a practice that should not inspire these feelings ... hence, evolution is tricky, like heliocentricity because it removes the diamon from our awareness.[/qq]

Who are you to say what shouldn't have emotional value to people? I find the truth (meaning scientific truth) to be much more "emotionally valuable" than a pretty fairy tale; not in a mythical sense, but in a sense of wonder and appreciation and excitement all the same. And it's not only emotionally valuable, but provably, demonstrably practically useful as well. Best of both worlds.

Removing the demons from our awareness is one of the best things that ever happened to mankind. Because demons do not exist. You sound as though you value ignorance, so long as it's nice, pretty ignorance.

[qq]My argument is that we need to reflect on it once in a while, if not, more often. Sure, its not logical, it is not real, but these stories are fascinating. Moreso than the excitation state of a quark or the gluons that induce attraction.[/qq]

I enjoy a good myth. Mostly as entertainment. We can learn things from myths. Things about the human beings who wrote them. They are fascinating at times, yes.

Using myths to understand the universe is different though. It's silly and wrong. Wrong meaning inaccurate. It leads to false conclusions.

[qq]Yep. I work at the School of Pharm and applied science ... this is afct we don't want you to know. But ... 75% of all drugs developed come directly from precursor molecules derived from plants. Scientists still go into the forest thieving off natives in hope of a panacea. lol[/qq]

"Derived from plants" and "thieved from natives" are not nearly equivalent. Please substantiate this claim.