`  The surface issue at hand is the statement that it is not enough to summarize the book, but that it MUST have a ``judgment from science`` attached to it. The surface reasons given quote WP:X for a wide range of X. Yet the actual discussion is based on what I said above: the feeling among some that ``science is King`` and must trump religion within Wikipedia articles. You opened the door to the science discussion yourself above Mr King when you brought up ``terrible science`` referring to Genesis when I asked why Shiva is not classified as a myth, but Genesis is singled out for that purpose. you started revealing your feelings about it yourself.... Now, before I start analyzing your thoughts....   `