The American Anthropological Association (AAA, not to be confused with the automobile advocacy group) caused a furor among anthropologists because they decided to remove the word "science" from the mission statement. And you thought mission statements were just a way to waste time arguing and eating company donuts.
Rex of the anthropology weblog Savage Minds writes this about the debate:
At times I feel like the real distinction here is between thoughtful people who are aware of the complexities of knowledge production, and those who are for psychological reasons strongly committed to identifying themselves as scientists and everyone else as blasphemers. This approach is, of course, not very scientific and verges on being the close-minded inversion of the fundamentalist Christianity that thinkers of this ilk so love to oppose. Why anthropology is true even if it is not science
It's my layperson sense that the processes and mechanisms of science were layered onto just about every human activity in the twentieth century, whether or not those activities actually needed it. When things that are not science try to recast themselves as such, it does neither of them any good. It certainly didn't do literary theory any favors, and the Elf tells me that music composed under popular "scientific" theories of composition tends to be sterile and dull.
Then consider the intelligent design movement, which tries to "prove" Biblical primacy and fundamentalism through empirical evidence. Not only does that movement abuse science, it weakens religion by shifting the focus away from questions of morality and ethics, where religion has the most useful things to say.
And consider this: a Christian friend of mine once said to me about the Bible: "either all of it is true or none of it is true." But what does whether or not the world was created in seven days have to do with how you treat your neighbor? Fundamentalism and modern biblical literalism have tied the message of Jesus to the scientific validity of myths written millennia ago. The only reason you would do that is if you wanted the ramblings of various-guys-writing-as-Paul to be accepted with scientific certainty.
Some things just can't be science. At least not yet. Oh, some day science might be able to effectively address the interpretation of texts; but to say that science is the only acceptable means for understanding the world around us is to say we have to remain silent about those things science cannot yet address. Science as the guiding principle of understanding closes far too many doors.