"Religion is taught as dogma. Science relies on observation, evidence, and testing of hypotheses. A very clear distinction."
Well except for the whole Global Warming business.
And teaching of Nazi scientists regarding lesser races.
And phrenology.
And doctors who study "harms" of silcone breast implants, mold, dairy products or whatever the liberal boogeyman of the day is.
Note I am not saying evolution is junk science by any stretch --- just pointing out that scientist are people and they have their dogmas and boogeymen, too.
Ask the president (former president?) of Harvard.
Actually, I think a majority of scientists at Harvard supported him. Steven Pinker, bête noire of the IDers around here, backed Summers strongly.
"scientist are people and they have their dogmas and boogeymen, too."
Good point. That's why I get so irritated with junk science even when I agree with a theory, it tends to obscure good science.
Quite true, but ethical scientists strive to eliminate bias. Most clergy I have encountered are completely closed to notions or concepts other than what they learned in seminary.
"Global warming" is not science either. If anything, it's mutual assent to ideology masquerading as science.
Check out Michael Crichton's most excellent presentation on the subject: Aliens Cause Global Warming: Why Science-by-Consensus Isn't.
Why is it that when you want to insult someone you call them religious?
Or are you praising them for having faith. I can never get straight whether faith is a good thing or a bad thing.
With the exception of global warming, very few of those were embraced by any reputable scientist.