“On the evidence history has many examples of “belief systems” in science that go way beyond the practical. Some very evil and destructive world views claimed to be scientifically based, just as many claimed religious origin.”
What you say is true, but that doesn’t mean that such belief systems are themselves science.
Science isn’t supposed to inform us about how we want things to be (i.e. morals and ethics) just how certain things work. Thus science can inform us that traits that are advantageous for survival tend to be preserved in populations over time..... it doesn’t tell us that we should go around eliminating people with undesirable traits.
Science, in general, has prooven to be a practical advantage in that it provides a better understanding of how the world which we can materialy effect works.... and societies which possess a better understanding of that tend to fair better when placed in competition with ones that don’t.
Furthermore, science has one particular advantage over most religious belief systems.... it admits the possibility that it can be mistaken.... in fact, it continualy attempts to test whether it is mistaken....and when it finds it is, it modifies itself accordingly.
Thus, if scientific theory holds that the earth is only 6,000 years old but evidence comes along showing that the world is far older....No problem. The theory gets changed... but the basic belief system of science doesn’t take a dent.
However if a religion holds that the earth is only 6,000 years old because “The Word of God” tell us so. What happens when some-one comes along with million year old rocks? Either we have to disbelieve the evidence that the rocks are a million years old.... or we have to accept that the “Word of God” got it wrong.... but in most religions the “Word of God” isn’t supposed to be ABLE to get it wrong.
Note: I’m not discounting the practical value of religion here. Religion can be very important to society.... but when it inhibits that societies ability to learn and accept the practical ways in which the physical world around them works it can also be very detrimental.
For instance U.S. geologists aren’t going to be very effective at locating mineral resources when compared to thier chinese counterparts if they can’t be taught about rocks older then 6,000 years...... and a country isn’t going to be very effective at developing air defences if it believes God is going to around swatting hostile fighter jets out of the sky for it.
That is what creation "science" is for. It proves the bible is accurate.
Of course, it has little resemblance to real science ... but it's designed to reinforce religious belief and perhaps to fool people who don't know any better, so what's the difference, eh?
In religious terminology such propositions are called "doctrines". But, not all doctrines of a particular religious belief system are held to be as immutable as you seem to think. Some are debated, sometimes passionately and sometimes esoterically. Others are held as central and are supposed to be as uncompromising as you imply. For instance the Christian doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God is considered central to Christianity. But the competing doctrines about the level of human depravity are debatable.
If you will forgive the use of religious terms applied to science, an honest person would have to admit that the scientist is no different then the theologian in this respect. It has its central doctrines such around the reliability of empirical observation and such, and then certainly has its debated and evolving doctrines as well.
Science and theology are both philosophies. They are similar in many respects. Ironically this is heresy specifically to those who worship science as a kind of god.
The chief differences between science and theology are:
1) Science relies on a system of empirical observation of repeatable experiments.
2) Science is the best method at getting closer to the truth of how controllable natural events occurred. It has known many failures and successes.
3) Theology relies more on reason, personal experience, historical events, but also relies on scientific discoveries.
4) Theology is the best method at getting closer to the truth of God, spirituality, ethics, and the meaning of the universe. It has known many failures and successes.
I say use the right tool for the right job. People who make "scientific" discoveries using theology will often look foolish. Just as people who try to make theological discoveries using science.