[Nevermore]

I bet it's tough to teach a science when you can't identify its mechanisms.

Yes. Yet science is full of it. (And you can take that any way you like.) Many scientists are full of themselves. In the end, they are all faith-based, whether they recognize it as a religion or not. Reason (math) & science can only fill in some gaps; it cannot be the be-all, end-all, as much as "godless" people would like to delude themselves. They always require suppositions, propositions, to which there is no end.

[Coyoteman]

Yet science is full of it. (And you can take that any way you like.) Many scientists are full of themselves. In the end, they are all faith-based, whether they recognize it as a religion or not. Reason (math) & science can only fill in some gaps; it cannot be the be-all, end-all, as much as "godless" people would like to delude themselves. They always require suppositions, propositions, to which there is no end.

And what would you prefer?

• The certainty of divine revelation, which requires no thought or investigation? (except that there is no agreement among thousands of faiths--any one of which, or none of which, could be correct).
  
• The bible, with its multiple interpretations (and that is just on these threads!--the real world is far more diverse).
  
• Tarot cards?
  
• Astrology?
  
• Public opinion polls?
  
• Prophets?
  
• Creation science (which version)?
  
• Intelligent design (which version)?

I'll stick with science, thank you.

[donh]

Many scientists are full of themselves.

Perhaps, but that chutzpah pales in comparison to the arrogance of non-scientists who think they know enough to be lecturing regarding scientific epistemology.

In the end, they are all faith-based, whether they recognize it as a religion or not.

There are few scientists who do not recognize that it requires a certain amount of faith to form any concepts whatsover. Faith is not what distinquishes science from non-science, so much as institutionally formalized skeptical rigor.