[Revolting cat!]

The doctrine of human science is no different in its format and its rigidity from a doctrine of a church. The difference is that a church doctrine may have divine sources whereas scientific doctrines are by definition human made. Since science in other words may be said to be chasing its own tail or be feeding on its own tail, many people put their faith in church doctrines instead (and not just because they're stoopid!)

But science is very much like a religion, ritualistic, dogmatic, exclusionary. The god of science is human reason. And if an all knowing supreme being created us then he/she/it equipped us with intelligence that cannot be equal to his/hers/its.

This is my dilettantish contribution to contemporary nonsense anyway. What bothers me personally about science and its promoters and proponents is their refusal to acknowledge that there just may be limits to human reason. As a lifelong sceptic I laugh at an American science promoting organization called the Sceptic(s?) Society which appears eager to display scepticism about everything except its own scepticism, its own silly little dogmas that we have all heard over and over again.

[donh]

This is my dilettantish contribution to contemporary nonsense anyway. What bothers me personally about science and its promoters and proponents is their refusal to acknowledge that there just may be limits to human reason.

dilettantish indeed. You are describing the state of science philosophy circa 1750. The limits of science and reason have been a hot, even formal topic in scientific circles since well before you were born. See Russell's Theory of Types or Godel's proof of the non-closure of discrete formal systems, or the works of Karl Poppper on scientific reasoning. These are not the backwaters of science, these are key central topics of the last 100 years.