skeptic, did you think of a response to my post #350 about CSI? Can you explain why some ideas about how a crime was committed fit the evidence and others don't?
I often find that people who say science is not based on facts and evidence (when it comes to evolution or fossils) have no problem with the exact same techniques applied to solving murders and robberies. Or diagnosing that a sick child has the measles and not lung cancer or a broken leg. Or making a bridge that withstands heavy trucks or a rocket that can fly up into space.
If science was a 'religion' then its applications would only work as often as random chance, the way religion does. With religion, you just have to take it as it is and then make up reasons for why it doesn't work. Religion offers no way to test solutions and see if they are correct or not. Religion is the same as doing nothing.
With science, you don't have to "believe" in it, and pretend that whatever happens is what you wanted anyway. With science, anyone can test it and see what happens. You test a new medicine against a placebo and you should only keep using the medicine if it works better than nothing. With science you get closer and closer to accurate predictions about the world as you discard the things that don't work. Bridges don't fall down as often, kids with measles get better more often, people know when a blizzard, a tornado or a hurricane is coming, you push a button and things work. Life is not quite as scary and unpredictable because science helps us to plan and prepare. The scientific method is the only way we have found that beats random chance.
With religion, that is not so. You can't test god, as we are often told. You pray and get yes, no, maybe, later. There is no way to test prayer-- to figure out how to pray better and reach god with more accuracy. Every religion has the exact same accuracy rate-- the same rate as random chance. That is why people keep inventing new religions-- the previous ones don't work!