<i>From a metaphysical standpoint, science is like any other religion in that it is how some humans understand their reality. I'd argue it's the best process humans have devised to date for objectively understanding our reality, but I'd argue it is still flawed like many of humans' different metaphysical theories. One of those flaws is a propensity for dogmatic adherence to preconceived notions and a general disinclination to consider other ideas. Many of our now celebrated scientists learned this the hard way in their own times when they became proponents for ideas radical to their contemporary science.</i> As others have ably pointed out, science is not comparable to religion (as Tim is arguing with the idea that "science is like any other religion") in that it takes as its basic principle the amassing of empirical evidence and drawing of conclusions from that evidence. Most world religions stipulate no such demand for evidence, and conclusions are presented to believers as complete, revealed truths. Science does not rely on 'preconcieved notions' as much as it does on overwhelming bodies of accumulated and reproducible data and the conclusions that data points to. Is science flawed? Certainly - it is a human endeavor, after all. The questions and projects scientists engage in are socially constructed, part of broader cultural frameworks. If this interests you, you may want to explore the work being done in the fascinating field of the history of science. Some resources to start with: The History of Science Society: http://www.hssonline.org/society/about/mf_about.html Oxford Museum of the History of Science: http://www.mhs.ox.ac.uk/ This field yields incredible insights and provokes important questions for museum researchers, exhibit designers, and program planners. When presenting scientific ideas, historical context is vital to visitor understanding. The Holocaust Museum, for instance, presents disturbing exhibits on how the methods of science were used and abuse to advance cruel and criminal social goals. But despite the questions of subjectivity, flawed study design, using science as a means to an end, etc., the process of creating scientific knowledge as practiced academically and professionally is fundamentally a different one than the process of creating arguments in support of religious philosophy. Those engaged in the pursuit of science cannot logically engage arguments for intelligent design (as postulated by its proponets) because the arguments presented are simply not scientific arguments by any professionally accepted standard. Nor are scientific theories in any way a religious philosophy. Acceptance of Western science does not logically exclude a belief in creationism as simply defined; the two are not opposites. Trouble begins when they are treated as two competing viewpoints within a field, when in fact they are utterly different lines of thought. ========================================================= Important Subscriber Information: The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes). If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).