> Regardless of how or if you take any of the above, I'm curious about your criticism of science.

I don't really have time to get in to detail about it right now, but I still felt like posting this little bit. Remember when I said that religion is "like a congressman trying to pile a bunch of gun legislation on to a bill to increase education funding"? Well I'd say science is like the same congressman trying to pile a bunch of education funding on to a bill about gun control. Science is supposed to be completely concerned with falsifiable claims, but it itself often rests on nonfalsifiable ones. There's a step between collecting data and popping out theories where a lot of times assumptions are made, (I think Stephen mentioned one of them) things like occam's razor, the invariability of physical laws, etc. There are really an infinite number of theories which could explain any set of data, and even if you pick one and falsify it with some new evidence later, there are still an infinite number of theories which fit that new piece of data as well. People are trained a lot of times to like certain ways of thinking more than others, especially people trained in science, and we use that bias to help us narrow down the infinite number of theories to a more manageable size. Then we "test" it, but eventhough experiments never work out exactly we still don't throw out the theories because we attribute the difference between expected results and actual results to human error, or some unknown factor or something. Newtonian physics was really nice and simple, but then Einstein came along and made everything a lot more complicated but a lot more correct, but if there wasn't a mathematical reason for relativity, he never would have discovered it, and we probably would have attributed tiny tiny speed differences when we got to 10% of light speed to human error or some other unknown factor. On top of that there are scientific theories like evolution which can't be tested but we call them scientific anyways because the building blocks of the theory are all falsifiable even if the theory as a whole isn't really. Even more problematic than theories that guess about the past are theories which guess about things we can't see, like subatomic particles and whatnot. We can never really test if there's an electron cloud around an atom, we'll never be able to see it, we can just keep testing to see if things turn out the way we expect they would *if* there was an electron cloud around the atom, eventhough there might be some other crazy explanation for why it acts that way. Quantum theory is just excruciating, trying to falsify claims which according to our own theories change if we observe them, that's pretty much the backbone of nonfalsifiability. I lied, I had time to get in to some detail, but I didn't have time to proofreed.