Which is interesting. But hasn't religion also done that. Martin Luther being the most prominant of the people to go "Hold fire - I don't think this is right." But then you also have Henry 8th. But that was more a "I don't like it, lets change it." Almost like a scientist changing the results to suit his needs if we are to draw parallels. Both have been manipulated, reassesed and changed. Are you sure? Scientists need people to believe them. If you don't have people believing that scientists are right then what can the scientists do exactly? They still have to convince people that their developments and findings are beneficial to be accepted by the population. Religion has been around far longer than the concept of 'science' so it has a head start. The argument now is that Science has to convince Religion that it has some basis in fact. You can see what is being said though? That both parties have believers and without such they can't feasably exist. Science would be able to develop if people shunned it. Same with religion. That is indeed a very good quote. And that is Mr. Ted Goranson's point of view. Unfortunately for some people without a structure of belief they wouldn't have any reason to live (I guess.. That is an extreme point, granted). Religion is a comfort to most people and yes, a way of life and living. Hence why this debate will carry on. Obviously for as long as Religion and Science exist. The following argument will be which will loose it's followers first? Religion or Science?