That Science would even get on the list and Baseball wouldn't highlights the flaws inherent in the notion of man creating things such as web lists.

Science and technology are morally neutral, and as such cannot held up as religions. When I say morally neutral, I mean that its neither intrinsically good or bad. Much good can come out of science and technology, but great evil can be perpetuated using technological means. For example, nuclear energy harnessed for peaceful purposes can do great good, but in weaponized versions, it can lead to great destruction.

Science is our best attempt at explaining the natural world around us. As a practical matter, it is impossible to understand how everything in the universe works. Indeed, the more we discover, the more we realize how little we know!!! Many who deny the existence of God place enormous faith (ironically enough) in an enormously imperfect and incomplete knowledge of science. Just some examples:

1. Science cannot truly understand gravity. I recall that Einstein died while trying to find a "Unified Field Theory" and how it related to the Theory of Relativity. From at least a metaphysical standpoint, we have yet to gain a firm grasp of these dynamics. Now since gravity is such an important subject within the field of physics, and since physics is important for understanding the creation of the universe, why wager one's soul on an incomplete or poorly understood subject?

2. Science has no answers for the big existential and philosophical questions. For example, why am I experiencing my life in my body at this very point in time and not someone else's life in another body and another time? What determined that I should be me or that you should be you? What's the point of origin?

3. Why would evolution conduce to the development through "natural selection" of creatures that requires an ever intelligent conscious mind in order to function? That these biological functions should have greater metaphysical goals should give pause to those who seek to separate God from science and the processes of nature.

Science cannot act as the arbiter of moral action. How can one conceive of morality if we are all developed from the same origins and in the same manner as animals? Without God as an absolute setter of moral standards, morality becomes subjective rather than objective. It can be defined along national, ethnic or even personal lines. A thief might argue that in his eyes his desire to steal others rightful possessions is natural and therefore lawful, or a nation might argue that it is good and right to murder a large number of its citizens through a massive eugenics program. An absence of God tends to lead to moral chaos, nihilism and spiritual vacuum--all of which is the opposite of an ordered universe with easily definable criteria--everything which science seeks to explain! That in the final analysis is the end of any postmodern philosophical system.

The biggest mistake people make is separating science from God. Science is our best attempt at understand how the universe works--how its all orchestrated. Certainly we should endeavor to discover the big questions, but we must also remember that our understanding of scientific processes is fragmented, speculative, and disjointed. These are man-made theories that many times are just stab in the dark attempts at understanding processes that might be too difficult to grasp. A clear headed observation of nature reveals that there is a larger Mind at work.

  Unfortunately, many people do treat science as a religion. Example:

Those who bought the specious idea that artificial infant formula was an improvement over mothers' milk.

What a boring-ass religion.

with absolute certainty proves Islam which is revealed by the creator so I gave 2 stars but in no way I see it as a religion. Some facts, lets say you created a DVD player, will you turn yourself into a dvd player to correct its functioning the way you designed it? probably stupid to even think about. So why would you worship what you came up with as a man or women. Just because, Islam is in arabic should prevent you from learning the truth; I guess if your conviction is turned off by all the hype, you would research and prove. Islams, Quran is not a science book but no one has proven the science it does contain is inaccurate. to end u know evolution doesn't contradict Islam, but I have a hard time making any scientific sense of it. So if you worship this flaky science, by all means seek the truth!

Science is a bunch of lies that care nothing about the facts. It's all written in the Bible that God created the Heavens and the Universe and yet scientists completely ignore this. If we were meant to be fact finders, then GOD would have written it to be so. Don't let the DEVIL condemn you to HELL by misleading you into any other TRUTHS. Jesus is the WAY and the LIGHT, and Science is only there to confuse you with their LIES! lol I hope you didn't take me too seriously.

I think Einstein caught the true importance and reason for science,

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

not a religion. GOD IS GREAT

UPDATE: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is only 25% as effective as the heart beating on it's own. Mankind is getting smarter every day. Advances in science are taking the superior human race further and further into amazing leaps in dealing with health and social issues. Even with all of those advances we still fall so short of the ability of our creator God. There is nothing wrong with science but reliance on it to the point of trying to explain away God is risky and proves that intelligence has it's faults. God blesses us with knowledge but with increased knowledge comes increased responsibility.

..."For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48

If God blesses you with knowledge and certain abilities you have a responsibility to use it wisely and to use it for the glory of the creator.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE: Not a religion even though some use it in their name (Christian Scientists). Science is based on theory and fact. Religion is based on faith and fact. Both use history to prove or disprove their information.

If anyones interested . Atheism vs. Christianity: Pretty good debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Peter Singer. There are 12 You Tube installments. http://www.tothesource.org/dsouza_singer_debate_4_2 5_08.htm. Parts 7-12 don't work at this site, go to http://www.youtube.com/user/tothesource1

The day that scientists can create something like Monica from a test tube, is the day that the debate between science and religion will end forever....

Another feature of religion is belief in something that cannot be proven. Science tosses out faith in trade for facts. Doesn't meet the standard for being a religion, so it doesn't count.

Update: the reverence some show for the laws and theories have caused me to reconsider. Could be plausible, but not something I subscribe to as my belief system. :)

Science is not a religion.  It is an intellectual and practical activity that studies the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world.  The study is based on reproducible results achieved through observation and experiment... basically the opposite of religious study.

Well, it doesn't qualify as a religion because it actually tells the truth and gives answers to questions.

 Technically, science in itself should not be a religion.  However, it is understandable why someone would rate it as such. The reason is is because all throughout history scientists have argued differing ideological viewpoints and on faith like it is a religion. Examples are during the time of Galileo when Galileo held the Copernican view of the universe, and he made bitter enemies of the University professors at the time who held the Aristotle view of the universe. Moreover, both opposing sides hold these views vehemently and on faith like it is a religon.  Nowadays, little has changed in respect to what I said previously. For the past century, as we all know, new theories of the universe has emerged. Theories such as the Big Bang which proved the universe has a beginning and the six finely tuned values of the universe (where if any one of these values were just a smidgen off life wouldn't be possible) gives the appearance of a Universe that is a fix-up or is designed. Therefore, due to the fact our universe appears to be designed by a creator that transcends the universe has made plenty of sceintist uneasy. As a result, new hypothesis such as the multiverse, String theory, and Intelligent design has been used to explain this away. Instead of cooperating and seeing each other's views you have your multiverse hypothesis scientist who loathe your string theorist who also loathe your intelligent design people and this isn't the way the sceintific picture ought to be. Science by definition is coming up with an empiracle falsifiable method used for predicting phenemona and understanding the "How's" of our universe, not ideologies used by scientist today and in the past. However, as you can see many scientist argue over unfalsiable hypothesis that can't be tested or is difficult to test in the laboratory. String theory, the multiverse hypothesis, and Intelligent design all can't be or are difficult to test in the laboratory which goes against the rules of how the scientific method ought to be.  To sum all this up, science should give empiracle falsifiable explanations of the "How's" to this universe whereas religion answers the "why's". When a scientist comes up with a hypothesis that can't be tested one shouldn't argue about it on faith. They should try to hone it into a model that can be tested then that's when it's worth to debate about. This goes to show that scientists (by no means all) can cling dogmatically to ideas as much as rigid religious people do to theirs.

If religion is defined as a method to lead to a set of beliefs, then sure I'll give you that science is a religion. However, my definition of religion is a set of beliefs that is based on no methods of determination.

Clarification #1: I am rating this 1 star because science is not a religion, or at least it should not be a religion. Unfortunately, in my study of high energy physics, I have ran into more than a few physicists who do treat it as if it was.

Clarification #2: As you read this review, you should probably know that I am a practicing Catholic.

Scientific theories such as the big bang and evolution are valid theories that should absolutely be taught in science classes. For succinctness, I will use "creationism" when describing the view that the big bang and evolution are incorrect. (I personally don't like this definition, because I believe that God created everything, but I most certainly find scientific theories such as the big bang and evolution to be valid. So technically, I guess I'm a creationist, although most wouldn't consider me to be one.)

"Creationism" is not science, and has no place in science class. It's that simple.

Now is where I have to outright disagree with magellan. Like it or not science and religion are not completely unrelated, because in the end, both deal in large part with the explanation of our existance. They shouldn't have to compete with each other, because science and religion deal with different aspects of our existance, and they use completely different methods. An oversimplistic view (and since it is an overly simplistic view, you will be able to come up with counter examples, I'm just trying to make a general point.) is that science deals with "how" and religion deals with "why."

Science has no good reason to say that God didn't start the big bang (Current scientific theories are rather lacking in "before the big bang" details). On the other hand, I can't find anything (in my interpretation of Christianity, anyway) in my religious beliefs that says that things like evolution and the big bang are wrong.

Science and religion are different things, yet in the end they are two pieces to the same puzzle.

The religous fundamentalists in this country have done an astonishingly good job at framing the argument so that Science somehow competes with Religion and vice versa.  This is captured in the fundamentalist position that both Darwinism and Creationism are "theories," and therefore should both be taught in High School science class.

This is preposterous and reeks of overreach of the worst sort.

Those posing as even handed pretend as if each discipline somehow make up for each other's weaknesses.

This is incorrect and foolish.

Science and Faith are two different worlds, two different disciplines.  They don't compete with each other, and they don't complement each other.  When I have kids, I will not allow my child to go to a Church which pretends to teach, say, chemistry.  And I will not allow them to go to a school that attempts to disguise Creationism as Science.

Do you believe in science? Do you trust in science? Do you have faith that the science is not a religion? Do you hope science could disprove religion? See, belief, trust, faith and hope are the main arguments against religion, yet science is based on the same principles. Go figure.

Update: Science can describe, observe and experiment on objects or phenomena. But it fails miserably in explaining how the integral parts of matter for instance have come into existence.

Creationism can describe, observe and experiment on objects or phenomena. And id does have a credible and highly probable explanation on how the integral parts of the matter have come into existence.

Five stars for its utility and value, but it isn't a religion.

The discipline of science requires proof and the testing of such proof, and the retesting of proof, and the reexamination of the testing methods in light of new data.

And in the expectation that the "Theory Argument" so beloved of creationists will come up, here follows the definition of Scientific Theory.

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. 

Note that there is a big difference from that and the definition of non-scientific theory, which is

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture

Here endeth the lesson.

Someone said that it is anti-religion the good. Knowing something that has proof like carbondating is way better then a bunch of made up stories.

A lot of people boil down their beliefs to Science, which is fine if thats your thing, but personally I feel theres too much explaining in this world to do to simply boil it down to Science.

If no religions were created all we would have is science to believe in. Arn't religions just schools of thought? How is science different? Science's 'God' is energy. 

Though the only difference I can tell is that people (scientists) have tested the theories that they have been led to believe, rather than, have principles handed out on a religious platter and declaring that lack of belief in them is simply lack of faith.

What brainwashing stuff!

  Yes, science is not a religion, and actually should not even be soiled by being listed amongst all of the religious cults of the world. But, I for one would like to take this opportunity to remind all of the people with limited intelligence (that means religious nuts) that without the discoveries of science we would still be thinking the Sun goes around the Earth, (the disproving of which led to the murder of the scientist Galileo by religious nuts), and we would have no vaccines or treatments for many diseases. So five stars for science. Have a nice day, religious dimwits.

It's odd that science is ranked here among the religions, but in America, this is apprapo. The people can't, don't or won't even make the effort to TRY understand it, ergo, it becomes just another "belief".
     *************************
    ****   BREAKING NEWS!   ****   
     ************************* 
  - Of Baptists, Bouyancy & Bullshit - "He told churchgoers he'd had a revelation that if he had enough faith, he could walk on water like Jesus," an eyewitness told the Glasgow Daily Record. "He took his congregation to the beach saying he would walk across the Komo estuary, which takes 20 minutes by boat. He walked into the water, which soon passed over his head and he never came back."

   The New Testament records the story of Jesus walking on the Sea of Galilee as he approached his disciples in a boat. "And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea."
( Matthew 14:25 )
 
 Jesus derides, belittles and make fun of one of his followers who could only walk a few blocks across the surface of the water, saying "o thou of little faith."  How many miles are the American believers (80% - 90% of the population) ready to trudge across shark-infested waters for the greater glory of the Lard?

  This is called "an experiment", boys and girls, if your parents want you to go to church and you'd rather stay home and watch MTV, tell them to show you the proof, use a neighbor's pool, a local river or lake, even a sewage treatment facility will work. Good luck. Remember to carefully record your data and make the results known to all by posting the video to YouTube. 

  Don't you agree that Bill Nye the Science Guy should be given Pat Robertson's tax-free 700 Club FCC lecense and TV studios? - Ol' Pat can still be allowed to deny scientific realities and argue with devil technology (like indoor plumbing and the mercury thermometer) but he can only do it using the scientifically advanced equipment and the geocentric telecommunication satellites that he can PRAY into orbit.

You say you've found the Lord? Well, CONGRATULATIONS!
If nobody claims him in 30 days, you get to KEEP him!

how many times do we have to say that it is not a religion

I asked a fellow worker in the 1960's what was her religion. We could do that in those days. She said her family believed in science. I never had heard that before! I pondered it for forty years. In my readings of philosophy, I stumble onto the problem from time to time. Increasingly, in popular thought, science and religion are incompatible.

The closest theory I ever read about approaching to a reconciliation of science and religion comes from the medieval philosopher, Thomas Aquinas. To paraphrase, he stated that there really can be no conflict between the two ultimately since both are creations of God. When science proves an irrefutable point however, then religious faith must yield. The sun revolving around the earth, based on biblical citations, is a good example.

Unfortunately some scientists, who should be guided by the scientific method, become wedded to a scientific precept and adhere to it as if it were a religion even when it becomes untrue. In this respect, they profess a religion.

Jomama69 should do some reading about the various persecutions done in the name of science and learning. Scientists can be as intolerant as the religious. I know this from experience!

Not a religion, although creationists would have you think so.  Five stars for being a reliable way of learning about the world.

Who made the decision to allow science as a religion??

Take this off the list - it is not religion. Why in the world would it be at the top??

Not a religion, but it is the only thing you can trust. Who needs fairy tales!

I really don't think of Science as a religion.I have known non-religious people who put great "faith" in science,but did not "worship" it.I also do not subscribe to the position that Science and Religion are inimical.The theory of evolution no more refutes a "higher power" than does the fact that the Earth is round and orbits the sun.It does,however,make us open to the idea that the Bible is full of Parables and is not meant to be taken so literally.One thing Religion might learn from Science is that change and adaptation are necessary,vital parts in the journey of human consciousness.When science is proven wrong,it does not "stick to its guns" and start wars.It goes humbly back into the lab and keeps looking for the truth.

Logic is far superior to religion.

Great, technology, but im telling you, it will be the death of us all

Science is great of course, but it not a religion! Why is it on here? Could the administraters perhaps take it off this list? I think if there is anyone who would say their religion is science then they are just mixing it up with atheism or agnosticism.

It could be considered a religion I guess, I don't know I mean it is based a lot on beliefs and theorys but i'm not sure???????????????????????????

I mean, I like science. But is it religion? It doesn't seek to answer the same questions.

I've been pretty objective on this list, so y'all know full well that I am not talking out of my ass when I accuse this of not being a religion. It has no concept of the divine, no stories or scriptures, and no real teachings. If anything it is anti-religion.

For the millionth time, sciene is not a religion.

Science is based on repeatable proof. Religion is based on faith! Science does not preclude religion, religion does not preclude science, but they do not overlap. Intelligent design is religion, because "unexplainable" gaps are filled in with a "Creator". Science simply says "I don't know how that works" and then goes about trying to figure it out.

Parroting everyone else, science is NOT a religion!!!

Science is not religion, but an attempt to explain REALITY. Religion is about fantasy and wishful thinking.

Science is not a religion science is a study like math or english. When we have the Arch Bishop of Biology let me know, and no cheap catholic jokes.

As a religion...?As a tool of religion it is the blueprint of reasonable evidence,for it cannot contradict God but work only as a means to discover,reveal,and prove the existence of God.In whatever field,study,angle,or degree of science opposition,there is always a scientifical explanation/answer to counteract the denial of a Creator,it's creation and preservation...So like all else,it has it's purpose and reason;and like all else it can be misused,and abused.

But it's not a religion! When was the last time a scientist burnt somebody at the stake for not believing in gravity? Or blew themselves up because they wanted to go to E=MC2?? It just don't compute!!

When did science become a religion? I gotta stop spending so much time on the internet.

Einstein was a genius, he believed in a creator. This world and universe reeks of intelligent design. Science isn't a religion but it is useful. This website needs to take Science out of the Religion category.

Science sux!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Science is not a religion, the methodology is different to religion. I have to say, I am passionate about science and it's infinite possibilities.

God uses science and the laws of physics to govern our existence. Their relationship is reciprocal. By themselves, they leave questions, but when combined, they explain everything.