THere is nothing matters when Science proves the facts about the micro-organisms, and interdependent, or symbiosis relationship of the species sharing or reciprocate as a group proximities in any forms regarded scientifically. Fungii, play a good formance, and had man discovered the facts in medicines like penicillines, while the other part, humus have the effect of soil fertility. Even worms, known as Nematodes, although they are single bodied, yet they were discovered, so lately, and are commercially reserved, and farmed to give a good yield in cropping. Arachnides are scientifically provened to be curing cancers, using their toxic chemicals, we sometimes feel a severe pain from, when they sting us. A man's own body has naturally strong chemicals, in metabolism, and diseases defense system. Any poison in the food, eaten, or any unwanted substance found in the mouth, or in the gut, must potentially ignite a certain chemical in the body to mix with the poison, and produce chemically another formula to force out that poisonous food, which we just normally called vomitting. These chemicals in the body system act like a police with an intruder in restricted area. An insulin in the body has a greater effectiveness, and effectivity; however an accessive uric acids cause an inflamtion in the urinary track and cause corrode the walls, thus cause ulcers, in the bladder , and the henle loop in the kidney area. Ecosystematically, living things co-operate with the environment, and adapt to the system mostly in a given atmosphere. Fish under the water breathe through their gills, and their blood is cold. The subject is wide ranged.

Update: Analytically, science is a field of study, based on factual knowledge, but not a religion. Now, as intentionally, as I have talked about the above topic concerning about the way living things interact, and live, or depend on one another, is there any comparison between what I have talked about and religion?..proves that this topic is contrary to what is interpreted, and regarded as part of religion. Science is a discipline and based on researches, analyses, studies,physicality experiment, travels, practicality,hypotheses, and chemical,or biological structure,where as religion is based on believes, totemism divine power, super naturalism, faith,worship, and praise; infact faith is what you believe yet you don't see what you believe, whereby what you believe is spiritually concerned, and might have a linkage with your mind,soul, and spirit. Now read my first review; is there any connection with religion?...In religious terms, we don't have terms like Arachnids, nematodes, moluscs, pachydermia, phylum in general term, fungii, ferns, or pennicillium, or flagellum, but in science, they are mention after a proven facts findings, and are based categorically as according to their special groups. In religion, we find the terms: Sacraments, communion,baptism, holy spirit, father, son, priest, pastor, and fellowship.What is the point to waste the list?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Science helps, we live in a great society with the help of science, but I will have a hard time believing evolution, just because of its highly unlikely ideas.

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!