I suppose I just have an issue with anyone who thinks that they cannot possibly be wrong. There is a huge difference between believing something and knowing it, but I doubt that most people can tell the difference any more.

If you replace dogmatic religion with dogmatic science, then you're just kneeling at a different alter.

I believe in evolution, but I don't know that it is fact. I wasn't around when 99.9999% of it took place, so how could I know for certain?

You could know, provisionally speaking given the data. You seem well-informed in regards to science and you must know that when a hypothesis is offered for peer review, one is asking "How can I be wrong here?" Of course politics infects science as it does all public discourse, but the basic construct of the scientific method still holds.

Would one look to dogma to eradicate polio or smallpox? No, science-based medicine is a far better answer. To paraphrase Einstein, science is in its infancy, but answers questions better than anything else we have. One can be thankful for discovery, advances, without "kneeling at the altar."

Perhaps we're just debating the number of angels on the pin, but my point wasn't that science is wrong. I firmly believe in science (and evolution for that matter), but if you take scientific theory as indisputable fact, how is that any better than the guys handing out Watchtower leaflets or asking you to take their "personality quiz"? It all becomes a matter of degree.

Do I think that the theory of evolution is correct? Yes, I do, and I would not hesitate to argue in it's favor versus creationism, or whatever other origin theory people care to make up. Here's the catch though; I also think it is conceivable that it is not completely correct, and I would freely admit that. How can I believe it if I know it could possibly be wrong? I simply haven't seen anything better given the data that we have.

We don't have all of the pieces of the puzzle, so we really are forming a best-fit hypothesis based on what we know, or at least think we know. It'll just have to do until something that fits better comes along. If you think I'm being obtuse about evolution, just watch me go thermonuclear when someone says the bible or q'uran must be right if evolution can't be fully proven.

As to your example with medicine, you are correct that sitting around waiting for god to cure smallpox was highly ineffective (although it did sort of resolve itself when we ran out of Native Americans), as is attempting to appease whatever affront to heaven that may have brought said plague upon the land. However, say you develop a vaccine and test it out, and nobody in your test group gets smallpox. Do you know that your vaccine was successful, or do you only know that nobody in you test group got the disease? You can't completely rule out spontaneous natural immunities, you can only say that it is highly unlikely that they would occur in that magnitude. Of course, you can make the argument that it doesn't matter because nobody else got sick, but that would just be dodging the issue.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, my problem isn't with science, evolution, or even religion (though I do not partake myself). People are fully entitled to believe what they will, and I'm cool with that, as long as they don't try shoving it down my throat as "truth". My problem is with absolutism, as in those who believe that their beliefs and opinions are irrefutable. People who cannot separate belief or opinion from fact annoy the crap out of me.

To paraphrase Will Rogers, there are two theories on how to reason with a closed mind, and neither one works. I know you're open-minded enough to see the truth in that. /wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />

I am not arguing absolutes, but the best method to achieve some semblence of understanding, and to date our best is the scientific method. And to paraphrase the real Dawkins, we should be open-minded, but not so much so lest our brains fall out. No, when diagnosed with cancer, I will seek out an oncologist rather than a homeopath, thanks very much.

When a cancer patient receives relief for his pain through accupuncture, even if it's only a placebo-effect, I'm down with it. When an accupuncturist claims he can cure cancer, I want evidence, reams of it. Not just a single data-point.