I don't want to disagree with you because I don't know if you'll listen to me. Some people here have taken correction very poorly and all things being equal... I'd like to avoid the drama.
Let me just say that science and religion have very little in common IF you approach science scientifically. There are a lot of people that try to turn science into a belief system and their version of science which is not science is similar to religion. However, it is a perversion of science or a misunderstanding of science and not science itself.
Science does not ask you to believe anything. It merely asks you to gather empirical facts, reason them in testable ways, propose theories based on that, and then test those theories again using empirical testing.
I won't bother explaining how that differs from religion because that should be obvious... pointing out the difference is both tedious and a waste of my time. But you should see how they're not similar at all.
That said, the people that wrote this article for NPR want to turn science into a religion. And for that they must destroy science because science as itself is not a belief system. It is a process.
You can be a christian, a jew, a hindu, an atheist, a capitalist, a communist... and still be a scientist. Science takes no sides and cares nothing for these belief systems. You can be a hardcore party chinese communist or a died in the wool American capitalist and be equally scientific.
Why? Because science is spock-like. It doesn't care about your petty factional disputes between your primate social groups. None of it matters to science. The person writing that article for NPR wants science to take sides.
If science does that... it will destroy itself in the process. And the people advocating this either do not understand that or worse do not care because all that matters to them is winning some pathetic political fight.
And if you look around slashdot... you'll find many of their minions. People that pretend to advocate for science when really they just want to use science... to chain it... to enslave it... to pervert it... to whore it... to use it up... taint it... leave nothing left.
And I find that offensive. They must be repelled, disgraced, lampooned, thrown down, and rhetorically pushed up against a wall and shot. It is unacceptable.
They win and science dies. And for what? For a few months or a couple years of undeserved clout in political games until they've so tainted the scientists that misusing their names no longer even gathers support.
People must understand. Science is not a belief system. It is a process.
Its like baking a cake. A recipe for baking a cake is not a belief system. It is a recipe. Simply saying "but you believe you'll make a cake if you follow the recipe" is not sufficient to call it a belief system. You could as easily say that directions to the corner grosery store are also a belief system because I believe it will lead there. Never mind that I know it will lead there. Never mind that it can be tested. Never mind that science not only is willing to accept correction but challenges you to do it.
Religions, ideologies, and belief systems in general do not challenge you to disprove them. They tell you that "X is true" period and refuse to accept correction. Ask any belief system if they really want to get into a discussion about whether their core beliefs are valid or not. None of them are willing to have that discussion. They assume they're correct.
Do people that believe in freedom want to defend why slavery is wrong? Do people that believe in communism want to defend why that is right or wrong? Do people that believe in any given religion want to defend why their god is right or wrong about anything? Not really. They just assume it and in many cases will fight to the death to protect their belief system. But will they actually argue for it on a rational basis?
And neither would science argue for itself if it were turned into a belief system. Science currently is very happy to defend itself on this basis. Science has no bias even about itself. Science is without shame. It is this "spock-like" quality that makes it trustworthy. Science won't lie to protect itself from audit or correction.
Turn science into a belief system and there will be an orthodoxy. A correct view... many that report on science for the media want to institute this... they say "don't give equal time to people that disagree with this or that." However, while science doesn't regard all views as equal, it doesn't have any problem with discussing opposing views. The idea that some views should be excluded is not a scientific but rather a political view. Some feel that if opposing and wrong views are discussed it will give those views weight amongst laymen. Therefore, to help laymen have a correct view those opposing views should be excluded.
However, that is not science. Science in its purest form is as happy to talk to someone that is completely wrong in all things as it is someone that is completely right. Neither one has precedence because the judgement as to whom is correct and whom is incorrect is not determined by anything beyond empirical fact. If you don't have your facts then you don't have your facts. Just that simple.
Attempts to call things science without facts are equally invalid. No evidence... no science. And many times people will say "but getting evidence is hard or impossible because of Y"... science cares nothing for that point. You either have an empirical basis for your position or you do not. That something is hard or impossible is not science's problem. The recipe for the cake requires pure unadulterated evidence. No substitutions permitted unless you want to call the resulting product something besides science. If you want to bake the science cake... you need the empirical. Period.