Err.. No Keith. I don't "believe" in science. The term sounds like something one of pete's "evolutionary scientists" would come out with.

Science is discovery. You take as a fact till it is satisfactorily challenged and then see how that impacts any other hypothesis. Belief is the art of hampering the scientific process.

Compare the two conversations;


Musket to vicar. " It seems to be rather established that the earth is older than the bible says, that virgins don't drop kids, that you don't come back to life when dead etc etc.

Vicar to Musket. "Blasphemy!"

Or...

Vicar to Musket. "I read your thesis and noted that one of the key elements you based your main formula on has subsequently been challenged and some modelling devised by a university in The States suggests the relationship is only logarithmic within certain parameters and gravity plays an increasing role at outer perimeters of your model.

Musket to vicar. "Wow! That's great! Have you got their details? I'd like to write a revised paper."

(That's Musket by the way, not me. My MD is safe because it was purely research. Musket was telling me his doctoral thesis has had a battering in recent years and he was even on the viva panel of one student who challenged his earlier conclusion.)