[orionblamblam]

So it's your contention that the best scientific knowledge we have on hand should be subordinated to superstition? I guess I can see the reasoning. The science might change, but the superstition... that's forever.

"... The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator." It continued: "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue."

[Steve_Seattle]

"So it's your contention that the best scientific knowledge we have on hand should be subordinated to superstition?"

I don't defend superstition; and some beliefs once regarded as scientific were later regarded as superstition or pure bunk - alchemy, astrology, the theory of humors, various kinds of racial theories, various medical practices, etc.

[Steve_Seattle]

One other thing you overlook is that many of the supposed controversies between science and religion or science and superstition were actually conflicts WITHIN science, and that the scientific establishment has generally resisted new ideas or new paradigms. Not only was Galileo criticized by the church, he was criticized by most scientists of his day.