The author of this article misses the point. When people refer to science or neo-darwinian evolutionary theory as a “religion” what they are saying is that it requires just much faith to believe in as does a religion. We all know religion takes faith, that’s nothing new, but science is supposed to be only what is observed and verified, not guesstimation. This is not meant to be a statement that ultimately derides religion, but rather a commentary on how modern biology holds to unverified ideas as all but fact. The scientific community is just as capable of dogmatic behavior as the rest of the world. When they encounter major holes in the fossil record or when it is discovered that proteins will never form from the amino acids created by simulating “early earth” atmospheric conditions they simply move on in search to prove abiogenesis is true rather than seek the truth, whatever it may be. Agnostics look down their noses at people of faith as though they actually know better when they don’t. The fact is they require just as little proof and are every bit as accepting of information they themselves can’t verify as those who believe in a religion. The difference is that it falls in line with their own philosophical outlook. Very few people are actually actively looking for truth and willing to abandon their core beliefs when presented with evidence that refutes those beliefs. The majority of the populous simply looks for facts to help enforce in their minds what they’ve already decided to believe. And you are no different.