The birth of science: when one or more of the earliest human beings discovered that if they rubbed two bits of dry wood together vigorously for long enough they could generate a flame to light a fire they, at the same time, had achieved a technological advance and a testable theory. The theory was that rubbing two bits of dry wood created heat and they tested it in practice every time they did it. That scientific knowledge was passed down, orally, for thousands of years.

Of course there was a flowering of knowledge of the world, in Europe in the 16th century, after the development of writing to record the knowledge, codifying the testing techniques of science by people like Francis Bacon and stimulated by the technology of the industrial revolution. But the essential nature of science, a technique of gaining useful understanding of how the material of the world works has never changed. It has grown exponentially and now can throw light on every aspect of our existence. It can even reveal why some of us believe in a supernatural realm against all evidence.
It is, I believe, quite misleading to distinguish science from technology, they are both aspects of human understanding.

John Warren,
On the contrary, science differs from technology because it forms theories that describe relationships of cause and effect that are invisible to the observer. Those cave men who rubbed two sticks together did not work out that friction created heat and hence a fire. They lacked even the most primitive theory of why this worked. Copernicus is an apt example of scientific theorising that produced an understanding of the solar system that could not be arrived at by simple observation. To a naïve observer it was obvious that the sun revolved around the earth. It took Kepler’s observations and Copernicus’ mathematical description to tell us otherwise.

Technical knowledge cannot predict a new outcome while a scientific theory can. All technologists can do, without theory, is to repeat themselves. Also, technology without theory cannot extend understanding. I stick to my guns, natural science arose in Europe in the 16th century

I guess what really irritates scientific folk the most is that fundamentalist religions do not include an element of doubt. Indeed, conservative religions such as Islam have shunned this idealology all together. One vitually never hears words like "maybe" and "possibly", or phrases like "it seems to me" and "is indicative of" in a Muslim discourse. However, this SHOULD be the case as the historical data that gives the Koran its context is less than solid. For example the Hadith were formalised some three hundred years after the time of Mohammed.

On the other hand science embraces the idea of doubt by making probability, error bars, and statistics intrinsic to its makeup. This is important as it creates a more inclusive, flexible and tolerant culture.

So, would it be possible for religious folk to express themselves properly and therefore use catch phrases like, "...in my opinion there is a reasonable probability that Mohammed is a Prophet of Allah" or, "...it seems to me that the New Testament is a reliable source of historical data, although in reality this is far from certain."

Alchemist,
You so misrepresent the message of Christianity because it suits your brainwashed position that, "monotheism is about destruction of the infidels".

The Christian mission:
If in the Christian mission to win the world for God you must kill the enemy you have dismally failed, because you have not saved his soul from destruction. I state according to God you have failed. The mission is to win the allegiance of all souls for the kingdom of God.

In fact to follow Christ means to put one's own life at extreme risk to save a lost person. If it means giving your life for such a cause as to save the enemy you yourself have won. Our example is Jesus Christ himself.

Five unnarmed young men flew into the jungles of Equador in the 1960's landing on a sandbar in the river. The plane was found and their mutilated bodies after failing to return. Were they loosers? No! They were winners, because their wives decided to continue the mission to these primitive jungle people. Today there is a thriving community of people there who follow Christ.

The winners for Christ are those that sacrifice for the benifit of others - not warmongers.

Wow, just skimmed all that.. stick it to the fundies Yabby & Alchemist. Why can't you people grasp the really simple concept that your morals are not everybodies morals, and just because it would make you feel good to impose your world-view on everybody else doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do?

Before the die hard atheists get carried away you should remember that your idealogical position is also fundamentalist. That is, it is just as dogmatic as your average Cardinal or Imam. Or in other words atheists, Cardinals and Imams all choose to have the narrowest spectrum of knowledge and belief.

Real scientists however never the close the possibility to anything; even the counter intuitive.