There are two parts to the issue: a) the general "intellectual" (or "enlightened" or "educated" or "liberal") population's belief in scientific theories and facts: while some atomic premises in science may be unexplainable, higher order claims are (that after all is what makes science interesting!). But people believe in some claim or other simply because it is "scientific" (as I mentioned elsewhere, some of this due to pragmatic shortcuts). For instance, one can explain the chemical
[WS:] Ravi, you have an amazing capacity of going on tangents and bringing up semantic arguments that obscure the issue at hand instead of explaining it. Where the fuck did you get the idea that anyone on this list or in scientific community in general accepts science as an article of faith? AFIK, most people treat science as provisional explanations, subject to constant revisions. This is what most scientific method is about: testing, rejecting or modifying claims.
This is a stark contrast to religion which uses the same trite mantras for the past two to five thousand years, depending on the part of the world, and staunchly rejects any attempts to verify or modify these claims. So what does it have to do with science?
Now, if you want to argue that there are some ideologues or politicos who use science or religion the way drunks use lamp post - for support rather than enlightenment, and to gain legitimacy or to assail their ideological political opponents - why do not you say so, instead making snide comments about people who put some value in scientific method (which is far form treating it as a dogma based on faith?)
Wojtek