A look in the review mirror of the history of science reveals the pattern of scientific dogma. Theories are made, discoveries are made, and scientific "facts" are established. Are these scientific truths and fact presented as "what we know now based on what we can know" or are they presented as creed and dogma? When deeper "facts" are discovered, the previously believed and preached scientific "facts" are discarded without any notice. A new creed and dogma is born, only to die as soon as the next deeper level of relative truth comes along. So why is it that we now look to the opinions of leading scientists, whose musings are accepted as creed and dogma...knowing full well that we don't have all the facts yet? Why would anyone looking back at all the wrong guesses of science, that were once accepted as absolute truths---but have since been revealed as only truths from a limited knowledge, not also come to the conclusion that current scientific knowledge is just as much of a product of limited thinking and limited instrumentation which produces limited and relativistic truths? Creed and dogma is what we have in science. Not objective expressions of "this is what we believe today, but we know it is not absolute." People actually believe whole heartedly that their very, very, distant relative was a monkey. They will claim to know this because of science. They will claim that descent theory is a proven fact (which it is not, it is not proven factually). The followers have embraced science with the same religious zeal and fervor of any religious person. Creed and dogma.