Look at the difficulties Watson and Crick (sp?) had, or Darwin, or Tycho Brahe, Copernicus and Galilei, when they challenged the scientific status quo.
However, science has the benefit that correct thinking (for lack of a better term), i.e. falsifiable experiments and theories, usually get vindicated in the long run. Whereas organized religion has the schism. Really, Luther had a point, but the result was a schism we aren't over yet, despite 500 years. Or the several popes ruling at the same time..
The difference is inherent in both systems:
The scientific communtiy has peer review, and is a bit of a meritocracy, where as religion is always top to bottom. This irks me particularly in the Catholic Church, because it is bassackwards, if you ask me, since there is no Church without faithful, and the clergy is supposed to be primus inter pares. Very little of 'pares' to be found here, but lots of 'primus'. :\ |
