I'm going to defend Sandwhich's narrow views with an already well worn and tread subject:
Science is not belief, nor is it the flaunted religion that many pushers of so-called logic and reason attempt to force down my throat through gutless and cowardly means (insert atheist neck beards). Broad accusation, yo!
Science is a system to test a set of assumptions and testable hypothesis, in many ways, it say NOTHING about truth in so much as a set of results - the predictions are determined in the end by human senses and dealt with by the human mind. Information we receive into our mind isn't just photons and receptors in our eyes - they're metaphors for knowledge and experience. So depending if one is narrowly rooted and in fact fooled into believing the dangerously seductive low hanging fruit espoused by the recent rash of physicalist or materialist philosophies, science is not belief (though I would argue quite a few figureheads are already turning one of beloved subjects into an idol, forsooth). Insert terrible jokes about Neuroscience.
Science is a method, tool of explanation, albeit a form of testing "assumptions" according to a set a standards. But when it comes into matters of Truth, you pretty have to take logic, and kill it.
As I've said, Logic is "Complete" and "Sound" by our systems of reason, but "Math" is a language, and still has vague elements lodged into it. Quite frankly, that's why we can do algebra by placing an "x" in equation and denoting a value or trying to solve for one. Language is quite similar, as words we have today using in slang will have different meanings from the past, take the word "Gay," back then it meant "happy" but has now come to symbolize a sexual choice.
That being said, "Science" cannot form a fathomable notion of meaning - following the disaster known as Logical Positivism, there was a problem discovered that even language refused to be narrowly defined by logical means. Getting back to the earlier rant, simply put Kurt Goedel showed that the there were serious problems with Logical Positivism, and gave a firm death blow that is still to be felt in the mind of the broader scientific community that dabbles in philosophy lightly. It's easy to brush "Philosophy" as a "hobbyist" approach, but it deals in matters that science cannot, will not, and for all might and mane, do.
Science is not truth, and should not be. Problem is there's quite a few who think that way, and I've grown a bit more rash, dogmatic in my refusal to bend to this mindless pandering to labcoats and test tube faeries espoused as god-clothed angels of wisdom and enlightenment. I don't become enlightened by turning on a light bulb, I've got faith the damn thing still works until it reaches the end of its life. I know science is at work, how it functions, and I don't give a ****. There's no "Truth" from my lightbulb aside from the fact I take it for granted. Science cannot be used to derive meaning, or even deal with matters of art, philosophy, and questions of self. It's simply not that venue. Hell, Gould (with his notion of qualia) at least got it right that are problems that science cannot deal with or properly explain.
@Nuke: I don't believe religion taints things as religion is intrinsically human, I'm more saddened the "intellectually" charged have decided to turn a broad topic as "religion" into a bogeyman used to extoll our worst fears and virtue. To those who say "Crusades!" I counter with Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. When dogmatic leaders of atheist movements are shown to actually to support "it may be ethical to kill for believing nonsense" (Sam Harris, good job btw) I think we should damn well step back and question very well what they are thinking and espousing. Believing we can solve the world's problems by "destroying" religion makes as much sense as destroying science. Rather, I find it a lazy intellectual answer to dealing with fundamentalism when we decided to castigate entire sections of humanity as "nutcases" before even delving into what, who, and why they are.
It is worthy endeavor to ask why? But it also an equal endeavor to argue why not?
And I'm starting to sound like John Lennox of all things, hmm....