In his original post Trogopterus asked for a Dawkins quote, and mine related to the previous paragraph, not the subsequent one. I am not necessarily claiming that Dawkins believes that science is the purveyor of all truth, but he definitely gives off a lot of this fuzzy, mystic, awe stuff. This whole meme about science and its inability to provide "the truth" is extremely common on CiF. It is commonly used as a tactic to delegitimize scientific enquiry in favour of religious thinking. What is glaringly obvious to me however is that no one who makes this kind of argument ever bothers to define what "the truth" is or means. Without such a definition, this claim means nothing. And for the record, no scientist has ever claimed that everything can be known through science. But that in no way implies that religion is a legitimate way of answering those remaining unanswerable questions. Simple assertion based on intuition or faith is not knowledge! This whole article rests on a very dubious equivocation between the process of science, and the body of knowledge which that process has generated. Okay, fair enough mate, no one here believes that scientific theories are in any way absolute. What we do believe is that the pursuit of rational inquiry, and allowing nature - rather than our fanciful notions of what we wish was true - be the final arbiter in what we believe might be true. Science operates not by seeking to prove theories, but to