We all think that science is god right? Like it must be right if scientists say so? Maybe a healthy scepticism is called for?

Do you mean God or good?

OK...I can answer the question. It is god to those who are ignorant of real science methods. Examples: "Clinical studies have shown...". What clinic...Bob's? "I heard that such and such scientist said that...". Which scientist?. " My teacher said.....so it must be true.". Show me the proof. Hey...you want a straight line co-relation? Use only two samples.

Your premise is flawed.

Science is a process. 
It actually welcomes healthy skepticism and inquiry. 
It is about researching questions and discovering answers. 

The concept of "god" is a belief system.
Most of which do not welcome any skepticism, and believe they know all the answers.

This post was edited by Walt O'Reagun at March 23, 2017 4:59 PM MDT

Hi, DDB...

Yes, scientific materialism is a belief system, and its adherents show all the qualities of worshippers in an unwholesome sense...I know, because I was there for FAR too long...

...so I would go even a bit further than skepticism; I would say the scientific method is valid only within a very limited framework of human experience, and that there are not many who understand how to practice the scientific method authentically.

* * *
The folk truly beginning to explore into deeper dimensions of reality are the quantum physicists and their cohorts in fractal geometry, chaos theory and such...and if you are to proceed there, you must be willing to leave the old paradigms behind.

Science is a tool.

Like all tools, it is useless for producing certain results.

And some possible reality simply does not fall within its purview.

So as a "god" it would seem rather impotent and ignorant---hardly attributes of a god I would worship.

I think we should be wary of generalizations. Science has opened countless doors of understanding, but not everyone finds resonance with what is behind every door. This is not a bad thing. I too hold a high regard for what science and the method have wrought, and shudder to imagine our world absent it.
But we should realize that in the grand scheme, we humans are still emerging from the infancy of our species, that there is yet so much to be found, learned and refined. Many missteps will be taken, but the path is ever forward.
Skepticism IS healthy, inviting inquiry, it keeps us from complacency. Gods don't invite skeptics, nor inquiry; they stand in the place of our ignorance and complacency. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at March 23, 2017 4:59 PM MDT

Of all human endeavors, science is arguably at the top.

I think what you mean is pseudo-science.

Actually we don't ... Science is about putting forward a theory and testing it and changing it and discarding it as he information come to hand

Science is not self supporting, so the first concern of a scientist has to be to avoid discovering anything that embarrasses his patron. Success is measured by approval of other scientists, which assures continued support, use of exotic equipment, and professional contacts, so a scientist must also avoid discovering anything that his peers disagree with. The only reason science ever advances at all is that old scientists die and are replaced by young scientists with different patrons and different peers.

No! My faith is in the God of Abraham and in God's son Jesus. Scriptures in the Holy Bible and books that went into it, like the books of Enoch, my hero, It is what I believe. This post was edited by O-uknow at March 24, 2017 9:34 PM MDT

I am skeptical that science has been able to answer the mystery of the origin of life on earth.  They taught me that nucleic acids, amino acids etc. within the "primordial ooze" fell together by chance to create the first macromolecules which then fell into place to become the first cell.  In order to divide and perpetuate life, that cell had to capture, store and control-release biochemical energy.  The most common way living things capture energy is through photosynthesis with chlorophyll.  Biosynthesis of chlorophyll requires enzymes and enzymes are the products of genes.  The probability of the right nucleic acid falling together in the right sequence to make ONE simple gene is one in a trillion raised to the sixth power.  Modern chlorophyll requires TEN enzymes.  So cellular production of the right enzymes to make the first molecule of chlorophyll was ten times less likely than that. 
So, if life did not originate by known scientific principles, how did it come about?  Could it be?????? This post was edited by CallMeIshmael at March 24, 2017 9:35 PM MDT

No, I don't believe science is God. My God is the God of the Bible.

The problem is "academic". Greek Akademos was a sacred grove near Athens where the goddess of wisdom was worshiped. Membership in that church was by invitation. Aristotle was the most famous member. To this day, his name is a synonym for "arrogant jerk". And that is how our academic approach to science began. Like it or not, science is a religion and always has been.

Science does not work in the way scriptural literalists do, by presenting a few, fixed ideas as absolutes no-one may analyse or test. If it did, we would still be living in something like 16C conditions, because that route helps no-one, questions nothing, finds nothing and gains nothing.

  The notion that it must automatically be right if scientists say so, comes from poor understanding and reporting of science and the philosophy and methods of science, not from scientists.

Something becomes a scientific Law, i.e., unequivocal, only once it has been proven over and over again. Until then it is a Hypothesis or a Theory; so a set of suggested explanations that best fit the observations and current knowledge.

The science we learnt at school effectively demonstrated Laws by using simple experiments that showed them working while also giving us experience in designing and performing experiments. Such Laws may include the geometry of simple reflection, the behaviour of simple electrical circuits or the actions of acids on metals: these are all consistent and indeed used professionally as among the basic "tools" of Science and Engineering.

Until it reaches that stage, any piece of knowledge is open to test and re-test; and may be rejected if found consistently faulty, or new evidence shows it mistaken. Even where pretty much accepted because nothing else can explain the observed phenomena, a theory may still be open to detail change as techniques and equipment improve, new finds are made, gaps in knowledge filled.

Continental Drift was once thought absurd: geologists called the continents "rigid masses" and could not conceive of them moving because they could find no way to move them. Then along came better ways to study the oceans and what they hide in their dark depths, and not only were the masses found not rigid and immoveable, but with it came at last understanding of volcanoes, earthquakes and mountain-building. 

The Theory of Evolution is still theory because it fits everything we know but its details, and the way it actually works right down to cell biology, are constantly being refined - but each new discovery or refinement re-inforces the parent Theory.

A geological suggestion called the Inception Hypothesis is that because it attempts to describe a mechanism that cannot be observed in action for simple physical reasons - not least time - by postulating an answer to an awkward question previously rather glossed over because it was so hard to investigate. (It is concerned with ground-water movement through formations of soluble rocks like limestone.)    

Scientists are human, and humans can make mistakes or be open to undue influence; and this can be disastrous for science as a whole as the MMR Vaccine / Autism panic showed. There, the scientist (a doctor) responsible suggested a link, but his methods and analysis were very badly flawed. Unfortunately by the time his peers had had been able to show he had been plain wrong the Press had reported it as fact and caused all manner of problems as a result, but was then poor at reporting the subsequent correction.

Healthy scepticism is required, but it is already there. It is a pillar of scientific method, and scientists use it all the time! It is only the popular Press and politicians who imagine Science is immutable and god-like.