Many times. It is a desperate attempt to equate our consideration or acceptance of a theory presented by a respectable scientist. They think we accept things on faith. You're right to say that, in difference, science has the core belief that everything requires proof and the other person was right to say that we do not worship anything as believers in science.

The only thing is that, if science becomes dogmatic and less open to different opinions within science itself, then it will become like a religion in that difference of opinion is shunned. Let us hope that never happens! 

Well, I work in the biological sciences, and I can tell you that there is nothing dogmatic about science. Scienctific theories are debunked by, new better theories all the time. It moves forward. Obviously there are some things that are held to be absolutely true, but that is because we observe, and rigorously test them all the time. For instance, we know that F=MA (Newton's second law) is true because if it wasn't, whenever we blasted a rocket into space, it would simply explode on the launch pad, and when we tried to move, we would be ripped apart by gravity. Science is only about observing something, and testing it. There is no blind faith involved. There is trust, of course, but always with healthy skepticism. 

"Well, I work in the biological sciences, and I can tell you that there is nothing dogmatic about science."

But by this assertion you do belief induction is valid, while induction is a quite controversial way to claim non-dogmaticism.

"There is no blind faith involved. There is trust, of course, but always with healthy skepticism."

You make the criticism theatrical by calling it 'blind faith', the fact that science is nothing like religion (with which I agree) doesn't mean science in all it's practices and extensions into everyday life remains wholely undogmatic. The point is that in an scientist/atheist society like mine (the Netherlands) people tend to claim validity based on science by neglecting the component of healthy scepticism.

Is there perhaps someone more versed in english who understands the point I'm trying to make. I somehow feel a bit lost in words to describe the highly subtle criticism towards science I try to make. 

Is there perhaps someone more versed in english who understands the point I'm trying to make.

English is my first language. I will understand what you say. Why are requesting someone more versed in English?

Second, I do think there are some people who do take science without question, and I think more people should get a better understand of science. Point taken. But, I also believe that people accept it because it produces results, unlike theism. For instance, whenever you turn on the TV, you are essentially saying "I believe in thermionic emission, electromagentic deflection and the photoelectric effect". Every time you pop a pill, you are saying " I believe in cellular receptor mechanisms, chemical synthesis and protein catalyzation". The effect science has had on our daily lives is so enormous that many just take it for granted which is why they don't bother questioning it. 

There is a fair point being made here.  But to make it properly, we need to make a distinction between science and people who use science.

Science itself is not dogmatic.  It's methodology is set-up to make falsification primary, and so not rigid conclusions are ever set.

 People, however, are susceptable to all sorts of bias, dogmatism, etc.  It is this flaw in human structure that allows things like religion, fundamentalism, and general dogmatism or even party-loyalty to take place.  

Many of these people happen to like science.  These people understand the methodologies of science to different extents and therefore some of them understand it little, and believe that science has simply given us a different set of established laws and conclusions than other things (like religion).  it is this that allows many people to conflate science and religion; they do n't fully appreciate how science works.  

Thus, for some people, the answers that the scientific method produces become a dogmatism because these people don't understand--to varying degrees, that science is a method, not a set of answers.  So in action, these people have a set of dogmatic answers to questions (which they barely understand, I'd bet) that act on their thoughts, behaviors, etc in much the same way as religious dogma acts on the religious.

This is not an indictment on science, but on some people who don't fully comprehend the revolutionary method of science.  These people act 'religiously' about scientific answers.  

What is at issue here is this tendency for humans to be dogmatic, which leads them to accept some set of answers.  Someone who simply accepts the answers of science and not of the Bible (for example) are not really better off in terms of understanding how we get answers--critical thinking. 

It is the question brought up in one of Plato's dialogues, about true belief  v. knowledge.  We can have the answers of science--the best answers we have to date--yet still be completely ignorant of the methodology it takes to reach these answers.  As soon as science finds a better explanation, these people are left scratching their heads, and often then might react the same way as a Christian coming to terms with Biblical contradictions.  II wouldn't be surprised to hear that many people who came to fundamentalist religion have done so in part due to this lack of absolute and set answers from science--that science is relativistic.

They may simply update their answer, but it's not quite the same as understanding that the answer was always tentative.

Shaun 

...or like bald is a hair color...lol! 

Good point...I read the stamp collecting comparison and immediately thought of the hair color quote (I forget who said it originally), which was intended for atheism, not science.  Thanks for clearing that up!

Science is not a religion. Religion and science are both, to an extent, belief systems. I make this distinction because I think the important thing to note here is that the difference is 'blind faith'. That's when a belief system becomes a religion.

The scientific approach is one of fundamental skepticism, this is the complete opposite of a religious stance, namely one of unquestioning belief. Any scientist worth his salt will go out his way to disprove any theory that is advanced, by way of testing the validity of the claim before this claim is ever accepted into the corpus of general scientific theory. Even then it is never, for one minute, assumed that this theory will hold true forever. As such even the greats like Newton and Einstein have had their theories, revised and repaired, over the years, by way of advancing our understanding and ability to manipulate the world around us.

The fact that your average athiest or agnostic layman will place an almost religious faith in the laws of science is merely testament to the strength of the paradigm and should not be interpreted as the position adopted by the majority of initiated 'priests' of science. Those initiates get the biggest kick out of their discipline whenever one of them manages to turn a long held 'belief' on it's head and prove that they were wrong about that theory all along.

My honest opinion is that this approach seems to be headed in a direction of continuous refinement up to a stage where we have the whole deal pretty much understood. Meanwhile religion will be stuck in the same stupid, deferment of original thought, position it's always been, hurling dogmatic abuse at scientists who tamper with the forces of god. I'm holding out for scientists finding a cure for the mental disorder that is blind faith. Also anyone who can come up with a working model, as patently ridiculous as quantum theory, deserves my vote.