There is two very different ways that people look at science and the answers and question it provides, the open minded way and the believer’s way. The open minded way require that you adress science as tool to understand that natural word, without alreay assuming answers for your question. While the believer’s way look at science as way to prove that his answers are true.
Most often this comes in the form of religion, where the believers need science’s answer to be god did it. Science might explain just about everything but in the end the result must be, god did it. This lead to twisting of observation and interpration of theories to give them supranatural weight or worse trying to force observation to fit with scriptures, which tends forbid avenues of knowledge and reduce the impact of science on humanity.
Will writing this post I realised something, the open minded person does not approche science without looking to prove his answer are true, but he is willing to accept his answer might be wrong. This is the greatest difference between the two, one is willing to accept his answer to be wrong, the other claims science is wrong with observation disagree with his answer.
Tell me, which one would you prefere the next generation of scientist to be?