Yeah I’m sure that happens a lot. This was on the BBC though, which tends to be pretty science friendly. Generally speaking I don’t pay a lot of attention to what is going on in the world of science, just reading the odd article or where something becomes relevant to my job. I don’t have a problem with any of it, meaning that I don’t consider the processes by which the universe came to be and how it operates to have any relevance to my faith.I just remain unconvinced by what I tend to think of as science ‘PR’, i.e the kind of presentation of a smooth progression from one set of theories to the next. That doesn’t seem to match up with what I see and read about in history, philosophy of science and other related info. This isn’t much more than a vague impression really, made up of a few things. My closest contact with the world of science, apart from my grandad who started his working life as a chemist, was with psychiatric medicine in my previous area of work. What frankly astonished me and quite often was the level of denial about the problematic history of psychiatric medicine and medical treatments. Both in(admittedly not very many) personal conversations and more often at conferences I was honestly flabbergasted at the kind of indoctrination that seemed to have imprinted an entirely phony version of the development of the field in the minds of trained professionals, something along the lines of a smooth progression bringing benefit to all and that everything was the best it could possibly be, and those wrong ideas about schizophrenia which were replaced by other ideas weren’t actually wrong and anyway we have it all right now etc etc., which is kind of like re-writing history. Another is the quality of the ‘public face’ if I can call them that, of scientific atheism in the UK, mainly thinking of Richard Dawkins - knows a lot about biology, but appears to suffer from an almost total absence of any self-awareness when it comes to tackling anything else. Add to that where there are conflicting ideas you can find scientists on either side who will speak with absolute conviction about their version of whatever it is, offering proofs, and another who will say ‘oh that guy isn’t a good scientist’, and do the same. When the odd truly gifted person comes along with a genuinely new idea, more often that not its their fellow scientists who refuse to accept or even listen to it, displaying an unwillingness to have their own ideas challenged. These things together make me dubious, not necessarily of some of the theories discussed above, but of the overall consistency of the world of science as it tends to present itself. From the outside it looks more like I imagine the world of religion must look like to people new to it.