By all accounts it is not:

1: religion is not a sentient being, so it can’t be impaired intellectually 2:religion is hardly developing later than desired or expected as it was with us for our entire history 3: religion is not socially inappropriate in almost every society, and it is by no means “foolish”, and if you wanr to say otherwise it is up to you to prove it is.

Ac1 is so monotone, why would you prefer it over newer, more polished games?

As far as I understand, science is a human endeavour, so I would certainly not say it is absolute, but I see what you mean.

Although I would say, my position is somewhat different, I do not see any reason to believe that even if these “laws” exist, science has at any level access to them, the “nature of reality”, if you will, “laws of the universe” are metaphysical concepts that can only ever be speculative, scientific laws are not interpretations of them, they are separate constructions.

I quite like that expression. It seems accurate to me, since, as it was pointed out by another commenter replying to you, people do not, in fact, check the experiments themselves, ensure that proper methodology was used, etc. They simply believe what the people in authority positions are telling them, so the word believe is quite accurate - you do not actually know the reasons why certain beliefs, theories are accepted by the scientific community, you just take their word for it.

Furthermore, any scientist does the same thing to the body research that was developed before him, otherwise, every scientist would have to start over.

If science, as it is practised is flawed, by your own admission, what do you mean when you say that it is absolute?