Our description of the physical laws change every time they are found to be wrong. We adapt our current thinking to reflect the evidence and experimental results.
I know what you're speaking of, Johnson. Your beliefs and understanding of the natural world change when science corrects itself to continue to move toward a more accurate understanding of whatever phenomena it is examining.
Your harangue on religion in general is aimed at a fringe group of extremists that choose not to develop a progressive, theological understanding of their place in the cosmos. People engaged in serious religious considerations are constantly finding new ways to evolve their beliefs to meet the changing needs of our time. You can clearly see that in the Bible, taken strictly as a literary work. From OT to NT, there is a development in the relationship between god and man. You often either intentionally or unintentionally choose not to make distinctions like these. When you don't make the distinction, you are being irrational.
People have a need to add meaning to their lives. They find it in religion. Some of these people are well versed in science, but science is not enough for the meaning they seek. And that's okay.
These ignorant, myopic morons who choose only to keep the ancient, oppressive status quo and nothing more are not symbolic of religion.
I need to call you to the carpet on this, my friend. Just as some fundamentalist, religious ideologists sound ignorant of science, you also sound ignorant when you state things like "it takes religion to fly into buildings."
Make the distinctions. How has science created harm to people and the environment? Think of some examples.
Should I start to opine that because science is destroying the environment, all scientists are bad, science is bad, and go from there? Of course not.