That's probably true for millions of laymen and even for a few evolutionary biologists (that's you, Dawkins and Coyne). These kind of biologists function as evolution's theologians, those with advanced educations in the doctrines, those who know the technical vocabulary and many of the arguments backwards and forwards. They serve as the apologists who battle against rival faiths. Of course there's the problem of distinguishing between science and religion. I'm not convinced that there's a clear and distinct distinction between them. The borderline is fuzzier. Both of those words are family resemblance terms (see my remarks in this thread). Sciences and religions are both collections of beliefs and practices that share enough characteristics with others in the same class to be assigned to that class themselves. But while sciences and religions don't share nearly as many similarities with each other, they do share some. Science and religion are both worldviews and belief systems that most of their adherents believe in by faith. (The laymen, certainly. Even scientists, when it comes to findings outside their own areas of expertise.) There's a moral component to that faith, where it's typically perceived as being bad to be an unbeliever. (That's you, Bill Nye.) There's a missionary impulse. Science and religion both have universalistic pretensions, seeking to assign a place and a significance to pretty much everything that can be observed and give our lives a context and even (though in science's case it's debatable) meaning. Both embody metaphysical and epistemological views. Both appeal to transcendental realities, personalized divinities in the case of theistic religion, abstract mathematics and 'laws of nature' in the case of science. On the level of laypeople, that's probably true. There's lots of controversy, open questions and discussion in the professional literature, but that's perceived as being controversy within the science, not a challenge from outside. The scientists prefer to keep those discussions under wraps, since the creationists love to get their hooks on them and portray them as challenges to evolutionary biology itself. They used punctuated equilibrium that way, they used Steven Jay Gould when he carelessly spoke of the "Death of Darwinism". The scientists would like to prevent their words being distorted and misused in that way. Sciforums readers will recall repeated attempts by a board participant to use one journalist's account of something that Francisco Ayala (a famous evolutionary biologist) supposedly said at a conference (Ayala denied saying it) as evidence of some kind of conspiracy that, if more widely known, would discredit evolutionary biology in its entirety.