Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Mohsin - there was a danger of my causing offence, and I am glad to see you didn't take it so. I think you really indicated the crux of the matter in a later post with the statement: Certainly science is not about "Truth": simply probabilities and possibilities to be tested. Religious texts, on the other hand, often have far deeper levels to it than may always be immediately discernible. Ultimately, where science and religion are perceived to conflict, a person may accept whichever perception suits their worldview and life experience better. As for these comments: No offence intended. I was actually referencing about Islam, particularly under the Abbasid Caliphate. A principle difference is that Persians studied astrology, whereas the Abbasid Muslim scholars studied astronomy. The distinction is quite sublime. I have read about half of a certain book I think is named "Voyage of the Beagle" and written by Charles Darwin himself. It's a rather long-in-the-tooth book and not written to support his theories - it's more of a general musing and collection of observations. I can't say I found it particularly interesting, either, excepting for a couple of observations of oceanic phenomena, which is why it was only half-read.