In the frames of this article we are going to condemn science and the persons who work on this field, and the wrong statements made by the scientists. Then, we are going to point out the resemblance of art and science and their differences. It goes without saying that criticism is obvious for any science and, specially, for art. But not any critics can be accepted, it is very important to prove the facts and be ready to explain all the points. So, in the article we try to propose the elements of critics and the facts.

First of all, science mistakably regarded as religion and with time got the same status and the same rights to influence on people. On the day of its birth science supposed to develop and become a theory and, by the way, to get the necessary qualities in order to replace the religion and to be ready to give the answers on the questions on which religion could not answered. Using different methods and techniques in XXI century science had enough powers to stand on the place of religion, it turned to be the issue for faith and even for devotion. Such situation developed very quickly and the trust in science turned into unquestionable correctness.

Emile Durkheim was first who stated the science as the theory. Such theory had the opportunity to provide with enough time and proposed official religion but the base for it was science. The presence of great number of science permit the belief in the facts which were proposed by them and it was the reason for quick replacing of the religion on the second place even in the questions concerning the creation of the world. But such unquestionably facts were of double nature. First of all, science is grounded on the experience and it is certainly impossible to make any experiences on the creation of the world and the correct facts are still unknown. Secondly, science and religion are very different in structure and size, so it is wrong to stand these two things as science and religion into one row.




By: Andrew