Crow, I may be more inclined to agree with you, but I recommend avoiding perturbation.
Wild, I'm equally irritated with pop-apologetic: I don't have a problem with science in itself, except when it's used as an ideological method for manipulation. But I think your conclusions are impractical. You take issue with those who denigrate science because you believe they do so in order to think highly of themselves, which implies that what most bothers you is that someone who doesn't agree with your pet-ideology thinks they're cooler than you.
Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
This is the problem with modernity: it's more obsessed with abstract status-symbols than results. But don't misunderstand me - if you thought that the conservatism that this website espouses is a fear that liberalism doesn't run a materialistic economy well-enough to allow people to masturbate safely within the confines of their private property without fear that mismanagement will force them into danger, then you came to the wrong website. You'd be better off reading Ayn Rand than the material here.
ANUS, and later Amerika, always spoke out against that brand of thinly disguised liberalism called neo-conservatism. They have supported an efficient use of our resources, but for the purposes of manifesting a vision of greatness. I'd like to ask everyone to remember the years of material upon which this current edifice is founded, because that old maxim that reality lacks inherent meaning renders this struggle of the ego a moot-point. We can decide that life is beautiful enough to construct a microcosm of it, and be pleased with it; or we can choose to carefully preserve our delusions until we're too old and feeble to carry on. There's a lot of different paths to this goal, and some fit the description of being 'religious' while others don't.