So his starting perspective for science is one that is mutable (and that has been proven in the past and present) and religion as one that has an immutable world view (which again has been proven in the past and present). Both these perspectives can be studied, researched, and tested and thus, it is a scientific propostion.
No, that proposition was neither proven nor tested because it becomes obviously false when applied to religion in general. I just want to point out that a generalization of religion, like most such generalizations, is wrong.
Of course I see that the whole discussion in PHYSICS TODAY has a certain religion in mind: the special world creation dogma by some US fundamentalist groups. They should however not be confused with religion in general or Christianity in general.
