Bullshit. Yes, science is a human enterprise, and humans are fallible and can be unscrupulous. We all know that, and over 400 years the scientific method has been refined to -- in the long run -- not be reliant on individual human beings to develop accurate models of the natural world. And everyone agrees that more replication of experiments is key to maintaining accurate scientific models, which is exactly why the OSC did what they did. As the article rightly points out:

These failings need not hobble the scientific enterprise broadly conceived, but only if scientists are hyper-aware of and endlessly vigilant about the errors of their colleagues . . . and of themselves

But what the hell does any of that have to do with religion? There's not a scientist on the planet that needs to invoke "original sin" to know that they and their colleagues make mistakes, or that there are scientists out there who do poor or unethical science and still get published and cited. They don't need to read the Bible, they just need to read [retractionwatch.com](retractionwatch.com).

And how does the author's desire for a more religion-filled science square with his attack on the Cult of Science in the previous paragraphs. Aren't cults religious? Shouldn't those who blindly believe in the truth of science be no worse off than the adherents of other religions who blindly believe in the truth of some ancient text, better -- in fact -- because at least the former have some evidence to back their beliefs?

The oddest part is that just after the author decries the prevalence of "incompetence, fraud, selfishness, prejudice" in science -- which I agree with -- he suggestions religion as the cure? But where do we find those faults in the greatest abundance? Religion, and the vast majority of its followers.