The difference between science and belief is that science tells what isn’t, whereas belief tells what is. This difference means that science can’t tell what is, because if it could, then this difference wouldn’t be.
The fundamental problem is whether we shall try to verify or falsify statements on what is, and the only consistent solution is that we shall try to falsify them. However, the fact that this problem exists means that science can’t be a belief (ie, can’t tell what is), because if it could, then this problem hadn’t been.
It means that we can’t believe in science, because science can’t produce anything to believe in (on the contrary to what cladists and particle physicists claim). Instead, science is limited to producing methods to manipulate reality. This fact may be hard to digest for some (rational believers and believing rationalists), but this difference does not have any gray zone (or third route). There is no intermediate between belief and rationality. Instead, this problem offers only two alternatives: belief or science.
The difference between science and belief thus means that we have to choose science or belief. I choose science. What do you choose?
Another contribution to understanding of conceptualization http://menvall.wordpress.com/