With less than 500 years of real science in our history humanity has made some significant strides in putting some fairy tales behind us. The microscope is probably the tool that more than any other revealed the truth of the small in our world. The telescope (in all wavelengths) is everyday showing us the truth of the large universe and particle accelerators have come along way defining quanta. Of course there are many other examples of science tools that help put mythological answers into the past.

It's should be obvious though that overall science has failed to usurp what could be viewed as the final mythology: theistic religion.

With that being the case then, when? How long will it be before science is accepted and believed wholly by humanity? Does every human have to have access to the science before it happens? Is there some information yet to be discovered that will have the leaders of institutional theistic organizations step up and say, "Science is right ... we were wrong."?

Or does the questioning nature of science presuppose that it cannot reach the necessary threshold to establish itself once and for all as the eminent provider of answers? I'll use a bit of controversial example here; the Big Bang Theory is science's explanation for our existence. Yet it is full of problems that allow both science and mythologists to criticize it (BBT'ers please refrain from explaining how perfect the BBT is). This "give and take" of science is very important of course, as it is the method by which the ultimate truths (which are necessary for dominance) finally take shape. It is science's way to say ... "we aren't sure yet" ... right?

Is it all just part of a long drawn out culture war that will eventually be settled? How can science ensure it's fair chance to rise to dominance? Should it become more involved in politics? The religionists are organized ... are science organizations anywhere near as effective? Does science need to emulate the religionists and establish it's own temples for fellowship?

Don't humans who rely on reason have an obligation to contribute to the downfall of mythology?

Yeah ... I know .. that's a lot of questions.

The short answer is...probably never.

I think enough scientific advancement has been made to explain most phenomena which directly effect humans. Faith by definition is Not based in rational thinking, hence any amount of science will have little impact on faith. The need for god is psychological. The world is a dangerous place where few things are in human control. Some people feel secure by having the faith that a highly powerful father figure in the sky will make it alright. Some others can't get themselves to accept the inherent meaninglessness in life and try to find the meaning in religion. Also there is the community that comes with religion which appeals to humans who are social animals after all.

I think Science should do what it does best and there is no need to get more organized or involved in politics. If a theory is proved beyond doubt, there are only 2 option for a person - a)Understands the theory and accept it. b ) Fail to understand the theory and reject it. Getting more organized/ involved in politics will only give a reason for the person who has not understood it to complain.

I've long had an interest in magic tricks.
I'm trying to remember where I read about a simple mentalist trick (simple tricks can be the most effective.) The author said that you can show the trick then explain to people how it you did it, and some will claim that no it's real and not a trick.

Even after being shown how the trick worked people believed it was physic powers.
So it appears some people prefer myths.

I haven't had that happen to me personally but it would be interesting.

Religion has distinct advantages in it's battle with naturalism: Religion in it's core message, asserts a positive and thus can never be proven wrong (although many of it's specific claims can be to a reasonable extent), religion embraces faith based reasoning, thus requiring no evidence to be proven right and religion can redefine itself to suit any situation.
Naturalism on the other hand, asserts only tentative positive and negative specific claims including no core message, and thus can always be proven wrong, embraces logic and evidence-based reasoning, thus requiring significant evidence in order to be proven right and cannot redefine itself to suit specific goals.

The mere existence of religious naturalism and pantheism shows just how capably religion can deal with any level of assault from naturalism, and based on all of this, I don't think naturalism will ever fully replace religion, although I do believe naturalism will eventually come to dominate our modes of thought, precluding the widespread acceptance of religious-based claims which run contrary to the preponderance of evidence, and making faith-based reasoning as distasteful to our future society as race-based and sex-based thinking is to our own.

The long course of the evolution of human understanding from ancient mythology to scientific method is complicated and messy, and obviously the arguments continue. It also includes the long and painful evolutionary transition in human interaction from competition to cooperation.

We are still primitive creatures. In most contexts the big questions are:
Who won?
Who is doing it with whom?

Assume that in today's world that 90 percent of people "believe" some mythological basis for our existence. Of that 90 percent, I'd expect that somewhere around 80-90 percent of them "believe" ... it is because they've been indoctrinated/programmed as children and/or because their insipid minds find using their reasoning faculties difficult ... i.e... most people hate to think.

It is those "sheep" that science must capture but it is impossible to make the case to them. I believe that science has a responsibility to pimp itself more. Scientists need to stand up (ala Richard Dawkins) and make it's case to the 10 percent or so of people who don't hate thinking. Science doesn't have to convince the sheep. Convincing the 10 percent that actually utilize their reasoning should be enough. The sheep follow them.

So who are these 10 percent? They are the men and women in power in todays world. They are politicians and businessmen that currently kowtow to the religionists because they see that as their path to success. Do you really think Barack Obama goes to church to renew his faith? No ... he goes to appease that segment of his supporters.

My future-sense tells me that unless Science begins to be much more highly active politically, culturally and socially that at some point reasoning people outside of science are likely to take the same sort of political action that we see the nutbag rightwingers taking these days with regard to issues like abortion. They feel powerless in the face of current law so they take it into their own hands. I'm afraid at some point even generally rational people who see that religion is fvcking the world (and that is as certain as death and taxes) will take matters into their own hands. Pissed off righties have given us 9/11, Olympic bombings and murdered doctors ... Pissed off lefties have easier targets and many many more of them.

Trolling:
So .. scientists: Find ways to incorporate your truths into the cultural and political world. Start doing it now. Without an ongoing effort today, I fear greatly for tomorrow's churches. I believe it is your RESPONSIBILITY to do so. I know there are many among you who would disagree and say that a scientists job is to do science and nothing more. You probably think Edward Teller was a great scientist when in fact he was a sniveling pig. The future NEEDS scientists to become activists.