As such, it is subject to all the flaws and rewritings that can be expected from such manufactured things?. There are three general things to be said here: Science is not supposed to be an unchangeable doctrine, it is a method of figuring out what is objectively going on. If the scientific method is applied properly, change is not just inevitable, it is desirable. Change is part of the idea in the first place, and we commonly call this change, progress. Just for comparison, can you think of a single religion that has never changed along the years? Though it might seem like the third statement dodges the issue, it in fact makes a very important point. The fact that many religious apologists try to accuse science of changing - as if change is a bad thing - tells you everything you need to know about the religious desire to stultify progress and wallow in the warm comforts of tradition. Perhaps the most ironic part of all this is that the very organizations that babble most about the need to stick to ancient tradition are the ones which have most consistently and dramatically changed over the years. If you want to look for the most relativistic and shifty organizations, look for the ones that keep screaming about everyone else changing around them.