Nope. A scientific theory differs significantly from layman's theory. Nice sentiment but wrong. and science is not an art form it is about evidence and data and repeatable research. Religion is like fictional stories or narratives.

Science is ever changing but I choose science and reject religion. It seems religion is "never changing" except for the continued interjections of apologists. then we have the idiots who think 2 plus 2 =5.

I choose science, and reject religion. I demand facts and evidence to support my view. Religion is devoid of facts and evidence, and relies only on blind faith. The Bible is full of false prophecy, contradictions, and stories that are debunked by science. Religion is a scam (have you ever been to a church where the preacher does not beg for money?) based on mythology. So, religion does not rise to the level of a "theory." Therefore, I choose science, and reject religion.

There is no point in having a theory unless one can test it. All religious conclusions are deliberately untestable.

On Art. It depends what you think art is. IMO Art is an expression transmitted with a human sense of vision,sound even words(poetry) etc. There is little point in putting in rules and regulations because it has to be free expression to get the feelings out. So I translate Haldane's statement as "you can write or surmise or produce what you want". That applies to religion, but with science there has to be this crunch testing time that separates the useful from the hopeless cases. Religion in effect is a hopeless case because it tries to reach conclusions before any test or way of checking validity.

Doesn't sound right at all.

Every thing humans do is an art form , in the sense of made by art rather than given by nature. But there is good art and bad art. Like flags for example, there's the Red Cross/Crescent, and there's the Swastika.

How do religious "theories" apply?
Why do we need theories if we have Natural Law as the sole arbiter, ideally, of moral conduct?
Religious doctrines may be seen as distorted codifications of this innate sense of right and wrong, in my opinion. They are apparently describing right moral conduct for those who need it spelled out.
Art form? Maybe, in the sense music, or poetry, etc., can elicit or reinforce certain feelings,convictions and profound thoughts, so too can religious or scientific prose.

I think that's hogwash.

Bleh! Not a fan of middle of the road equivocation.

Yup accurate

I suppose science may be considered an art form, but only in a superficial way. It is really everything around us that causes wonder, curiosity, love and learning! Religion only makes me think of closed minds with no curiosity. Which in turn causes so much grief in the world. And that's where the trouble usually comes from in human behavior.

there's truth and there's fact. they're not always the same.

I'm also wondering why you would even really need religion at all to regulate your conduct and not just science. I can very easily see how morality could be constructed through scientific means alone without religion at all.

Well the first thing I think when I read that is to say A wise man regulates his conduct by both religion and science sounds somewhat vague in the regard that there are millions of different religions that someone could conduct their conduct by.