No, this has been pointed out to you before. In the *real world*, hard evidence is the *only* reason to value one subjective 'belief' over the other. No theistic religion has evidence of any kind, and science is nothing more than a methodology that *requires* evidence to backup claims; one is certainly not equal to the other in any real sense. Trying to state that 'it says so in a book written 2000 years ago' is 'evidence' on the same level as is required in scientific investigation is a fallacy and is incorrect. I'm sorry to have to point this out, but anyone can write a book, and that book can say anything they want it to say; unless it's contents, when claiming to be factual, can be verified by reliable sources, then the book simply isn't credible.
Science is the logical process of approaching the best answer for why a phenomena occurs based on the collected evidence. This process cannot be wrong. Only the data collected or the setup to collect the data can be wrong or the subjective interpretation of the data can be wrong. Disagreeing with the scientific method is inherently disagreeing with logic itself. Bad data or poor interpretation of the data leads to inconsistencies. This process of testing and retesting is a core part of the scientific process. This understanding through science will gradually lead to a closer answer of the truth behind phenomena.
And just as an answer to sweetbreeze, if that is your real name; it's perfectly okay for someone to have their own belief system, their own core values and individual opinions. If they were of the mind that those opinions and beliefs, despite being just their subjective 'take' on reality, were objectively *factual* and more 'correct' than *actual* facts that we *know* about the real world, then yes, I would call them uninformed or uneducated. It's entirely fine to believe in a god or gods; it's not okay, for example, to believe that the world was created 6000 years ago by the direct Hand of God and all evidence to the contrary is just him 'testing us'. There's a point where 'personal belief' crosses over into 'denies reality'.
And kigl is correct. Science is nothing more than the application of logic, empirical deduction and human reason to attain knowledge about the world around us; disagreeing with this process in itself is inherently disagreeing with logic.