That's a very link-rich review, Lucas! It's certainly true that science tells a more believable and immediately useful tale than myth or religion. But I don't agree that it is replacing religion, nor even that it should. Science and religion are separate and distinct ways of approaching the unknown.

Science says "maybe this, then test this, then probably this, then almost certainly this [until something that explains reality better comes along]."

Religion says "this, now and evermore, despite all evidence to the contrary, because I believe."

Good post! Having read Crichton's latest opus, I'll offer a few comments on the thesis his book advances...

First, I'm unsure about the description of Crichton as a storyteller because as a thriller State of Fear is less than...well, less then almost every other thriller on the market today. It does not deserve to be hitting the best-seller lists. It is episodic, lacking a compelling plot, with an uneven set of protagonists and a tendency to drop into pages of preachy dialogue and situations designed to lecture the reader on the evils of the environmental movement and global warming in general. It makes for a tiresome read...constantly setting up 'straw men" then knocking them down. Several characters seem to exist for the sole purpose of asking stupid questions and then being "edjercated" by the author. The book is enough of a skreed to make me overtly conscious that Crichton may have his own political axe to grind (most notably when a thinly disguised Martin-Sheen actor character meets a horrificly nasty fate).

Crichton also has a strong tech-run-amuck theme that echoes through most of his work. Generally he notes that the human qualities - falliability, pride, power etc. - tend to lead to grandiose attempts to manage nature through science (that's how you get all those damn dinosaurs all over the freakin' place. hell, i can't walk through my kitchen without tripping on one of these compys...) and that science routinely overestimates their understanding of the issues...good points all, but just not very well written.

Crichton does advance the arguable case that the science behind global warming etc. is at times questionable and that both the pro and anti-global warming camps are heavily politicized in their approaches.

My personal view is that as all of recorded human history essentially falls into an interglacial period, we probably don't have a strong enough picture of long-term climate change patterns to make a strong conclusion whether global warming is due or exacerbated by human activities... but it might be best in the interests of prudence to keep a very open mind. It is a small planet after all...