[C Elegans]

Originally Posted by Magrus

Having a structured way of viewing your environment and the world around you.
Having strong beliefs in the way that you percieve things to be.
Having definate views on the why, how, what, when and where of your life.

This is not science.

1. Having a structured way of viewing your environment and the world around you. As Frogus point out, every human being has so, it's just the exact content, the level of awareness of the content and the degree of flexibility and why your view change, that differs.
2. Having strong beliefs in the way that you percieve things to be. This is exactly the opposite of science, and what scientists do. Mind you, a scientist is also a person and may hold personal beliefs about a variety of things, ranging from politics, religion, art and sexual prefence, but personal beliefs and views are strictly kept from scientific views. Science is based around the idea that personal perception is worthless, that is why data is collected and analysed by impersonal methods and every observation must be independently replicated.
3. Having definate views on the why, how, what, when and where of your life. This is not science either, this is about how people view their lives. Again, our personal lives matters not to scientific questions. The aim of science is to describe and explain the mechanisms for, natural phenomena. The "why" we leave to the philosophers to ponder.

A fundamental question to ask when we investigate the basis of people's way of thinking is always: "what would make you change your mind?". If a scientist holds a certain view, s/he will always change her mind if objective evidence points in another direction and his or her first view was falsified. What will make a religious person stop believing in the existence of a god?

Originally Posted by Magrus

However, the sun isn't exactly like the moon, where people can wander about on it's surface, collecting samples and analyzing them. Pictures can be taken yes, it can be watched from a distance yes.

In what way does it give safer knowledge to walk around at the moon than to make observations with instruments? Do you believe human senses and human interpretation of their senses are infallible? You know they are not. People can feel and believe they feel or experience all sorts of things. There is no guarantee that what humans perceive with their senses is more true than what is registered by a spectrometer, for instance. On the contrary, empiric in vivo observation (experiencing things with your own senses), one of many methods to collect data, actually show a lot less reliability and validity than reconstruction and replication.

Is it not just a theory still of what the sun is comprised of and how it came to be? Just as the belief that the sun was a deity? No proof, just a concept and faith in the reasoning which led to it?

"Just a theory" is the argument the US creationist use when they argue evolution did not happen, and the flaw with this argument is that they fail to understand that like Vicsun and Frogus describes, everything is "just a theory", no absolute knowledge exists about the world (maths is a different thing sicne it defines its' own axioms). A scientific theory must fulfil specific criteria, whereas a belief, any belief, must not. There is a difference between justified and unjustified belief.

Religious "theories" (like god exists, Muhammed is the only profet of god, Christ was resurrected, etc) are not falsifiable. All scientific theories are falsifiable. Science is a self-revising process with an inbuilt system for revision. Religion aims to present everlasting "truths" about the world.