Every time that I see this post I can't help but think of how wrong it is. Religion is inevitably built around certain archetypes, so if all religion were wiped out, it would almost definitely arise again as something very similar to what we have already seen. It would likely start with multiple gods each having his/her own domain, and eventually evolve into a monotheistic faith built around a patriarchal figure. Science, on the other hand, is largely iterative; each advance helps pave the way for the next advance. Small changes in definitions could have huge impacts on how future discoveries come about, and changes in global circumstances could necessitate scientific advancements in different fields than what we have seen historically. We could very easily end up with a field of medicine that is far more advanced than what we have today, but still fight military conflicts with steel bladed weapons, or develop nuclear weapons long before we develop any form of sustained flight. The odds that our entire body of knowledge in science, built again from the ground up, would ever closely resemble what we have today are relatively small. Knowing what we know about the psychology of religious thought, I would say that those odds are much smaller than the odds that religion, rebuilt from the ground up, would eventually resemble what we have today. But I think that that speaks more highly of science than what Penn is trying to say with this quote.