As a Biologist with a PhD in Neurosciences, I’m well aware that this is a controversial subject for both scientists and religious people alike. Scientists consider it ridiculous even to entertain the notion that science, a human achievement built on logic and reason, could possibly have anything in common with religious myths.

1. Science Requires Faith
Even highly-specialized scientists will often pursue a certain line of thought, and explore the implications of certain theory while rejecting others, based on nothing more than intuitive preferences, and their sense of what is elegant and right.

Most people who reject the religion they once accepted will claim to have done so in favor of the reasonable, clear-cut answers provided by logic and science. When asked to explain the existence of the universe, they’ll mention the Big Bang and M Theories; when asked to explain the existence of humans, they’ll mention evolution.

When pressed to explain any of the above, however, they soon realize that they actually understand very little. They were exhibiting blind faith – accepting the theories without comprehending them. If you don’t understand something, yet accept it as the truth, then you’re simply a Believer – and like much of science, you’ll find yourself well within the territory of religion.

2. Most of Science is Unfounded
Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Quantum Strings and Ego –all of them sound like plausible stories. But can anyone point out the Ego locus in a dissected brain? Or use the concept of Dark Energy for anything besides helping to explain the expanding universe –another scientific theory? There is no actual proof for any of these theories.

That’s right – we have no proof for the existence of 96% of what science thinks the universe is made of –and yet the theories explaining it (we call them theories to avoid calling them stories) we hold to be true. Why? you ask. Because we have faith

3. Science Will Bend to Accommodate Modern Trends
If you think scientists are immune to the pressure to conform to public opinion –think again. I am not even going to consider the announcements made by scientists under totalitarian regimes (such as racist “conclusions”), because I consider these to be forced aberrations.

Instead I will use the scientific approach to homosexuality. It was included in the list of personality disorders of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM) up to its 1973 edition. It was then removed – only to be replaced a year later by a close variant, before being removed entirely in 1986. Upon what evidence rested the changing decisions to include or exclude homosexuality among mental disorders? Public sentiment, backed by convenient “empirical evidence”, played a leading role.

4. Science is Based on Established Dogmas
Ever wonder how for centuries, the best doctors could insist on blood-letting as a cure – without ever noticing that their patients did worse? The answer: belief in blood-letting was part of the scientific dogma at the time.

Anything contradicting this dogma is simply rejected and ignored, or ridiculed for as long as possible. Science thus has the trappings of a full blown religion.

5. Science Has Its Own Priesthood
Newton, Darwin and Einstein serve as the holy trinity of western science. And below these are the elders: Watson, Crick, Dawkins, Hawking, Dennet, Chomsky, Penrose and Sagan. And then you have the High Priests: the Nobel Prize winners, the popular writers and the media celebrities.

Their opinions are received as sermons, and their statements are quoted like sacred texts. Ordinary people are ridiculed, if they doubt the interpretations of this priesthood. Even for scientists, questioning a member of a higher tier is done only at your own risk. After all, all scientific work (from papers to grant applications) is peer reviewed, remember?

6. Science Has Its Own Code of Ethics
There are state laws, and there are moral laws. And now, according to science, there are “laws of scientific conduct”. All kinds of atrocities are committed in the name of science – take a doctor, for example, who has to give placebo pills to a number of his patients in a drug trial, knowing that they will suffer or die much sooner than if they had received proper treatment.

But scientific advancement almost always claims precedence over personal morality. And – unless you’re a zealot yourself – its ethics will clash with your personal code of conduct.

7. Science Makes up Stories to Explain Our Origins
The Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Aztecs – all of them had creation myths, probably invented around a fire. All of them took their creation myths seriously. Now, of course, we have science to explain our origins.

You know what its latest version of this story is? In the beginning, there were giant membranes. These membranes touched each other, triggering something called the “Big Bang”. Sure.

8. Science Reveres Its Own Saints
The ranks of science martyrdom may be thin, yet its members are revered as far greater scientists they actually were. Take Galileo Galilei, for example, the patron saint of all scientists persecuted by religious orders. He actually contributed very little to science: most of his achievements were technical, such as tampering with telescopes. Heliocentricity was known since the 4th century BC.

9. It Casts Out Heretics and Persecutes all Other Religions
Science, like God in the Old Testament, behaves jealously against any other religion. So science will say to its followers: “You shall have no other gods before me”.

If you have any doubts, try asking an audience at a scientific convention to join you in a prayer. From that moment on you’ll be called a theist-scientist. A heretic. A miasma. An abomination. Just look up how Kurt Gödel was viewed at Princeton after circulating his ontological proof of God.

10. Science Thinks Humans are Special
It is understandable that religion might place man in the center of the universe –but for science to do so is inexcusable. However, a great number of astrophysicists and cosmologists are eager to talk about how the universe conforms to the “anthropic principle”.

There is absolutely no scientific reason why human understanding – above that of slugs, dolphins and monkeys – should be wide enough to encompass the universe. Anthropocentrism – the assumption that humans take center-stage in the universe – is rife in the sciences, as it is in religion.

http://listverse.com/2012/12/15/top-10-reasons-science-is-another-religion/

Science Requires evidence not faith

Most of Science is Unfounded, this is fallacious, science is based on evidence, that's why you have hypothesis(not verified,but veriifiable), theory and law.

Science Will Bend to Accommodate Modern
Trends, this is so untrue.

Science is Based on Established Dogmas, Laws are not dogmas
Laws are established facts

Science Has Its Own Priesthood, this sisnt true, this are just founding fathers of science who thought outside the box and most of their theories have help shaped the owrld to become a better place.

Science Has Its Own Code of Ethics, Everything in life is governed by a constitution which is it code of ethics.
Except you going to tell me that politics is a religion(constitution), then I disagree with this point.

Science Makes up Stories to Explain Our
Origins: They just dont make up stories, they make up stories which can be discarded if not verifiable.

Science Reveres Its Own Saints: They honor great scientist for their great works

It Casts Out Heretics and Persecutes all
Other Religions: So on true, you dont judge a whole race by the action of a single individual

Science Thinks Humans are Special: Ofcourse human is the centre of the universe, we dictate where the world will go.

JUST LIKE SCIENCE WILL SAY, ALL YOU WROTE ARE HYPOTHESIS THAT WILL CERTAINLY NOT BECOME A THEORY WHICH MAKES IT FAR FROM BEING A LAW.

The errors are due in certain cases to your judgement of scientist by a single indivual, in certain cases their are bad eggs though.

I deem it fit to explain the differences between hypothesis, theory and laws because this are the basis for science in itself

Hypothesis: mere guess, unproven

Theory: Based on emprical guess, hypothesis have been subjected to a test.

Law: a staement of fact, universally accepted to be true, theory has stood the test of time.

Front page,pls

Here are 10 scientific dogma as well

www.nairaland.com/1012893/10-dogmata-mordern-science

mkmyers45: In The Science Delusion, biochemist Rupert Sheldrake lays out what he calls the 'dogma of science'. I thought it might be fun to post them and see what you all think of them!

1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, “lumbering robots”, in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.

2. All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activity of brains.

3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the Universe suddenly appeared).

4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same forever.

5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.

6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.

7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not ‘out there’, where it seems to be, but inside your brain.

8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.

9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.

10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

Interesting. Hmmmm.....

Going by your logic history is a religion too.

Maybe you meant scientology . And yes, that one is a religion

Atheist:-D:
Interesting. Hmmmm.....

Maybe you meant scientology . And yes, that one is a religion

lol

I am interested in this part of your post wiegraf;

5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.

How true is it?

First of all, whoever made that OP, doesn't understand the workings and Origins of Science. Yes, there are scientific assumptions, but those don't match up to Faith; which itself is a very complex subject.

Ethics in Science is a consequence of morality in the general society. And a limit proportionate to the society's tolerance is placed Science.

Also note that laws are not proven per se, rather explain "how" a particular subject works. For example Boyle's Law.

F00028: As a Biologist with a PhD in Neurosciences, I’m well aware that this is a controversial subject for both scientists and religious people alike. Scientists consider it ridiculous even to entertain the notion that science, a human achievement built on logic and reason, could possibly have anything in common with religious myths.

1. Science Requires Faith
Even highly-specialized scientists will often pursue a certain line of thought, and explore the implications of certain theory while rejecting others, based on nothing more than intuitive preferences, and their sense of what is elegant and right.

Most people who reject the religion they once accepted will claim to have done so in favor of the reasonable, clear-cut answers provided by logic and science. When asked to explain the existence of the universe, they’ll mention the Big Bang and M Theories; when asked to explain the existence of humans, they’ll mention evolution.

When pressed to explain any of the above, however, they soon realize that they actually understand very little. They were exhibiting blind faith – accepting the theories without comprehending them. If you don’t understand something, yet accept it as the truth, then you’re simply a Believer – and like much of science, you’ll find yourself well within the territory of religion.

2. Most of Science is Unfounded
Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Quantum Strings and Ego –all of them sound like plausible stories. But can anyone point out the Ego locus in a dissected brain? Or use the concept of Dark Energy for anything besides helping to explain the expanding universe –another scientific theory? There is no actual proof for any of these theories.

That’s right – we have no proof for the existence of 96% of what science thinks the universe is made of –and yet the theories explaining it (we call them theories to avoid calling them stories) we hold to be true. Why? you ask. Because we have faith

3. Science Will Bend to Accommodate Modern Trends
If you think scientists are immune to the pressure to conform to public opinion –think again. I am not even going to consider the announcements made by scientists under totalitarian regimes (such as racist “conclusions”), because I consider these to be forced aberrations.

Instead I will use the scientific approach to homosexuality. It was included in the list of personality disorders of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM) up to its 1973 edition. It was then removed – only to be replaced a year later by a close variant, before being removed entirely in 1986. Upon what evidence rested the changing decisions to include or exclude homosexuality among mental disorders? Public sentiment, backed by convenient “empirical evidence”, played a leading role.

4. Science is Based on Established Dogmas
Ever wonder how for centuries, the best doctors could insist on blood-letting as a cure – without ever noticing that their patients did worse? The answer: belief in blood-letting was part of the scientific dogma at the time.

Anything contradicting this dogma is simply rejected and ignored, or ridiculed for as long as possible. Science thus has the trappings of a full blown religion.

5. Science Has Its Own Priesthood
Newton, Darwin and Einstein serve as the holy trinity of western science. And below these are the elders: Watson, Crick, Dawkins, Hawking, Dennet, Chomsky, Penrose and Sagan. And then you have the High Priests: the Nobel Prize winners, the popular writers and the media celebrities.

Their opinions are received as sermons, and their statements are quoted like sacred texts. Ordinary people are ridiculed, if they doubt the interpretations of this priesthood. Even for scientists, questioning a member of a higher tier is done only at your own risk. After all, all scientific work (from papers to grant applications) is peer reviewed, remember?

6. Science Has Its Own Code of Ethics
There are state laws, and there are moral laws. And now, according to science, there are “laws of scientific conduct”. All kinds of atrocities are committed in the name of science – take a doctor, for example, who has to give placebo pills to a number of his patients in a drug trial, knowing that they will suffer or die much sooner than if they had received proper treatment.

But scientific advancement almost always claims precedence over personal morality. And – unless you’re a zealot yourself – its ethics will clash with your personal code of conduct.

7. Science Makes up Stories to Explain Our Origins
The Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Aztecs – all of them had creation myths, probably invented around a fire. All of them took their creation myths seriously. Now, of course, we have science to explain our origins.

You know what its latest version of this story is? In the beginning, there were giant membranes. These membranes touched each other, triggering something called the “Big Bang”. Sure.

8. Science Reveres Its Own Saints
The ranks of science martyrdom may be thin, yet its members are revered as far greater scientists they actually were. Take Galileo Galilei, for example, the patron saint of all scientists persecuted by religious orders. He actually contributed very little to science: most of his achievements were technical, such as tampering with telescopes. Heliocentricity was known since the 4th century BC.

9. It Casts Out Heretics and Persecutes all Other Religions
Science, like God in the Old Testament, behaves jealously against any other religion. So science will say to its followers: “You shall have no other gods before me”.

If you have any doubts, try asking an audience at a scientific convention to join you in a prayer. From that moment on you’ll be called a theist-scientist. A heretic. A miasma. An abomination. Just look up how Kurt Gödel was viewed at Princeton after circulating his ontological proof of God.

10. Science Thinks Humans are Special
It is understandable that religion might place man in the center of the universe –but for science to do so is inexcusable. However, a great number of astrophysicists and cosmologists are eager to talk about how the universe conforms to the “anthropic principle”.

There is absolutely no scientific reason why human understanding – above that of slugs, dolphins and monkeys – should be wide enough to encompass the universe. Anthropocentrism – the assumption that humans take center-stage in the universe – is rife in the sciences, as it is in religion.

http://listverse.com/2012/12/15/top-10-reasons-science-is-another-religion/

Is it not so funny that you castigate science yet you are so much ready to use a product of science which is computer, to propagate your anti science message. Also go to your churches today and see how your pastors use the products of scientific inventions like i-pad, electronic bible, internet, television, projector etc to propagate your god's message. I mean you religious people are so deluded that you don't even reason before making a claim. I wonder when all these madness will end.

E_monkey:

lol

I am interested in this part of your post wiegraf;


How true is it?

That it's dogma? 0.0000...1%.

As for the validity of the statement itself, from what I can tell, 99.99..%. But why do you ask?
You could look up the link yourself and see what other atheist thought of those 'dogma', for the most part I agree with them.

wiegraf: As for the validity of the statement itself, from what I can tell, 99.99..%. But why do you ask?
You could look up the link yourself and see what other atheist thought of those 'dogma', for the most part I agree with them.

So atheists think that evolution has no direction?

I used to think that evolution had a direction in the sense that it takes the path that enables the species to survive. Evolution tends to favor adaptations that facilitates an organism's survival and longevity.
Can this feature of evolution not be regarded as the direction evolution takes?

2good:

Is it not so funny that you castigate science yet you are so much ready to use a product of science which is computer, to propagate your anti science message. Also go to your churches today and see how your pastors use the products of scientific inventions like i-pad, electronic bible, internet, television, projector etc to propagate your god's message. I mean you religious people are so deluded that you don't even reason before making a claim. I wonder when all these madness will end.

I don't think OP was actually castigating science. He was pointing out to scientists who like to ridicule people of faith that in many ways they are actually very similar. I completely agree that while atheistic scientists (note not all scientists are atheists) will continue to insist that belief in a God u can not see is foolish, scientists hold many beliefs just as strongly and without much empirical proof.

E_monkey:

So atheists think that evolution has no direction?

I used to think that evolution had a direction in the sense that it takes the path that enables the species to survive. Evolution tends to favor adaptations that facilitates an organism's survival and longevity.
Can this feature of evolution not be regarded as the direction evolution takes?

Evolution has neither goals nor foresight. Natural selection is a totally blind process. It's not like something is trying to turn all living things into intelligent, sentient creatures like us. It just means any mutation that makes its carrier more likely to survive and reproduce will gradually become more common in a given population.

An example: Sickle cell disease is common in Africa because children who are AS are far less likely to die of malaria than those who are AA. That means more of them get to grow up and give birth to more children who are AS (and some who are AA). Therefore, as long as there is malaria in a village, the prevalence of AS children will continue to rise until it reaches a point where it's so common that the risk of marrying someone who's also AS (and thus giving birth to SS children) becomes as high as the risk of your AA kids dying of malaria. At which point the advantage of being AS is nullified and the prevalence rate stabilizes. It malaria ever gets eradicated, then sickle-cell disease will most likely fall slowly.

There is no mysterious force trying to make Africans have sickle cell. It's just that over the years, more children with it have been surviving to have children of their own. The same applies to all other traits. Over time, small changes like this add up and the end result is what we call evolution.

I hope that is clear.

Poster's Ph.D. in neuroscience: Big Disgrace!!

turnstoner: Poster's Ph.D. in neuroscience: Big Disgrace!!

spoken like a true blind follower

F00028:

spoken like a true blind follower

Everything OP said is wrong. If he truly has a degree in a scientific field, then I'd like to know what school. Maybe it's the same one Goodluck Jonathan attended.

A smart secondary school student could refute everything he's written (or more likely copypasted)

Evil Brain:

Everything OP said is wrong. If he truly has a degree in a scientific field, then I'd like to know what school. Maybe it's the same one Goodluck Jonathan attended.

A smart secondary school student could refute everything he's written (or more likely copypasted)

they're not my words. you obviously did not even read the whole thing, evil brain. else you would have the link at the end.

F00028:

they're not my words. you obviously did not even read the whole thing, evil brain. else you would have the link at the end.

I skimmed through it. Reading inane cráp like that hurts my brain and I'm not a masochist. Doesn't change the fact that it's complete rubbish.

Imagine saying that the man who improved the telescope and used it to first prove that other planets also have satellites "contributed little to science" because "his achievements were technical". By the same logic, the guy who won the Nobel for designing the antimatter containment system at CERN didn't contribute anything either. He's just a technician.

Let me give you a tip. Whenever you copypaste something from the internet, read it out loud first. If it sounds rétarded, then don't click submit!

Evil Brain:

I skimmed through it. Reading inane cráp like that hurts my brain and I'm not a masochist. Doesn't change the fact that it's complete rubbish.

Imagine saying that the man who improved the telescope and used it to first prove that other planets also have satellites "contributed little to science" because "his achievements were technical". By the same logic, the guy who won the Nobel for designing the antimatter containment system at CERN didn't contribute anything either. He's just a technician.

Let me give you a tip. Whenever you copypaste something from the internet, read it out loud first. If it sounds rétarded, then don't click submit!

I just did. it didn't sound re.t.arded...but your hot air comment above did.

let me give you a tip: if you really feel the need to rebutt something dont just skim it!

E_monkey:

So atheists think that evolution has no direction?

I used to think that evolution had a direction in the sense that it takes the path that enables the species to survive. Evolution tends to favor adaptations that facilitates an organism's survival and longevity.
Can this feature of evolution not be regarded as the direction evolution takes?

What @evil said.

Iirc sickle cell has mutated at least 4x (but I'll have to check up on that). Sabre toothed tigers evolved around 4x as well, each time dying out when suitable prey became rare or extinct (I'll have to check that as well).

Anyways, contrast natural to artificial selection, where people with consciousness, intelligence and the resources with the goal of say breeding hairless cats will succeed in 10's of years tops. Natural selection is not conscious or aware of anything, it has no goals, no purpose, no will etc. Well, it's inanimate so that's obvious. It's just what happens when a set of conditions are met, like say the rain, or stars forming, etc.

F00028:

I just did. it didn't sound re.t.arded...but your hot air comment above did.

let me give you a tip: if you really feel the need to rebutt something dont just skim it!

Wait! Do you believe that all the 10 points are factual? Is this how you think?

wiegraf:

What @evil said.

Iirc sickle cell has mutated at least 4x (but I'll have to check up on that).

You should definitely check that up 'cos you're wrong. The sickle cell trait is a point mutation. That means a single "letter" of DNA got flipped (out of billions) causing a single amino-acid to be changed, which then changed the way the Hemoglobin molecule folds, causing it to malfunction. Because it's just one single mutation, It has probably arisen countless times over the millennia. The reason it's not common is because being AS carries many disadvantages (some kidney problems, a small risk of sickle cell crises and the risk of mating with another AS person) thus, natural selection has kept its prevalence low, except where malaria changes the balance of things.

Anyways, contrast natural to artificial selection, where people with consciousness, intelligence and the resources with the goal of say breeding hairless cats will succeed in 10's of years tops. Natural selection is not conscious or aware of anything, it has no goals, no purpose, no will etc. Well, it's inanimate so that's obvious. It's just what happens when a set of conditions are met, like say the rain, or stars forming, etc.

Absolutely correct. Once you have a system that can make copies of itself, and pass on accumulated changes to those copies, natural selection, and evolution are inevitable. It's like a law of nature.

Evil Brain:

You should definitely check that up 'cos you're wrong. The sickle cell trait is a point mutation. That means a single "letter" of DNA got flipped (out of billions) causing a single amino-acid to be changed, which then changed the way the Hemoglobin molecule folds, causing it to malfunction. Because it's just one single mutation, It has probably arisen countless times over the millennia. The reason it's not common is because being AS carries many disadvantages (some kidney problems, a small risk of sickle cell crises and the risk of mating with another AS person) thus, natural selection has kept its prevalence low, except where malaria changes the balance of things.

Woot, just a single mutation? Interesting how that alone can make drastic changes. Like a minor version of the butterfly effect. The math is interesting as well. I suppose whoever I was quoting meant it became prevalent in a population 4x. Then again, iirc it was a famous, or rather infamous, 'biologist' in these here parts (fire and brimstone I now expect). Thanks for clearing that up.


EDIT: yup, I reread their posts, what happened was the paper they sourced studied 4 populations. Some fairly ridiculous claims seemed to have distracted me, my bad. Thanks again

Deleted. Double post.

Deleted. Triple post.

Deleted. Quadruple post.

Sorry!

wiegraf:

Woot, just a single mutation? Interesting how that alone can make drastic changes. Like a minor version of the butterfly effect. The math is interesting as well. I suppose whoever I was quoting meant it became prevalent in a population 4x. Then again, iirc it was a famous, or rather infamous, 'biologist' in these here parts (fire and brimstone I now expect). Thanks for clearing that up.

If I remember my pathology right, the mutation is in the 6th codon. CTC (Glutamic acid) gets changed to CAC (Valine). Valine has a different charge which slightly changes the way the molecule folds allowing the resulting abnormal Haemoglobin molecules to polymerize and form crystals within the red blood cells and also affects the oxygen carrying ability. The polymerized hemoglobin forces the red blood cells into weird, rigid shapes and these abnormal RBCs then proceed to wreak all kinds of havoc in the body.

That's the short version of the pathophysiology of Sicle cell disease.

Sorry about all the double posts btw. Opera Mini and rubbish internet are a bad combination.

Thanks again, and

Evil Brain:

Sorry about all the double posts btw. Opera Mini and rubbish internet are a bad combination.

Oh yes, I know that feel. I have to submit twice, I don't know why. I'm not sure who to blame, is it opera that doesn't support standards or NL? Or worse, both? Easy for me to sit here and criticize, but these are salaried workers in profit making enterprises and not some open source thing, even if the service is free.

The underlying basis for religion is faith, a belief even in the absence of evidence. The underlying basis for science is the presence of hard-core evidence. Science and religion are radically incompatible.

Interesting, this is not. Let's keep it cool. Guys, if you feel he's not getting it, give him a perfect rebuttal and stop cursing.

Evil Brain:

Everything OP said is wrong. If he truly has a degree in a scientific field, then I'd like to know what school. Maybe it's the same one Goodluck Jonathan attended.

A smart secondary school student could refute everything he's written (or more likely copypasted)

and since u are obviously one very smart secondary school graduate I'd like to hear your rebuttals ( for those of us who are not that smart).

honeychild:
and since u are obviously one very smart secondary school graduate I'd like to hear your rebuttals ( for those of us who are not that smart).

1) Science is based on evidence. The op mistakes a hypothesis or curiosity for faith.

2) The second point shows an ignorance about science and scientific theories. It tries to mix and match concepts to say that things like dark matter are unfounded.
it is like trying to fit evolution into the formation of pluto. Two distinct areas of science.

Dark matter applies to astrophysics and gravity. Just because it holds no relevance to many other aspects of science doesnt mean that it is unfounded.


3) This point is a homophobic interpretation of some past event that has no bearing. Science is based on current evidence. Should the evidence change, science would change.

Unlike religion, it holds archaic stories as absolute truths eg miracles and creationsm


4) Bloodletting was stopped not by laymen but scientists. Pointless. The fact remains that sciences changes with the evidence.

5) You wouldnt find a muslim or christian saying that Muhammad or Jesus were wrong. Darwin's theory of evolution have been advanced and improved. For instance Darwin relied only on one mechanism for evolution ie natural selection.

6) Every professional body has ethics. It doesnt mean that they are a religion

7) M theory is not a scientific theory. The big bang is. Your giant membranes do not apply

Exaggeration

9) Any professional body will cast out frauds,. Furthermore, you can be religious and a scientist but you cant bring in religious and unscientific theories into science journals or science.

10) Anthropic principle does not favour humans. It does with life in general.

Anthropocentrism is mainly based on religion, philosophy and humanism.




This guy has a shallow understanding of science and claimed to have a phd in science. Even from the comments on the link, it should be clear that whoever wrote this was a fraud [size=14pt]but you christians and muslims are fools of the highest order to believe or even support this nonsense[/size]

Logicboy03:

1) Science is based on evidence. The op mistakes a hypothesis or curiosity for faith.

2) The second point shows an ignorance about science and scientific theories. It tries to mix and match concepts to say that things like dark matter are unfounded.
it is like trying to fit evolution into the formation of pluto. Two distinct areas of science.

Dark matter applies to astrophysics and gravity. Just because it holds no relevance to many other aspects of science doesnt mean that it is unfounded.


3) This point is a homophobic interpretation of some past event that has no bearing. Science is based on current evidence. Should the evidence change, science would change.

Unlike religion, it holds archaic stories as absolute truths eg miracles and creationsm


4) Bloodletting was stopped not by laymen but scientists. Pointless. The fact remains that sciences changes with the evidence.

5) You wouldnt find a muslim or christian saying that Muhammad or Jesus were wrong. Darwin's theory of evolution have been advanced and improved. For instance Darwin relied only on one mechanism for evolution ie natural selection.

6) Every professional body has ethics. It doesnt mean that they are a religion

7) M theory is not a scientific theory. The big bang is. Your giant membranes do not apply

Exaggeration

9) Any professional body will cast out frauds,. Furthermore, you can be religious and a scientist but you cant bring in religious and unscientific theories into science journals or science.

10) Anthropic principle does not favour humans. It does with life in general.

Anthropocentrism is mainly based on religion, philosophy and humanism.




This guy has a shallow understanding of science and claimed to have a phd in science. Even from the comments on the link, it should be clear that whoever wrote this was a fraud [size=14pt]but you christians and muslims are fools of the highest order to believe or even support this nonsense[/size]

This is what I'm talking about.
But Lb, I have a problem with your 2. He is right on that one.
Number one is the claim of science, but in 2 lies its contradiction.
Let's take the big b.ang as our case study. Is there any proof for the big bang? If the big b.ang is actually the begining, where came the materials that initiated it? Have you seen anti-matter?