Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:27 pm

First topic message reminder :

I have listened to theists and creationists make what I view as the most absurd claims about the validity of religious doctrine and scripture. So here's a thread designed for anyone who thinks they can to show any evidence for these claims.

Of course everyone will then be entitled to comment on the veracity of what is presented and whether it has at least as much validity as scientific evidence, or indeed if it really is evidence at all.

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that this thread is not just about evolution vs creationism,but seeks to uncover why anyone thinks faith based belief has as much or more validity as scientifically validated evidence.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 21, 2015 1:04 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
As, in my opinion your replies are often, more than not, childish, I have no desire to compete with a child, I prefer grown ups.

Well I'm happy yet again to let others read my posts and make up their own minds. If however you think ignoring my substantive posts above and responding with yet another of your trademark childish and petty ad hominem attacks represents a mature response then I'm not sure what possible response anyone can give. Again if you feel this way I'm not sure why you are involving yourself in this thread just to hurl childish insults.

You appear to be trolling to me, what's more you've dropped any pretence of debate now and have used the same childish name calling in multiple threads?

If you have no interest in any of the thread topics then why bother to respond at all? It's more than a little sad that the only theistic voice we're hearing seems intent to offer naught but tantrums and insults, very sad indeed.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:29 pm

polyglide wrote: As I keep trying to tell you a theory is a theory and nothing more. If a matter can be proven beyond doubt it becomes a fact and nothing you claim is a fact other than it being someones opinion, it matters not on what it is based it is still theory.

http://ncse.com/evolution/education/theory-fact

October 17th, 2008
One source of confusion about the status of the science or theory of evolution stems from the difference between the "everyday" meaning of the word "theory" and the scientific meaning the word.

Below we list some common misconceptions about the term "theory" and describe a classroom activity that can help students rethink their understanding of this term.

Misconception 1 "Evolution is 'just a theory'".

Misconception 2 "Theories become facts when they are well supported and/or proven."

There are three important misconceptions propagated in the above statements. The first statement implies that a theory should be interpreted as just a guess or a hunch, whereas in science, the term theory is used very differently. The second statement implies that theories become facts, in some sort of linear progression. In science, theories never become facts. Rather, theories explain facts. The third misconception is that scientific research provides proof in the sense of attaining the absolute truth. Scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to revision should new evidence come to light.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:32 am

Steven Weinberg
The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe

This would be a useful book for most of us, but for some it's essential reading Judging from the absurdity of some of their posts on the subject.Incidentally the author is a Nobel laureat in case anyone is minded to question his authority on the topic. As I know at least one poster who prefers tawdry Internet blogs as long as they mirror his own beliefs.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed May 13, 2015 8:16 am

Salman Rushdie wrote:
As human knowledge has grown, it has also become plain that every religious story ever told about how we got here is quite simply wrong. This, finally, is what all religions have in common. They didn't get it right. There was no celestial churning, no maker's dance, no vomiting of galaxies, no snake or kangaroo ancestors, no Valhalla, no Olympus, no six-day conjuring trick followed by a day of rest. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

But here's something genuinly odd. The wrongness of the sacred tales hasn't lessened the zeal of the devout in the least. If anything, the sheer out-of-step zaniness of religion leads the religious to insist ever more stridently on the importance of blind faith.
So, how did we get here? Don't look for the answer in story books. Imperfect human knowledge may be a bumpy, pot-holed street, but it's the only road to wisdom worth taking. Virgil, who believed that the apiarist Aristaeus could spontaneously generate new bees from the rotting carcess of a cow, was closer to a truth about origins than all the revered old books.

The ancient wisdoms are modern non-senses.

Live in your own time, use what we know and, as you grow up, perhaps the human race will finally grow up with you and put aside childish things. As the song says, "It's easy if you try."

A small excerpt from his letter to the 6th billion human as it appears in The Portable Atheist.

by polyglide Fri May 15, 2015 4:26 pm

Salman Rushdie,
Did he not have a spot of bother.

There are just as many qualified people who have written numerous accounts disproving all the evidence put forward regarding the above, just log on to against evolution and you will find a numerous accounts by just as qualified poeple who explain the shortcommings of the claims regarding evolutio

I consider both sides and prefer to believe the most obvious rather than the impossible.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat May 16, 2015 4:30 am

polyglide wrote: There are just as many qualified people who have written numerous accounts disproving all the evidence put forward regarding the above, just log on to against evolution and you will find a numerous accounts by just as qualified poeple who explain the shortcommings of the claims regarding evolutio

No one has ever falsified Darwinian evolution, that's axiomatic. However even though your claim is laughably absurd I'll give you yet another chance to evidence it.

1. Name the scientist(s) who has falsified Darwinian evolution & received the Nobel prize
2. Cite the peer reviewed publication that published their research and conclusions.
3. just for good measure link a few headlines from around the world of this paradigm shifting news.

You are a very silly man poly, but you possess a certain tenacity even if it is used to doggedly make absurdly erroneous claims.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat May 16, 2015 4:37 am

polyglide wrote:Salman Rushdie, Did he not have a spot of bother.

Odd that in two other threads you're berating stu for not responding to your posts properly yet you ignore mine completely in favour of this bizarre and irrelevant nonsense about the author of the quote? Why not try addressing the quote with some cogent well argued response, or is that beyond you? Give it a go if you dare, as I'm pretty sure Mr Rushdie has researched his claims thoroughly, and offers ample quotes from the Koran and citations of Koranic scholars to substantiate his claims. The best the Islamic world could offer by way of refutation were death threats as I recall, hardly a response that inspires confidence in their beliefs or is likely to inspire doubt in Mr Rushdie's work.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:18 pm

I feel this is the thread for this, so am moving this here as it has been suggested that Francis Crick was a creationist. Given everything I had read indicated he was a fairly outspoken atheist I have decided to research a little further. If anyone has any evidence germane to either position I'd appreciate them posting it here. Thanks in advance...

"At an early age, Francis was attracted to science and what he could learn about it from books. As a child, he was taken to church by his parents. But by about age 12, he said he did not want to go any more, as he preferred a scientific search for answers over religious belief."

"In Crick’s view, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, Gregor Mendel’s genetics and knowledge of the molecular basis of genetics, when combined, revealed the secret of life. Crick had the very optimistic view that life would very soon be created in a test tube."

Crick referred to himself as a humanist, which he defined as the belief "that human problems can and must be faced in terms of human moral and intellectual resources without invoking supernatural authority." He publicly called for humanism to replace religion as a guiding force for humanity, writing:
"The human dilemma is hardly new. We find ourselves through no wish of our own on this slowly revolving planet in an obscure corner of a vast universe. Our questioning intelligence will not let us live in cow-like content with our lot. We have a deep need to know why we are here. What is the world made of? More important, what are we made of? In the past religion answered these questions, often in considerable detail. Now we know that almost all these answers are highly likely to be nonsense, having sprung from man's ignorance and his enormous capacity for self-deception... The simple fables of the religions of the world have come to seem like tales told to children. Even understood symbolically they are often perverse, if not rather unpleasant... Humanists, then, live in a mysterious, exciting and intellectually expanding world, which, once glimpsed, makes the old worlds of the religions seem fake-cosy and stale...

Crick was especially critical of Christianity:
"I do not respect Christian beliefs. I think they are ridiculous. If we could get rid of them we could more easily get down to the serious problem of trying to find out what the world is all about."

Crick once joked, "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children."

"In his book Of Molecules and Men, Crick expressed his views on the relationship between science and religion. After suggesting that it would become possible for a computer to be programmed so as to have a soul, he wondered: at what point during biological evolution did the first organism have a soul? At what moment does a baby get a soul? Crick stated his view that the idea of a non-material soul that could enter a body and then persist after death is just that, an imagined idea. For Crick, the mind is a product of physical brain activity and the brain had evolved by natural means over millions of years. He felt that it was important that evolution by natural selection be taught in schools and that it was regrettable that English schools had compulsory religious instruction. He also considered that a new scientific world view was rapidly being established, and predicted that once the detailed workings of the brain were eventually revealed, erroneous Christian concepts about the nature of humans and the world would no longer be tenable; traditional conceptions of the "soul" would be replaced by a new understanding of the physical basis of mind. He was sceptical of organized religion, referring to himself as a skeptic and an agnostic with "a strong inclination towards atheism."

Crick suggested that it might be possible to find chemical changes in the brain that were molecular correlates of the act of prayer. He speculated that there might be a detectable change in the level of some neurotransmitter or neurohormone when people pray. He might have been imagining substances such as dopamine that are released by the brain under certain conditions and produce rewarding sensations. Crick's suggestion that there might someday be a new science of "biochemical theology" seems to have been realized under an alternative name: there is now the new field of neurotheology.[84] Crick's view of the relationship between science and religion continued to play a role in his work as he made the transition from molecular biology research into theoretical neuroscience.
Crick asked in 1998 "and if some of the Bible is manifestly wrong, why should any of the rest of it be accepted automatically? ... And what would be more important than to find our true place in the universe by removing one by one these unfortunate vestiges of earlier beliefs?"

In 2003 he was one of 22 Nobel laureates who signed the Humanist Manifesto:

A Humanist Manifesto, also known as Humanist Manifesto I to distinguish it from later Humanist Manifestos in the series, was written in 1933 primarily by Raymond Bragg and published with 34 signers. Unlike the later manifestos, this first talks of a new religion and refers to humanism as a religious movement meant to transcend and replace previous, deity-based systems. Nevertheless, it is careful not to express a creed or dogma.

Crick was a firm critic of Young Earth creationism. In the 1987 United States Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, Crick joined a group of other Nobel laureates who advised, "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom." Crick was also an advocate for the establishment of Darwin Day as a British national holiday.

That'll do for now as it's hard to imagine a person less likely to be branded a creationist than Francis Crick, but there you go.....

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:35 pm

It has also been suggested that Einstein believed in an intelligent creator, so lets take a look at this claim, as Einstein made comments that are often hijacked by both sides of the debate:

I came—though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents—to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true.

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."

In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, 17 December 1952 Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."[11] Eric Gutkind sent a copy of his book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call To Revolt"[12] to Einstein in 1954. Einstein sent Gutkind a letter in response and wrote, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."

On the question of an afterlife Einstein stated to a Baptist pastor, "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."[16] This sentiment was also expressed in Einstein's The World as I See It, stating: "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature."

Einstein suggested he was a pantheist, and likened his own beliefs to those of Spinoza, "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

Einstein was a Humanist and a supporter of the Ethical Culture movement. He served on the advisory board of the First Humanist Society of New York. For the seventy-fifth anniversary of the New York Society for Ethical Culture, he stated that the idea of Ethical Culture embodied his personal conception of what is most valuable and enduring in religious idealism. He observed, "Without 'ethical culture' there is no salvation for humanity."

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:40 pm

It has also been suggested that Einstein believed in an intelligent creator, so lets take a look at this claim, as Einstein made comments that are often hijacked by both sides of the debate:

I came—though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents—to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true.

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."

In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, 17 December 1952 Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."[11] Eric Gutkind sent a copy of his book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call To Revolt"[12] to Einstein in 1954. Einstein sent Gutkind a letter in response and wrote, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."

On the question of an afterlife Einstein stated to a Baptist pastor, "I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."[16] This sentiment was also expressed in Einstein's The World as I See It, stating: "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature."

Einstein suggested he was a pantheist, and likened his own beliefs to those of Spinoza, "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

Einstein was a Humanist and a supporter of the Ethical Culture movement. He served on the advisory board of the First Humanist Society of New York. For the seventy-fifth anniversary of the New York Society for Ethical Culture, he stated that the idea of Ethical Culture embodied his personal conception of what is most valuable and enduring in religious idealism. He observed, "Without 'ethical culture' there is no salvation for humanity."

It seems clear that when Einstein spoke of "God" he was defining the word very differently to monotheists.

by polyglide Fri Jun 12, 2015 4:23 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
The reason science can be challenged is because there are more question than answers.

Religion has a sound basis in that which can be seen and enjoyed, all kinds of life, mankind's abilities and the fact that man can depend on the constant behaviour of many things.

Science can only attempt to explain a minimal number of things involved, Christianity can explain everything.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Jun 12, 2015 5:34 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
The reason science can be challenged is because there are more question than answers.

That makes no sense, since science's so;e purpose is the study of the unknown.

Polyglide wrote:Religion has a sound basis in that which can be seen and enjoyed, all kinds of life, mankind's abilities and the fact that man can depend on the constant behaviour of many things.

No it doesn't. I believe I've mentioned Hicthen's razor before. Simply pointing to everything and calming godditit is no explanation of anything, it's intellectually lazy to be honest. Besides science has repeatedly disproved religious claims in the most spectacular fashion.

Polyglide wrote:Science can only attempt to explain a minimal number of things involved,.

Nonsense, your basing an assumption on something you don't know, it's a logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Polyglide wrote: Christianity can explain everything

No it can't. Rolling Eyes

by polyglide Sat Jun 13, 2015 12:00 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
Yes it can, tell me one thing it cannot explain.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Jun 13, 2015 12:22 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
Yes it can, tell me one thing it cannot explain.

It's your claim it can explain everything so the burden of proof rests with you as per Hitchen's razor. So far your explanations have no basis in fact, are not only not evidenced but rely on you denying known scientific facts from biology, chemistry, cosmology, geology, genetics and physics. This hardly makes such explanations compelling, without absolute faith they unravel completely.

Try explaining why your god claimed in Genesis that the earth, day, and night were all "created" before our sun? Or that all the stars were "created" instantly and simultaneously when we know they are finite, are born, live, and die.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Jun 13, 2015 11:11 pm

The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex finally has a physical explanation. According to new research, iron in the dinosaur's body preserved the tissue before it could decay.

The research, headed by Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University, explains how proteins — and possibly even DNA — can survive millennia. Schweitzer and her colleagues first raised this question in 2005, when they found the seemingly impossible: soft tissue preserved inside the leg of an adolescent T. rex unearthed in Montana.

"What we found was unusual, because it was still soft and still transparent and still flexible," Schweitzer told LiveScience

The find was also controversial, because scientists had thought proteins that make up soft tissue should degrade in less than 1 million years in the best of conditions. In most cases, microbes feast on a dead animal's soft tissue, destroying it within weeks. The tissue must be something else, perhaps the product of a later bacterial invasion, critics argued.

Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen — which makes sense, as modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs such as T. rex.

The researchers also analyzed other fossils for the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago, Schweitzer said.

"The problem is, for 300 years, we thought, 'Well, the organics are all gone, so why should we look for something that's not going to be there?' and nobody looks," she said.

The obvious question, though, was how soft, pliable tissue could survive for millions of years. In a new study published today (Nov. 26) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Schweitzer thinks she has the answer: Iron.

Iron is an element present in abundance in the body, particularly in the blood, where it is part of the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Iron is also highly reactive with other molecules, so the body keeps it locked up tight, bound to molecules that prevent it from wreaking havoc on the tissues.

After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.

"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."

LINK

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:26 am

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote: Try explaining why your god claimed in Genesis that the earth, day, and night were all "created" before our sun? Or that all the stars were "created" instantly and simultaneously when we know they are finite, are born, live, and die.

There are of course two very different ways theist view this. Firstly there are theists who choose to view such dubious claims as allegory, then there are theists who insist the bible is literally true.

The question whilst aimed primarily at the latter type would still require a reasonable and rational answer from the former group. Though it might more accurately be phrased in the context of why a benevolent deity with limitless power and knowledge would communicate, or allow to be communicated, such an obviously erroneous message. The consequence of such action being humans reasoning that the message is entirely human in origin.

by polyglide Mon Jun 15, 2015 1:33 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
As far as I am aware many scientists are starting to view matters in a different manner mainly because of DNA being so complex rather than veryfying previous theories.

As I have said previously, I find relating the references difficult but can assure you that some scientists are reconsidering their previous views.

As for the references to God and the origin of the universe etc;

We are now well beyond the creation of all that exists and there is nothing in the Bible that says matters cannot change.

Nor that further ceations cannot take place.

I agree there are many things that appear beyond our comprehension and that is bacause our present understanding is restricted, we know there are numerous unanswered questions and that is why faith is necessary for a Christian to come to terms with the existing circumstances.

by boatlady Mon Jun 15, 2015 2:40 pm

PG - just a little tip - as someone who finds posting a hyperlink very complicated and can therefore very rarely produce a reference, I think your comments might carry more weight if you were able to cite the name of any one of the many scientists are starting to view matters in a different manner . Otherwise it does just sound as though it is your unsupported opinion

by polyglide Mon Jun 15, 2015 2:54 pm

boatlady,
I have just been reading some of the scientists concerned and will do my best to give the details.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Jun 15, 2015 3:23 pm

As I have said multiple times, unless these unknown scientists can get their work validated by the same rigorous process that evidences Darwinian evolution then it doesn't represent scientific evidence as you claim.

Without being unkind the only scientist you managed to name were either entirely discredited by their claims or had no qualification in the field of biology, genetics or evolution.

You're simply parroting creationist propaganda without understanding why it is demonstrably false.

If it were true then we'd already know as the result would shake the scientific and theistic world's to their core.

by polyglide Mon Jun 15, 2015 3:32 pm

boatlady,
The reference i have is, http: www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html

I have problems with these references but I hope this one is correct.

The scientists involved and the information given are correct, I hope.

regards.

by boatlady Mon Jun 15, 2015 4:47 pm

Nice bit of link posting PG - Fred Hoyle et al are maybe credible voices - but maybe taken out of context for the purposes of a site that definitely seems to have an agenda? I merely ask as I might have felt more convinced if these quotes had come from a more mainstream scientific publication.

No doubt Sheldon will want to comment

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Jun 15, 2015 7:45 pm

polyglide wrote:boatlady, The reference i have is, http: www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html I have problems with these references but I hope this one is correct. The scientists involved and the information given are correct, I hope. regards.

Firstly that's not a scientific site, it's a creationist blog. There is no scientifically validated evidence cited at all, a list of scientists who they claim are theists, at least one of whom, Fred Hoyle, was an atheist. I even evidenced this for you recently and you still repeated the claim, and now reference a blog implying the same erroneous claim, not a very good start.

Polyglide wrote:I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal Nature. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God

So given that 95% of Americans are theists this means that belief more than halves when they have a scientific education, what does that suggest to you? Something of an own goal really.

Here is a link to the Pew research into religious beliefs amongst scientists that that claim is based on, and I have posted more than once, only not paraphrased dishonestly as it is in that blog.

LINK

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.

Please read that excerpt and the link as I have posted it more than once, I did you the courtesy of reading yours after all. Note as well that this about religious beliefs, and not about creationism.

For creationism the figure drop drastically even in the USA which has more creationists than any other industrialized country.

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.

One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.

by polyglide Fri Jun 19, 2015 5:00 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
As usual, no acceptance of facts that do not conform to your personal requirement, hypothesis and peer reviewed, no change there then.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:29 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
As usual, no acceptance of facts that do not conform to your personal requirement, hypothesis and peer reviewed, no change there then.

Unfortunately you choose now to lie and pretend peer review and falsification are some sort of subjective claims on my part, well I'm happy for anyone to check for themselves whether these are basic scientific requirements or whether I've made them up; and whether your creationist blog satisfies either requirement, or any other aspect of the scientific process come to that. We've not noticed God's existence being proven by science being trumpeted over the news, and I think any rational objective person can make their own minds up about what this means. Now I've made a comprehensive answer and read that garbage from start to finish, which is more than you have done for any fo the links I've posted, and all you have is a trite one-liner implying I'm being subjective, this speaks volumes I'm afraid, irony overload again I'm afraid. Rolling Eyes

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Jun 20, 2015 1:47 pm

Since my motives are being assigned to the scientific procedure again, ironically in order for Polyglide to make a subjective claim for scientific evidence which is nothing of the sort, I thought some clarification of what science requires for such evidence to be validated might be helpful.

The scientific method is an ongoing process, which usually begins with observations about the natural world. Human beings are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things they see or hear and often develop ideas (hypotheses) about why things are the way they are. The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways, including making further observations about nature. In general, the strongest tests of hypotheses come from carefully controlled and replicated experiments that gather empirical data. Depending on how well the tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection. If a particular hypothesis becomes very well supported a general theory may be developed.

Note the last sentence roundly destroys his use of the much favoured creationist cliché "it's just a theory."

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features are frequently shared in common between them. The overall process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions.[5][6] An hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while formulating the question. The hypothesis might be very specific or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments. Under modern interpretations, a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.

Well now falsification is a scientific requirement, and nothing to do with my own opinion after all, if only I could believe polyglide will actually read any of this.

Nevertheless the whole process is broadly explained HERE.

One last example:

Science is a social enterprise, and scientific work tends to be accepted by the scientific community when it has been confirmed. Crucially, experimental and theoretical results must be reproduced by others within the scientific community.

Some explanations of how this scrutiny is done, specifically through the peer review process.

HERE

and HERE

So again these processes are what science demands, and not as Polyglide has tried to claim a personal subjective criteria I am using to reject the creationist blog he linked.

If you're going to try and claim something satisfies the scientific criteria fro evidence Polyglide then you ought really to make sure that it does, BEFORE you go ahead and make the claim, Your creationist blog does not, and as I have explained before the opinion of a scientist doesn't make that opinion scientifically valid, it's the scientific process that does this.

by polyglide Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:18 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
I am well aware how scientists work, the evidence is in the results and the state of the earth at the present time.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Jun 21, 2015 1:51 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
I am well aware how scientists work, the evidence is in the results and the state of the earth at the present time.

No you're not, at all.

Though I might be more convinced if you knew, or were even prepared to acknowledge once, the significance of scientific processes like peer review and falsification, yet here again you glibly ignore my post and the links, and in a previous post you linked a creationist blog as scientific evidence when it satisfied neither of those criteria. So if you know that it wasn't scientific evidence why did you claim it was, and why have you done so repeatedly? You might also explain why when I pointed out that the link failed to satisfy these two most basic requirements you dishonestly claimed I denying evidence I didn't like, so no, I'm afraid you don't understand the scientific process, or was your false claim deliberate?

Now I did you the courtesy of reading that creationist blog you linked in it's entirety, so it's truly a shame you can't be bothered to afford me the same courtesy, as it appears yet again that you know at some level the flaws in your claims, and so won't address them honestly. What are you afraid of?

by polyglide Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:24 pm

Dr, Shedlon,
You appear lost in a scientistic world of your own.

There are far more of everything in life that has never been subjected to either hypothesis or peer review etc;

Just because a none scientist points out the errors and falsehoods that some scientists believe does not in any way make them unreliable and in the cases I have asked you to look at many intelligent and qualified people are involved, who have carried out their own hypothesis and been reviewed by people of the same opinion and published in the applicable publications.

I have never claimed it to be scientific evidence, just evidence.

Scientists have the hardest task ever put before them.

To ensure that the evil that has been created through their experiments etc; are not allowed to reek any more injury and harm along with illness to the innocent before God sorts matters out.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:41 pm

Scientists don't get their claims validated unless they satisfy strict criteria. I'm not sure why you're still attempting to claim opinion or belief are required or involved?

The site you linked had no evidence that was scientifically valid. For the reasons I keep pointing out, but that you seem unable or unwilling to grasp.

Darwinian species evolution satisfies these criteria, innumerable times. Creationism has never done so even once. This is as sure a scientific fact as the rotundity of the earth.

How creationist feel about this or what they claim is irrelevant to science, precisely because they can't evidence their claims.

by polyglide Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:58 pm

Dr, Shedlon,
What scientists think is totaly irrelevant to me.

All science has ever done is explain certain aspects of what God created in the first place.

Give me just one thing that any scientist has created from nothing.

Science is just common sense, just as Darwin pointed out, you have different conditions and then matters and life existing at the time has to adapt, who needs science to confirm the obvious?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:07 pm

I've no idea what evil you're blaming on science, but as I and others have already pointed out, it's what humans do with the knowledge that science has given us that is culpable for the outcome. I see no evidence for any supernatural causation either. Indeed as I have taken great care to explain to you it's inherently illogical and contradictory to claim a being exists with omnipotence and benevolence yet allows ubiquitous suffering.

Nothing you have posted satisfactorily explains the paradox either. With or without the introduction of Satan god would still be able to stop evil and suffering if he was omnipotent and if he chooses not to them such a being could not logically be described as benevolent.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:19 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
What scientists think is totaly irrelevant to me.

All science has ever done is explain certain aspects of what God created in the first place.

Give me just one thing that any scientist has created from nothing.

Science is just common sense, just as Darwin pointed out, you have different conditions and then matters and life existing at the time has to adapt, who needs science to confirm the obvious?

This is just personal opinion. Based on subjective beliefs. You've offered no logical reason as to why subjective beliefs you can't evidence should be offered parity with a process that is deigned to remove subjective opinion and has demonstrable successes that are beyond any reasonable doubt.

by polyglide Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:38 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
I agree with what you say scientists have done and explained exactly what that is.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Jun 22, 2015 4:19 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
I agree with what you say scientists have done and explained exactly what that is.

You have explained nothing. Just offered your own subjective opinion. Science doesn't need you to explain it at all. Nor haven you any qualifications to do so. Darwinian species evolution does not require your approval as it is as much a scientific fact as gravity and magnetism.

Nor have you agreed. As you keep denying species have evolved and simply pretend this denial somehow doesn't directly contradict the scientific theory of evolution.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Jun 22, 2015 6:58 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon, What scientists think is totaly irrelevant to me.

I don't really care whether it's relevant to you, but it is you who has involved yourself in several threads about science, and constantly made claims that you insist are scientifically valid, odd that.

Polyglide wrote: All science has ever done is explain certain aspects of what God created in the first place.

You have no interest in what science has done, it says so right there in your last post, so you'll forgive me if I have no interest in reading another tedious bizarre claim for which you have no evidence whatsoever, and which is broadly contradicted by the facts. The day creationism gets a single piece of evidence properly validated by science then your claims will be more than pure conjecture.

Polyglide wrote:Give me just one thing that any scientist has created from nothing.

That's not what science does, it searches for knowledge by gathering evidence and testing it, so your point escapes me. Give me one piece of evidence for creationism that has withstood the rigorous scrutiny of the scientific process, ever?

Polyglide wrote:Science is just common sense,

Not sure why you keep repeating this, but it's absurdly silly to suggest that a method created fairly recently which has amassed enormous new knowledge in a very short time is just common sense, your bible or religion couldn't manage to get even the most basic chronology of the formation of our solar system right, and fought this common sense when it showed we did not live in a geocentric universe, and when Darwin proved species evolved slowly over time, and were not created in one go.

Polyglide wrote:just as Darwin pointed out, you have different conditions and then matters and life existing at the time has to adapt, who needs science to confirm the obvious?

So obvious that your religion never managed it, even with it's divinely revealed texts, do behave, that statement is nonsensical.

by polyglide Tue Jun 23, 2015 3:52 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
You have a very little understanding of nonsensical.

My religion explains the source of life.

Darwin explains that when any kind of life meets a problem that threatens it's life, it either has to adapt or die.

There are numerous examples of adaptation, none of creations of new life.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:45 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
You have a very little understanding of nonsensical.

I disagree, and having read your posts I'm inclined to doubt your ability to make a reasonable assessment. Since you label everything you believe as common sense, and everyone and everything you disagree with as lacking common sense, I'm fairly happy that your opinion on this, which you claim to be 100% certain of, is so biased as to be worthless.

Polyglide wrote:My religion explains the source of life.

No it doesn't, it just claims to know, this is not nearly the same thing. Nor does it have any evidence for those claims of course that aren't arbitrary subjective and biased. Science has a very different approach, and it can test it's evidence to produce quantifiable results.

Polyglide wrote:Darwin explains that when any kind of life meets a problem that threatens it's life, it either has to adapt or die.

I'm not familiar with that quote, could you reference the publication or context please, or is it another you've made up on the spot?

Polyglide wrote:There are numerous examples of adaptation, none of creations of new life.

Correct, but then I've been saying this from the start, and Darwin's theory of evolution has evidenced these slow adaptations that lead to species evolution again and again, you've even been shown it on here, the fossil record for example which shows clearly that species evolved, and this evidence has withstood rigorous scientific scrutiny, which is the best test we have. Some would say the only real test, and I'd not be in a rush to disagree.

It is you who keep's claiming that there is evidence for new creations, yet now deny it? Have you had an epiphany? Hallelujah.

by polyglide Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:39 am

Dr, Sheldon,
All I have ever claimed is that God created everything in the first place.

Nothing more.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Jun 24, 2015 12:56 pm

polyglide wrote: Dr, Sheldon,
All I have ever claimed is that God created everything in the first place.

Nothing more.

Polyglide wrote: Polyglide wrote:
There are numerous examples of adaptation, none of creations of new life

You perhaps need to clarify which of these two claims is your position?

However it is demonstrably not all you have said is it. As you have repeatedly denied scientific facts like species evolution, and the age and chronology of the formation of our solar system and the evolution of life on this planet.

No belief if based on faith trumps the rigours of scientific evidence, and we can easily quantify the efficacy of that claim by comparing claims made by religion that have been proved wrong by science.If you choose to cherry pick which scientific facts you accept based on a priori beliefs then it's hard to see the logic of bothering with an objective process like science only to subjectively dismiss what it tells you when it suits.

by polyglide Fri Jun 26, 2015 4:39 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
I took it for granted that you would understand that a new life meant a new species with a diffrent DNA etc;

I would not deny any scientific FACT.

Theory is not fact.

There have been numerous claims made by religions, however, there are numerous events in the Bible that have been confirmed by scientists and the fact that some religions use anything to attract members does not in any way invalidate what the Bible says.

by Sponsored content