Yay!
Thanks for cheering me up this morning Amy, my washing machine died last night so I needed a good creationist poking.

I think the belief comment (about scientists believing we were created from mud) actually lies at the heart of the matter. Those who have faith cannot comprehend people who can exist without it. They simply see it as a different type of faith, but science at it's core is about being able to stand up and say 'I was wrong, whoops. I think I'm right now, or at least closer to what seems to be right.'

This is probably why we don't have many politicians who are any good at science, being able to admit you made a mistake is a big problem for them.

Oh well off to look at new washing machines.

You could help this Church lady wash out her head. I'm getting bored with it, as she, like many people who favor religion, are unwilling to use their capacity to reason (factory-standard with the opposable thumb.)

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/03/the_vatican_com.html

I have no idea how life on earth got started but I'm secure enough just to say "I don't know" until somebody finds evidence.

My life has meaning because I give it meaning, not because I believe god looks like Charlton Heston, and is sitting up in the sky in a big Barcalounger.

You have no respect left for a man who lawyered for RM Nixon?

"nothing more than mud animated by lightning" Um isn't this what the bible teaches. When a supreme being breaths on you (made of sand) wouldn't that be very much akin to a lightening strike. A really big lightening strike.

"their capacity to reason (factory-standard with the opposable thumb.)" The opposable thumbs are factory STD, the capacity to reason is debatable.

Look how they (religious beings) continue the theme of damnation. Stein- "I must warn you...some of you may lose your friends, job..."

I am actually relieved from the preview about the scientists being subjugated for bringing god into the equation. Providing me with evidence that the community is holding its' values above pandering to the believers. Why can't they accept the fact not everyone is willing to join their club?

...and listening to Stein narrate an entire movie would be blasphemy...

> I have no respect left
> for Ben Stein.

Amy... He's a game show host. That's not a metaphor; he's really a game show host.

Comparing the whole of religious thought in human affairs to Tinkerbell is just shrill.

"Comparing the whole of religious thought in human affairs to Tinkerbell is just shrill." How do you figure? As far as everyone know (meaning evidence) there is no more proof in the validity of religion than in the existence of fairies.

You believe in a supreme being cause your told there is one.

Flying Spaghettie Monster for the win!

My god is just a believeable as your god. And he's tasty too.

Flying Spaghettie Monster for the win!

My god is just as believeable as your god. And he's tasty too.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, with meatballs! Or shrimp. o_O

Seriously, is it so terrible to agree to disagree? There will never be an end to the discussion, but we already did the hanging/burning-at-the-stake/religious wars thing. People just need to give it a rest for a while. You believe what you wanna believe, and let me believe what I wanna believe. In the Grand Scheme of Things (tm), what difference does it really make?

---a scientist who clings, sans evidence, to unscientific beliefs is like being a butcher who marches for PETA. ----

uhh this is exactly the problem. A scientists beliefs are none of your damn business, he has the right to believe anything he wants. Are you saying anyone of a religious faith can not be a scientist? That is what it sounds like.

Perhaps some scientists just are not so arrogant to think we know everything there is to know, at this point in time.

This reminds me of the global warming people, believe what they say and repeat it loudly, or face their wrath.

There is a science called physics, one of its laws is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So go ahead scream these people down, and remove them from their jobs because they go to church and see how that works out for ya.

You, likewise, have a right to believe that the moon is made of green cheese and that yogurt can fly. But, you probably shouldn't work for NASA, huh?

The "arrogant" ones are those who proclaim that they KNOW how it all began, yet have no evidence for their beliefs.

Real science necessitates saying you don't know when you don't.

I read studies all the time, and the good ones clearly state the limitations of the data, etc.

Regarding the people Ben Stein is crusading for, it's "We Know There's A God, And We're Right Because We Say So."

This is not science, it's the most primitive kind of nonthink. It's really quite pathetic.

Jim, you post crap.

Norman, cleanup on Aisle Five. Could use a hand.

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/03/the_vatican_com.html

"looks like Charlton Heston, and is sitting up in the sky in a big Barcalounger." AA

so that was my fall over laughing moment for the day... I'm gonna guess that God's barcalounger has the built in draught beer tap, with his own custom brew in it...

I'd have to say I am grown tired of the inability of creationists to rely on their faith, because it doesn't actually require you ignore science. Science is in the business of figuring out what's there... It says, here's a rock, and this is how it got here. OK, so why not? Are you going to proclaim to the world that you know God so well, that you know how he did it? Or why? or When? Oddly enough nobody's creation myths in any religion really go in to detail about how the geologic record was laid down. Or HOW man was formed from the dust. Or exactly how long that took. How long is a "day" when there is no sun or earth? The curiosity about why things are as they are was instilled in us by a creator, if you believe in creators. Why should anyone presume to make it wrong? If the God or gods or dogs or flying spegetti monsters actually made all this, why do you think they don't want us to figure it out? Either we are a product of an infininte number of accidents, or we are a product of something we can't understand. How far different is that?

So, don't poke the scientists for your own insecurity about your faith, become stronger. Interestingly, if you follow the science, you will have so many "that is so cool" moments that your faith may actually increase.

On the other hand, to those that don't believe in such goofiness, I still extend the same hand... Either they were created, or they weren't, but that doesn't change my happiness that they are here, doesn't change my curiosity about what they think. It's OK if we don't agree on belief systems, as long as we aren't trying to kill each other over it.

If Amy is a bit incredulous that I believe in something I can't prove, I occasionally listen to Elvis as well. And I believe in Dark Matter, and that red shift is a reasonable way of figuring out how far way stars are... Who am I to require that she think those things too?
I don't.

SwissArmyD - Dark matter's a good one. I recently read that we can only account for 5% of the observed matter and energy in the Universe, and the rest is dark, which is just to say, our cosmological theory is completely at odds with observed facts and we don't have a clue why.

(BTW "Perhaps some scientists just are not so arrogant to think we know everything there is to know, at this point in time" applies here, Jim.)

So when you get yet another religious type - Muslims are particularly prone to this - who insists that their sacred text is borne out by science ("how could they know that in 600 AD?") then ask them what their book says about dark matter. Get them to quote chapter and verse. They can surely clear up this mystery before the scientists do.

Let "What about dark matter?" be the cry!

"Perhaps some scientists just are not so arrogant to think we know everything there is to know, at this point in time." Right, there are scientists the have this arrogance. The acts of the religious are far more arrogant in that they refuse their creators gift of intellect and choose to follow the wittings of millennium dead cave dwellers.

Faith in a creator myth doesn't get anyone really that irked. It's the hatred directed at all those that believe differently by the religious groups that causes the problem.

Hold on, hold on. Let's not throw Ben to the lions yet...

I've seen Ben Stein about a hundred times and I have always respected what he has to say. This piece seems a little overboard on the propaganda, but he is in no way advancing the fundamentalist Christian agenda against Darwin and science.

There is an emotional element to the scientific community that condemns any outside or opposing viewpoint, as we have all seen with the Global Warming debate. Valid, respected scientists who do not agree with the general scientific community on whether Global Warming has been created by man or is a factor of some other source, such as the cycles of the Sun, have seen condemnation via lost tenures / program funding. There is big money at stake, and big money is not a thing anyone looks at in a cool rational manner.

Science does make some pretty bold leaps of faith with a smidgen of evidence, but that is why science constantly evolves. For example, I do not necessarily believe that a certain star a million light years away has a planetary system similar to ours because an astonomer has detected a "wobble" in that star. It's a theory, and maybe a valid one, but I wouldn't bet on it. Two hundred years from now I will bet that finding will have been changed with newer information.

>> He quickly found that evolutionists would rather believe we are “nothing more than mud animated by lightning” than to believe humankind carries “the spark of the divine.”

This is worrisome or controversial to you? It's simply poetic to me. It's less a physical question than a metaphysical question, really.

This would be such a great pub debate...

>> He quickly found that evolutionists would rather believe we are “nothing more than mud animated by lightning” than to believe humankind carries “the spark of the divine.”

That's a distortion, as I pointed out. "Evolutionists" (ie, real scientists, who use the scientific method rather than "faith") wouldn't "rather believe" anything. Science is a data-based search for truth, and scientists are reporting what the evidence shows, and there's no evidence there's a god.

I thought Ben Stein could have a certain dry wit before, but now I think of him as a sheep in glasses.

And...sigh...once again, here's what "theory" means in science:

http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html

Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven."

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena

Science is, again, about seeking the truth; about proving and/or disproving, not clinging.

I have to say, I don't mind if scientists are religious, by all means believe what you want. Its when they stop following what is being proven (or is "more proven" than other things) that pisses me off.

Intelligent Design now has evidence because it CANT have been a coincidence that our DNA is so perfect?? Well, FYI, our DNA is N O T perfect. Look at people dying of different diseases because their DNA got messed up somewhere along the way. Did god do that? He decided to smite someone for the hell of it? Or while dna was sequencing, did a small mistake (a variable of the universe) occur?

Did it ever occur to these people that if DNA weren't so perfect for most of us, that we wouldn't be here as we are today? If evolution is right, then there were a lot of hit and misses in our past, it wasn't until the best traits possible started standing out that they got picked up by everyone else.

Imagine the first one with funny looking paws/hands with dramatically longer toes/fingers. It was a mistake of nature, but when that one animal can reach stuff better, or grab things better...well u bet the other animals get all turned on by that! Hell, no more waiting for Sammy Small Toes over there to bring sticks for my nest in his mouth! Not when this guy can do it in his hands, and its faster. Females are generally smart, they see a good thing and they want some of their kids to have it.

A display at the creation museum is reputed to show humans riding dinosaurs. When we were kids, we'd say "that joke's so old, the last time I heard it I fell off my pet dinosaur." Perhaps we weren't clear enough in our sarcasm.

I'm willing to consider that life started on this planet due to some divine spark - rather than a random (and, so far, un-reproducable) chemical reaction.

However, how we got from a lump of inexplicably-self-aware chemicals swirling in a primordial ooze to where we are today is through evolution - millions of years of evolution.

Evolution guided by a divine hand? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But evolution, nonetheless.

Females are generally smart, they see a good thing....

I don't buy it. When the first one with dramatically longer fingers appeared, the females were probably the first to form a clique and tease it until it had an eating disorder.

I wanted to point out that there is a whole spectrum of perspectives in the whole creation vs. evolution debate. You can be atheist, agnostic, deist, or various types of theist; theistic evolutionist, progressive creationist, and biblical creationist. So the whole creation/evolution debate is somewhat of a false dichotomy.

Yes, I agree that creation science is silly and doesn't help the strict creationists, especially when they say that humans coexisted with dinosaurs. Obviously, dinosaurs perished some 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous, while human ancestors have only been around since about the Pliocene at the earliest (depending on how you define "human").

Humans have difficulty reconciling the apparent contradiction between what science can observe, and the feeling that what can be observed requires many physical and chemical properties to be just so in order for the universe/Earth/life to exist - even if evolution was the mechanism that got us here.

You gotta laugh...

http://www.jesusandmo.net/

Preaching to the Choir: Science is at once dizzyingly powerful and pitifully weak. As an example, the degree to which biologists have compiled facts about reducible complexity, such as that found in flagella and eyes, along with discovery of the specific genes that govern development of such organs, and distribution of said genes among vastly different species, and how and where said genes are switched on or off.

It may be silly to think that wobbling stars are proof of planets. But is is darned clever, and great leaps of induction have been rewarded, sometimes decades or centuries later (think Heliocentrism and Dynamic Universe).

Conversely, we know our heads are full of neurons, and that we all have thoughts, but we don't know what thoughts really are, and we know little, if anything, about how a thought can cause action in the physical world. These are the gaps that cause people to invent Gods. As someone here said, Scientists hold themselves to a higher standard by not giving passes to those who ask God for the answers. However, it's important to ask the right questions so the scientists remember to look up, not down. Example: why do male animals choose mates with certain characteristics? We think it's because those mates are selected for survival traits, but do we know how the perception of the traits in a particular individual causes the action of pursuit of that individual? Do we know what creates that mental image, and in turn lust? Do we know how or why this emergent behavior copies itself generation after generation? Why can't animals "smell" bad genes in their prospective mates? (This lack of ability certainly smacks "intelligent design" on its ass). I don't believe in God, but questions like this tempt my need for something more than materialistic thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yzgBj8deKE: Stein is disingeuous, talking about cellular complexity and gaps in darwinism, carefully omitting anything that would undermine his agenda. Bill O'Reilly is just a whore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yzgBj8deKE

"I thought Ben Stein could have a certain dry wit before, but now I think of him as a sheep in glasses."

Bingo, Amy.

Also, I do wish the "evolutionists would rather believe..." accusations could be examined against the actual printed text of the much-maligned high school textbooks.

I'm happy to be proved wrong, but I've looked through a ton of standard high school science books and was actually surprised how diligently the theoretical status of current knowledge is emphasized.

So here are my 2 cents.

The most frustrating thing to me about all of these debates is that I don't see Darwinian Evolution and God is incompatible. Why can't it be that God created the whole Evolutionary system that ended up creating humans?

The funniest thing to me is that when you actually compare the Bible (as long as you don't take it literally) to evolutionary theory they're surprisingly similar.

Day 1: And then there was light.
(sounds like the Big Bang to me)

Day 2: the heavens are created
(evolution of universe - stars and planets)

day 3: earth
(still good)

Day 4: minerals, plants and so forth
(cells and plants evolved before animals)

Day 5: animals
(yup)

Day 6: people
(yups, people are the most recently complex being to have evolved)

So as long as you don't think this has to have happened in LITERALLY six days. The two theories are surprisingly compatible.

So there you have it. As long as you believe God created the system that created humans, you're good to go. Besides to me that's a whole lot more impressive - to create an entire universal system that works and grows - than to say, eyeballs will look like this.

peace.

Science is not attributing something to "god" out of nervousness that you don't know.

Religion runs on fear.

If you want to believe in unproven crap in your own time, be my guest. The moment you want to start teaching it as science in public schools, or using it to legislate my behavior, I've got a problem.

This is, in turn, why I have this level of vitriol only for religious nutters and not for dimwits who believe in astrology. As I've said before, in one way or another, astrologers aren't picketing the public schools demanding that teachers give equal time to their notion that the moon being in Aquarius means somebody born today will have a really shitty afternoon; nor are the trying to legislate behavior based on what the horoscopes say.

Side note: I'm all behind the concept of there possibly being some super duper brilliant mind that set up a set of physical laws that ended up with our universe. This is completely plausible by all the known evidence because such a being (who we can if you like call God) did so before our universe existed and thus we can't see them.

This is fine.

The idea that such a super duper mind would actually be so insecure that he would require our worship. Or that he/she/it would care about exactly what way we as being decided to stick bits of ourselves into other beings (or not) simply boggles me.

How exactly does that work?

Re: Astrologists... Don't give them ideas.

Amy- surely you are not confusing what Ben Stein is talking about with the people who want us to believe that men walked with dinosaurs or that man popped up in the garden of Eden?

Ben Stein believes, without evidence, in god, and seems to feel that god should be a part of science class.

The idea that such a super duper mind would actually be so insecure that he would require our worship. ...simply boggles me.

Not so strange, actually.

Witness the way some people expect their child (their "creation") to think and act just like them. Or the way some mentors expect a protege to become a sycophantic clone of themselves. It's not unusual for the "creator" to expect worshipful deference from the "created."

Greek mythology and drama are full of examples of such hubris and megalomania.

Having a genius-level mind does not mean one has high self-esteem.

Galatea never does quite like Pygmalion: his relation to her is too godlike to be altogether agreeable.

As a Person Of Faith, I feel sorry for those who place great importance on the role of a divine Creator in the universe but have such a tenuous faith in God that they can't reconcile evolution with the existence of God. I mean, is their God so weak that he could be disproven by proof that man is related to apes? Are we not all God's creatures beloved by Him? Why this terror of discussing that which is proven by fossils and science? I don't get it. (There, all of you adorable atheists, I've given you some language to use if you end up in a "discussion" with a religious anti-evolution type. It works best if you keep a sorrowful look upon your face when you're saying the words.)

Then again, I'm a Papist, so that may explain things. I also don't subscribe to a God-as-micromanager approach to the universe - the mere fact that Kevin Federline has reproduced four times indicates to me the existence of free will and imperfection. This is why I get annoyed when, say, singers and actors thank God for their various victories at award shows - so God personally wanted you to win that Oscar but wanted the clean-living devout parents of a 19-year-old Marine to be devastated by his death in Iraq? Ugh.

For those who haven't read it, Heinlein's Job: A Comedy of Justice has some great stuff that touches on this very subject.

speaking of religion...

Another round of worldwide anti-scientology protests tomorrow (sat 3-15)in honor of L Ron's bday.

http://www.whyweprotest.net/

I am very disappointed in Ben Stein. There does not have to be a conflict between belief in God and science, as noted by several others. What Stein is doing is setting up his own beliefs to be knocked down. Why ? I had a classmate in medical school whose family were very religious Jews. He told me that he had been taught that striking a match on the Sabbath would cause him to be struck by lightning. So, one day he tried it. He said his religion was gone in an instant. The creationists are ignorant of science and make religion look foolish. Unfortunately, they aren't the only ones ignorant of science.

I just hate the pompous tone of that video. It sounds like freedom of speech is there to "Tolerate" the twisted teaching of evolution.

Talk about honey-covered hypocrisy. In their theology, they always forgot to talk about Marijuana and the Ebola Virus. If God created everythimg alive, do this two are included and what the heck he was thinking?

A while back I overhear a conversation between my six year old and his best friend (who's parents are creationists). This is the point that I came to overhear;

Mine - Duh! Everyone knows we didn't come from monkey's, everything evolved from germy bugs.

Theirs - Nuh uh. God made us and everything else, just the way it is.

Mine - even the earth?

Theirs - Of course!

Mine - But the planet hasn't looked like this fr'ever. All the Contnents used to be one big place.

Theirs - Didn't Noah's flood break 'em up?

Mine - No silly, bajillions of years did. And if we all got made just like we are now, why do whales have legs they don't even use?

Theirs - They do not.

Mine - (rustling through our bookshelves, finds When Whales Walked Back into the Sea, shows Theirs some pictures) See, these legs are underneath all the fatty stuff and skin.

Theirs - Wow, that's cool.

Mine - Yeah, but why are they there?

Theirs - I'm sure God put them there for a reason. I don't know why God killed my tomatoes either, but I'm sure he had a reason.

Mine - Papa! God killed ----'s tomatoes! Why did God kill ----'s tomatoes? (before bed, freind's been gone for hours) Did God really kill ----'s tomatoes? Is God real?

Me - I imagine that the freeze we had killed ----'s tomatoes. As for God, a lot of people believe that their is some kind of God and believe that their God is real. But there are also a lot of people who don't believe in any sort of God.

Mine - Do you believe in God? (we have this discussion regularly)

Me - Like I have said, I'm not all that sure. I don't believe in a God that gave people a bunch of strange rules.

Mine - I don't think I'd like to believe in a really mean God. 'Specially one that would kill people's tomatoes, I like tomatoes. Do you think that same God might have killed my guinea pigs?

Me - I definitely don't believe in a God that would kill tomatoes or guinea pigs. Like I said, the freeze killed the tomatoes. And you know that your guinea pigs were pretty old, they just don't live for all that long.

I think that ultimately, if there is a God, God's a human construct. Like how we helped build your buddy ----'s house---

Mine - (interrupting) but then how does God make magic?

Me - There is no such thing as magic, remember? If something is real, then it's real and totally natural. If there is actually a God, there is nothing magical about it. Though again, a lot of people believe differently.

Mine - (interupting again) Can we play swords?

Which is often the point that he seems to lose interest. Though we have actually discussed the idea that he will make his own decisions about what he believes, as he learns more. I have managed to disavow him of the notion that he should just believe what I, or his mother believe. I'm pretty sure he gets that too.

> How do you figure?

It's like the cartoon Baptist preacher of your nightmares, the Holy Roller from the churchhouse up in the mountain holler, the hillbilly in the pulpit who assumes that every woman in a skirt shorter than mid-calf is a five-dollar whore. There aren't nearly as many such figures in America as most people believe.

Those few guys who really are like that have obviously sampled very little of life and human nature. It's the precise complement of the provincialism in equating religion with "Tinkerbell." It ignores all the contributions that religion _has_ brought to humanity (see Paul's Crazy Hippie Mother). It shows ignorance of how many religious people play essential roles in your everyday life. And it betrays a childish need to make fun of people. It persuades no one to take your opinion seriously.

Shrill.

Amy,
Where did you get this quote:
He quickly found that evolutionists would rather believe we are “nothing more than mud animated by lightning” than to believe humankind carries “the spark of the divine.”
In the trailer Stein says "they believe" and not "they'd rather believe" and the press release I found on line has no statement of that sort.
Thanks.

It was from a press release promoting the movie that was e-mailed to me.

Here's more from that paragraph:

Ben Stein, former Presidential speech writer, public speaker, and game show host sought to uncover why scientists are losing their jobs, can’t get tenure, or are denied publication in scientific journals when Darwinism is questioned. He quickly found that evolutionists would rather believe we are “nothing more than mud animated by lightning” than to believe humankind carries “the spark of the divine.” Disturbed by his findings, Stein is going on record with a major theater release...

"Let "What about dark matter?' be the cry!"

Yes, intriguing suggestion.

I've often mused on how cool it would be if dark matter turned out to be the invisible weight of god him(her?its?)self, up there holding galaxies and clusters of galaxies together. The old spirit tried to hide from us by neither emitting nor reflecting radiation and by becoming completely transparent. But his(her?its?) mass tipped us off.

Or maybe god is actually coterminous with the universe, and the 5% that's visible is like plumage or something,

Probably if we linked dark matter with god in just the right way, we could come up with a very lucrative religion. First step is to invent some terrible fate that our religion will save believers from. Nothing comes to mind at the moment, though. Damn.

Wait, wait! I've got it!

If people follow the teachings of (and donate to) the Church of Invisible Mass, we promise that dark matter will exert enough gravitational attraction to save them from falling into black holes.

I love it when idiots say that eveolution is just a theory - my respose is always the same

"So is gravity"

I used to watch the show 'Win Ben Stein's Money', and the only good thing about the show is that he had Jimmy Kimmel as his sidekick. I found Ben to be a whiny baby that hated losing. Kimmel was quite the quick wit.

This films' main thesis, that anyone in the science community who believes in God is being "expelled" is false at its core.

In a New York Times interview, Walter Ruloff (producer of Expelled) said that researchers, who had studied cellular mechanisms, made findings suggestive of an intelligent designer. "But they are afraid to report them".

Mr. Ruloff also cited Dr. Francis S. Collins, a geneticist who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute and whose book, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief”, explains how he came to embrace his Christian faith. Mr. Ruloff said that Dr. Collins separates his religious beliefs from his scientific work only because “he is toeing the party line”.

That’s “just ludicrous,” Dr. Collins said in a telephone interview. While many of his scientific colleagues are not religious and some are “a bit puzzled” by his faith, he said, “they are generally very respectful.” He said that if the problem Mr. Ruloff describes existed, he is certain he would know about it.

Similarly, Dr. Ken Miller is a professed Christian who wrote "Finding Darwin's God" (which I suggest you read). Dr. Miller has not been "expelled" in any fashion for his belief in God.

The movie tries to make the case that "Big Science" is nothing but a huge atheist conspiracy out to silence believers, but only presents a very one-sided look at some Discovery Institute "martyrs".

Carolyn Crocker "expelled"? - No.
Her annual teaching contract was not renewed. Was she "fired" for daring to bring God into research? - No. She was hired to teach Biology, and she decided to ignore the schools' curriculum and substitute her own curriculum.

Guillermo Gonzalez "expelled"? - No.
He was not granted tenure. The film doesn't bring up the fact that in all his years at ISU he had only brought in only a miniscule amount of grant money. Nor does it bring up the fact that in all his years at ISU he failed to mentor a single student through to their PhD. Nor does it mention that in his career at ISU, his previous excellent record of publication had dropped precipitously.

Richard von Sternberg "expelled"? - No.
Sternberg continues to work for NIH in the same capacity. Of course the movie doesn't bring up his underhanded tactics in getting Meyers work published.

This movie attempts to influence it's viewers with dishonesty, half-truths, and by a completely one-sided presentation of the facts.

If a scientists' research is not accepted by the scientific community, it isn't because the scientist either believes or doesn't believe in God, it is usually because they are producing bad science. Like the idea of Intelligent Design.
.
.

Thanks, Ben, for clearing up the lies and distortions. Not a surprise they need to lie and distort, considering what they're promoting.