Fair enough. I can understand the line of thought.

So, the thing about the origin of the universe is that it takes place in the sub-atomic level of existance. Our common sense does not apply there. 

Are you familiar with quantum mechanics? It is proven that on a sub atomic level the same particle can exist in 2 places at once. This isn't belief, it is reality. It's demonstrable. Does it make any sense for us, for the same cat to exist in 2 places at once? Of course not! It's impossible! But, in the sub-atomic level, it isn't. So, our common sense and view of the world simply isn't adapted to recognise how the world works at that level and is thus a bias that we must throw out when trying to understand it. 

The sub-atomic world is highly unstable and does not obey common sense. A place where the same thing can exist twice. Is it so far fetched to suppose that in an extreme moment of instability, something incredible may happen?

The problem with religious explanation is they don't explain anything, because even if some magical beeing did it... how did said beeing came into existance? See, religion just displaces the question, it never answers it. So, it becomes an unecessary step in trying to determine the origin of the universe.

That's not ideal since academics and scholars frequently lose grounding to the real world ...

I want to believe but it's human nature to be stubborn and especially when science conflicts with their moral views ... 

Even many of the scholars who were progressive in Galileo's time did not agree with his conclusions for reasons other than religion ... 

Your're right that science is not an echochamber but the community themselves are in an echochamber where they are getting infected with the popular opinions of political figures with idiots like Bernie Sanders who are just as dangerously ignorant about science as those who we persecute with extreme religious beliefs ... 

I don't claim that religion is more honest than science. It's that religion doesn't advertise to be more academically honest and if science is going to do the opposite then we need to hold it to a much higher standard to those practicing it when experts are willing to defile it with their political agendas ... 

Too many times have I've seen experts produce dishonesty after dishonesty when it comes to genetic research because they had a conflict of interest with liberal policies. I can't trust liberal funded research anymore when it comes to genetics since their the group whose most opposed to shutting down any results that agree with their equality narrative ... 

It's so utterly sad to see eugenics not being pursued as often because anytime anyone goes into to it they become the black sheep of the science community and are automatically branded as racists when they bring in valid data that intensely clashes with the personal opinions of the rest of the community ... 

Well considering you seem to strongly believe in the idea of "if you don't like how someone else does it, then do it yourself"... what are you waiting for?

Other than religion? How do you know this? Of course it was religion. Even giving the benefit of the doubt would put you in the aim of inquisitions.
Also, if you lick their boots, you will gain bigger standing with the religious power. Religion was the law back then. You can't compare those times to today's times where people have the freedom to defend their opinion without their life beeing at risk. For the most part anyways.

You are mixing this with politics again. They are not the same. Bernie is not a scientist. I'm pretty sure he knows more about science than Trump, for example. Probably, more than every right wing leader.

Religion doesnt claim to be more honest because it's demonstrable that they aren't. Theres recorded history events of it. Religion just focuses on selling you a dream and trying to make you forget about details.

The expert generalisation... i dunno what to tell you. I think you are just looking at the wrong places and assuming what is true science from what is hypothesis. I saw so called scientists presenting their "proof" of creationism, wich involved ignoring all that science knows is true and questioning every dating method, even though the evidence corroberates itself. Theres too much proof to the contrary to just grab some circusntancial data and claim something outrageous. This is why i said before that you need more than just circunstancial evidence.

Eugenics, if you mean in humans, it's morally reprehensable. What you are sugesting is human experimentation with steralisation. Who do you think has the moral authority or right to do that to someone else?

Then I guess I'll take up on that challenge but first I have to find a biologist in the specialty of genetics since that's not my area of expertise and who's arguably open minded of what is perceived to be negative ... 

It was more than religion, he got ridiculed by his peers but to be fair to his doubters Galileo had no way to conclusively show that the earth revolved around the sun until maybe Newton came along ... (Even then Galileo's model of heliocentrism is still very wrong by today's modern standards.) 

Science isn't an iota about concensus (popularity contest), it's about empirical evidence much like how Einstein didn't get approval from his peers to validate both special and general relativity ... 

@Bold It's partisanship like this that can destroy years of valuable research while throwing it under the bridge. You're telling me Bernie Sanders knows more about science than the likes of former Dr Ben Carson who went to medical school to specialize in neurosurgery, Bobby Jindal who majored in honours Biology, Rick Perry who got a degree in animal science,  or even former Dr Rand Paul who was a physician ? (It's kinda funny to see you to scapegoat Trump as anti-science when Bernie is equally dishonest in that regard. (His anti-GMO, anti-fracking and anti-nuclear energy stance is based out of sheer stupidity than of real evidence.) 

I already said religion doesn't claim to be academically honest but that doesn't mean we shouldn't hold science and it's (fake) representatives like democrats to a higher standard ... 

You only need evidence to prove or disprove a theory, peer review can go screw itself as that's not what science is about since it is susceptible to group think ... 

As for the ethics about eugenics, i don't care about that shit. Scientists shouldn't have to give a damn about ethics and any scientists that put ethics over obtaining data is a total fraud in my eyes ... (Just like how every "progressive" scientist that tries to hinder the field of genetics by censoring any publications about the relationship between race and IQ.) 

I believe, in an ironic twist of fate, that we're all likely living in a simulation. The scientific data is there to make a strong case if you study it. The irony, going back to my opening sentence, lies in the fact that if proven... if science proves that we're all living inside of a concieved simulation, where all things were created by a "coder"... then that will mean science proves there's a "god". 

Imagine that lol.

Talk about a spin. Of course science is about evidence. Peer review is the double checking of the evidence/experiment.

And depends. Carson may know alot about medecine, but not necessarely about physics or biology as he still buys into the god stuff. Well... assuming he is beeing honest that is. Also, this is assuming he didn't go to any crazy catholic university, wich i'm guessing is the case. 

If any of those people tell you evolution isn't a fact, sorry, but they are outright dumb and Bernie knows more than them. Tbh, i'm assuming Bernie is an intelligent person, beeing as he is american, if he buys into religious stuff, then he is dumb aswell. I don't know him that well.

I don't know what the heck you mean as science representitives. Science doesn't have priests or whatever. It's not a religion. Democrats don't represent science. There just seems like theres more educated people in the democratic camp. Might be my impression though, as i have no proof of that. Just the fact that they take envyronmental issues seriously puts them over republicans for sure.

Cool, go volunteer for eugenics experimentation then. Talk is cheap. Go get yourself steralised. 

I'm gonna be completely honest here, what you are saying is not only disgusting and inhumane but makes me worry about your mental health when you are incapable of empathasing with why that is something that shouldn't be done.

There have been multiple studies about race and IQ correlation. That is not nearly on the same level.

The one spinning this was you. Science is NOT a democracy to begin with so it cannot progress with a consensus. Humans cannot be trusted with the objective truth because the universe doesn't make it so when our only goal is to propagate like viruses ... 

Bernie knows nothing about science as he has no formal education or training in that field, there's a reason why he has a degree in political science in the first place. He couldn't hack it in either the life sciences or the physical sciences so that's why he picked pseudoscience. Just because Ben Carson subscribes to a religion doesn't mean he's any less knowledgeable. (That's like saying a biologist with a PhD in their own field doesn't know any better since they practice Christianity.) 

Not only do you deface Carson because of his beliefs but then you have some audacity to go on to assume that he went to a religious quack post-secondary when he studied at Yale and the University of Michigan ?! WTF ?! Yeap, Yale and UoM are definitely crazy catholic universities ... /sarcasm 

Bernie doesn't even care about the debate between creationism or evolution enough to speak about it ... 

You're right, democrats don't represent science. They just promote it for their own convenience more than they should ... (BTW issues =/= science, just because you care less about a particular issue doesn't make you any less scientific.) 

LOL, asking other people to get sterilized ... 

Don't worry about me, worry about yourself since you now have cognitive dissonance. It's not my fault that your offended about the truth when you keep telling yourself the lie that science must be held accountable to ethical standards ... (Science doesn't give a shit about where and how you collected your data in the first place.)

That isnt what i said at all. Science is about evidence. If theres evidence and theres great support of the results of the theory, experiment and evidence, that is the consensus. Not literally everyone. Consensus in science just means it's widely accepted as the truth after peer review because it's uncontested. The reason it's uncontested is because theres no good alternative.

So, empathy is cognitive dissonance. Very well... i'm ok with that dissonance. Theres is ethics in science. Unsafe Human experimentation is unethical. If you don't think so, as i said, feel free to volunteer your life and risk the consequences as i'm sure theres any crazy company out there willing to do that. I'm sure you can understand why that isn't ethical and that is why Eugenics is something that is unethical.

I don't think you quite understand what is meant by "scientific consensus." They don't congregate together and have a vote. They didn't do a show of hands or have a secret ballot. That's not how consensus works in science, regardless of the field. A consensus happens when the vast majority of scientists do independent research and the evidence leads them to come to the same conclusion about a given theory. "Alternative" theories eventually fail because fewer and fewer researchers can make a convincing case that the now-standard theory doesn't work or find any evidence supporting the alternative. That's why virtually all papers on cosmology agree that the Big Bang is a valid cosmological model. That's why 97% of all scientific papers claim that global warming is primarily anthropogenic. And, most pertinent to this discussion, you don't see any biology papers in any journal questioning the validity of evolution.

And that's why "dissenters" usually just end up being cranks after a time. There are always a handful of dissenters at some point. Fred Hoyle, Halton Arp, and Hannes Alfven were all actual scientists who questioned the Big Bang theory and proposed their own alternatives, but those alternatives were found lacking as more and more evidence piled up to support the BBT, and that small group of renegades continued to dwindle. Over time, the "dissenters" just sounded more and more like cranks, claiming that there was a "conspiracy" in mainstream science to suppress their work, and as those older dissenters have died, it has increasingly left non-scientists being the only people left that believe them. The near-unanimous support for the BBT happened because the BBT was the best fit for the evidence. Nowadays about the only people who reject the BBT are creationists and Velikovsky supporters, few if any of which are actual practicing scientists with relevant credentials.

And that's the case with evolution. The idea that all species share a common ancestry and that populations of organisms change and evolve over time is simply the best fit for the evidence. Biology, including evolutionary biology, operates on the same basic principles as any other sciences. And over a century of research by many thousands of scientists has repeatedly confirmed the validity of evolution. While the particulars have been modified, no evidence has come forth that would disprove the theory in its entirety. Evolution is so well-confirmed that there are essentially zero biologists who question it. There is no controversy within science over the issue. The only "controversy" is the social controversy, which only exists because the science threatens certain people's worldviews, most notably Protestant fundamentalists who insist on taking the Book of Genesis absolutely literally and treating it not just as a spiritual text, but also as a scientific text.