[Dead Dog]

There is something kinda funny about all this, in a sad way.
The mandatory and strict adherence to a particular dogma in science is that it is not scientific unless an unsuption is made that there is no God. That any acknowledgment of the possibility of a creator is superstition and not science.

Therefor, all deductive reasoning must be based off of an inductive conclusion that there is no God.

It is intellectually crippling, just as it was when the old Soviet Union demanded all scientific papers adhere to Dialectic Materialism. In fact, the Soviet's dogmatic adherence isn't even an analogy..it is the exact same perversion of the scienctific process.

Science simply cannot check the box of Yes God or No God and still be deduction, at this point they have to assume it is an unknown. Anything else is an act of faith..which does belong in philosophy and theology.

Right now, the scientific community as a whole is hell bent on conforming to Materialism....as per Marx, not even Hegel.

[highball]

The mandatory and strict adherence to a particular dogma in science is that it is not scientific unless an unsuption is made that there is no God.

Kindly cite a single scientific source to back up your assertion.

Any one will do.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The mandatory and strict adherence to a particular dogma in science is that it is not scientific unless an unsuption is made that there is no God. That any acknowledgment of the possibility of a creator is superstition and not science."

That's not even remotely true. Science requires only that supernatural explanations not be part of a scientific theory. It has nothing to say about the existence of a deity.

NO scientific theory uses supernatural causes as an explanation, why is evolution penalized for doing what all other scientific theories also do?

[Quark2005]

It is intellectually crippling, just as it was when the old Soviet Union demanded all scientific papers adhere to Dialectic Materialism.

The Soviets under Stalin also rejected Darwin's ideas as being too "Western" in favor of the flawed Lamarckian ideas of Lysenko. Russian biology research never fully recovered.

It would be a shame to see American research go the same way by casting unwarranted doubt such a successful scientific theory.