List of scientists who became creationists after studying the evidence

Gisteron, rather than supplying a bunch of quotes and continuing that method (which would likely result in extremely long posts), I'll address the points you made which I think are most important. You say taking the bible literally isn't required of Judaism, and that not turning the other cheek is required of Christians. While you're correct about the first (in regards to some sects of Judaism, such as the reform movement), I wonder how you can say the second with a straight face. For you, yourself, seemed to be dubious of those who would differentiate between "true Christians" and others; but the same criticism applies for the Jews, as there are many sects of Judaism which would refer to the reform Jews and others who aren't biblical literalists as false Jews. Frankly, most Christians I know would not refer to such a person as a false Christian; and so I have no reason to believe that someone taking revenge makes them any less Christian, and am confused as to why you think so.

You say: "Science, in this context, on the other hand, is defined exclusively as a process of examination and conclusion drawing and nothing else." While at the same time, you assert that the belief that testing and retesting giving us knowledge is not required of the scientist. Well, alright.

Science operates on a belief, necessarily, that conclusions can be drawn based on examination in some, most, or all cases (depending on how much you drink the Kool Aid). More often than not, scientists engage in the scientific method. I am inclined to say that a belief in the validity of the scientific method is required of science and scientists, unless you can give a good reason against it.

If we use your definition of prohibited or required beliefs -- which I take to be, based on your reasoning, "beliefs which conform with the majority of the most dedicated group of people in a particular group (science, religion, political parties, etc)" due to your "True Christian" argument -- then there are a number of required and prohibited beliefs in the sciences. For example, we could say that Behaviorists in the subfield of Behaviorism founded by Skinner are required to believe in operant conditioning. We can say this because that particular field is defined by its use of operant conditioning, meaning that in that particular field it is a required belief.

And as for electrons, you haven't seen electrons with your bare eyes; if you had, then you cannot prove that you were not being deceived. If you saw electrons with the help of a machine, you still cannot prove you were not being deceived. So you believe that you have seen electrons, and there is no reason that you can see to doubt that, so you will not engage in doubt-inquiry-belief. The same can be said of those who believe in God. I still do not see the validity of the claim that one belief is superior to another in this situation.

I read most of this thread. The same type of discussion is in numerous threads over the last few years..
Religion versus Science.
The parameters feel too small to answer big questions.

To me the individual's journey with the meaning and relationship of tangible/quantifiable versus intangible/incorpeal is a long hard tread bouncing back and forth between the two. The Hero's Journey to me looks like the not giving up on life; because, it is hard. Not giving up is the hero. The journey is that is that it is hard.

Some of the conclusions in this thread are lumped in to either religion or science. For e.g. to say a myth is an expression like art is very limited and more narrow than the way Campbell uses the term. First a myth is a type of expression "a story", but not all myths are scientifically or human naturally incorrect. They were/are communication, teaching and expression. Often times, that which one could draw an image of from the story doesn't matter at all, the images can be changed but the purpose of the story is what occurs in an action or an exchange. That which can not be seen. The images are just a transportation device.

So it is with religion, not everyone has negative take aways. Myself, others I have discussed with this . . just didn't believe from youth that which we did not believe. Some others take those same things and feel they were harmed. Just a hypothesis: what if the creation story harmed no-one, what if women working did more harm? Just saying . . it is not JUST a creation story or hell story that is responsible for humans feelings of safety or doom. (not saying it is working mothers either).

Not doing a good job here of trying to say . . . where humanity is today is not limited to religion and science . . there is history, there is human nature, there are political structures EACH with their own programs (postiive and negative). By programs I mean which drive us . . got humanity where it is today. Furthermore, there is overlap and blended influence of everything.

To say all religions have a creation story or the same creation story is in-correct. Some do not have any. A relgion is an institution, first, shared beliefs about something second.

The humans behind science, politics and human nature are equal contributors to war and bloodshed, and the destruction of that which a few don't want under the facade of for someone's good. In fact, there is much history to point to the structure of religions in the common era by polticians. Prior to that the Jews did what they did . . it wasn't even organized. The same with Christianity.

Nowadays to think that everyone who says the word god is talking about the creation story or something useless and irrational is false. That old ideaology of what god means has weakened significantly and progressively in the last 150 - 200 years. It is now so variant and often left up to the individual "hero's journey" to figure out within him/her self. I am not saying not to talk about but more so there are so many nuances in the tapestry to appreciate not just because of the similar but also because of the differences.