does that make sense at least to you? 🙄

Sure I do, he came from the same country 😎

Of course the "science" came from churches in the past, as the clargymen were the only allowed to be educated. What’s your point?

and BTW he was studying at the same University as me 😛 but never mind, because I see it really makes no sense to discuss with you.

I guess you just have some PC program, which you only feed with some "noble" words and make it to setle the senteces for you, don’t you? 😆

QED. Random word parsing program, obviously.

Isaac Newton was a clergyman?
Ben franklin?
Kelvin?
Edison?
Joule?
Galileo?
Boyle?
Kepler?
Faraday?
Descartes?
Off the top of my head, all are theist scientists which were not clergymen.

You can lie to yourself all you want about why they were all religious, and many were clergymen. But don’t lie about the facts, which was that you "had to be" a clergymen." That is simply fabricated non-sense.

While I don’t agree or follow the original post. I did not know that Darwin was a clergymen. I find it very interesting that atheists suddenly fought tooth and nail to remove religion from science in the late 19th century. Most scientists were philosophers and theologians before then. And everyday they homogenize even more as we get closer and closer to the real question we all want to answer "why are we here, and how did we get here?" This is both a scientific, religious, and philosophical question, not exclusively a "scientific" (in today’s vernacular) one. As such, scientists should not be scorned, as they are today, for philosophizing and/or stating theological beliefs. There are many great scientists today who say they are atheist or agnostic, because they could lose their job and reputation if they don’t. The modern collegian secular "scientific" community of today, is the 15th century church of yesterday.

I was talking about a little darker ages…

Right. I wasn’t aware there was talk of genetics pre 1400. Care to elaborate?

Church used to be one of the very few human endeavour that allowed a scholarly life for a long time. It has progressively changed since the middle age, and offered the possibility of a career of study and science to those beyond the nobility and the clergy, hence the growing number of non religious scientist. This is what JackBean was pointing out. Nothing more as far as I can see.
Unlike what you seem to think, reliogisity is not something that will prevent you to have a (successful) scientific career (over used high profile example: Francis Collins; but there are many more). And thinking a bout science and its implication, its ethics is quite fine, many people do and are not the least ridiculed for it. But if your religion makes you oblivious to facts, data and your biases then you will be ridiculed out of the profession for sure. And even that might not be even enough to get you out of the scientific "pantheon" (K. Mullis and F. Crick have had their lunatic moments, yet they merit still stand for themselves) nor even out of employment. For crying out loud there is such a thing as the Discovery institute! And please do not bring Ben Stein and the stupid expelled movie here.
If there are so many atheists in science it is probably because many people see how conflicting many religious dogma can be with respect to reality. And when your profession and passion revolves around testing hypotheses and doubting what cannot be tested, it becomes a bit hard to do just that in another part of your life.

QFT That is why you have been banned to be silenced by those moderators in a blatant show of abuse of power. And we limit the access to the secret database so that the poor uninitiated cannot access scientific evidence that we rely on (and please never look for the bookshelf).

Oh wait…. enarees you are deluded and completely irrelevant when it comes to biology. You might think that you have something of interest to bring to the discussion, but you do not. Yet we do not silence you because your own lack of knowledge, sense, data and relevance is enough to show the world the importance (or lack thereof) of what you have to say.

You are going to make me regret that I am not an inquisitor. I would torture you to death by forcing you to study and educate yourself. I might use books by Dawkins, S.J Gould and Popper. They are full of terrible secrets and in a pile, quite heavy when use to whack the internet trolls into submission.

What do you make of that?
An empty egg is fertilized by one or two sperm and develop in an hydatidiform mole (a non viable pocket of embryonic tissue, not an embryo). They abort it, and its normally fertilized twin. I fail to see what would be quite earth-shattering. Would you care to illuminate us?

And before you tell us that androgenesis is thus proved, then I would point that sperm making an incomplete placenta that abort itself, or eliminated by the doctor, is far from being a conclusive proof that androgenesis is a viable reproductive system, don’t you think?

Evidence?

😯 😕
What are you talking about ?