Why religion isn't under the same amount of scrutiny?

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by N.T.M.

Religious beliefs are constantly criticized and also undergo scrutiny.

That's a completely different kind of criticism and scrutiny. The criticism it receives is more literary in nature, while the scrutiny is entirely faith-based rather centered around reason and logic.

If one applies the same sort of scrutiny to the claims of religions that is given to science, all of the fantastic claims would be have to be false; science doesn't agree to fantastic ideas without evidence, so when religion fails to provide any evidence, said fantastic ideas must not be scientifically true.

All scientific evidence produced also complies with the existence of a god.

No. As defined literally within religious texts, science says that many of those things are not literally possible. For example, the Christian Bible says that God created man from dirt, while science agrees that we evolved from apes. That is a direct contradiction between what this religion says about God and what we have deduced by using science and reason.

What you mean to say is that science does not produce any proof that it's impossible for some kind of god to exist (but as I've already said, believing in it for this reason would be a logical fallacy). A god as an extradimensional being is certainly within possibility according to the scope of science, but a god as defined literally in the bible is most certainly not. This is why reasonable religious people fall back on the metaphor idea. Some of the things in the book are blatantly at odds with what we know about the world around us, so those things which are at odds must be read as metaphors or else those religious people would have to be of the opinion that their holy and perfect book is riddled with half truths and whole lies.

Anyway, notice that while science fails to provide negative proof (which is IMPOSSIBLE, might I add), it also doesn't come close to providing even one piece of actual evidence either. You say, "Science fails to prove god cannot exist," and I'll reply back, "Science also fails to provide any evidence to support his existing."

Now who'd know more about evolution than Darwin himself? Even he eventually said that it's inaccurate (that all species present today DID NOT stem from a single ancestry).

Plenty of people know more about it than him. He put forth the idea and the scientific community tested it and ran with it when they found it to be an accurate way of answering the question of speciation. And you do realize that we know evolution to be a real process thanks to the study of micro-organisms, right? Our DNA doesn't mutate as easily because it's not as "malleable", but bacteria and viruses are constantly changing and getting better. This is evolution. Now, Occam's razor in mind, what's more likely: evolution (which is a scientifically known system) or God (which has no actual evidence on its side)? The simple answer is the one that has evidence, buddy.

And anyway, Darwin's later claim of saying it was wrong was a fearful repentance. He wasn't an atheist, so he feared for his "immortal soul", and in his later years, his fear drove him to ignore logic. Plenty of bright minds have believed in God, but they have a means to balance their observance and "reverse engineering" of the world around them while still maintaining their faith that there is a greater power; Darwin failed to keep it balanced.

Oh and lets not exclude the irony that its most compelling evidence is its greatest downfall: fossils. The fact is that for all creatures present today to have stemmed from a single ancestry there must be fossils of the intermediate phases in equal quanities to the fossils of the final product. The truth is that there are tons of documented fossils in their final phase, yet VERY few demonstrating the intermediate phases (and many aren't even complete fossils). Soley from a mathematical aspect, the theory of evolution is inconceivable.

The common ancestor you refer to would be a SINGLE microscopic organism. You really expect to find a FOSSIL of a SINGLE MICROSCOPIC organism? Or do you think that plants and fungi evolved from a dog or fish? Take a look at the classifications of animals and it's pretty clear to be able to guess where each evolution branched into something new, whether that something new led to plants, fish, reptiles, mammals, etc.

And do you know how fossils come to be? They're not just bones. They're bones turned to rock. That requires a special process and not all bones will become fossils. Some bones may become heavily damaged in the process of fossilization, and many dead animals' bones will just decay and not become fossils at all. I suggest you learn a little bit about fossilization and such before accusing it of failing to produce evidence; it's not as common a natural occurrence as you think it is.

I have some more to say but I've got to leave. I just wanted to explain how bias the OP is.

By spewing bias in the opposite direction? Bias in the name of science is a better bias to have when talking about THINKING CRITICALLY.