Christianity; The World's most vile religion

[Sheldon]

Ultimately do you care more about the belief (religion), or more about whether that belief is true (science).

Probably instead of "true," in the above sentence, it would be more accurate to say "supported by empirical evidence and the current consensus of authorities." Because unfortunately what scientists tell us many times turns out to be wrong. 

The two are synonymous obviously, as the many successes of science demonstrate, and science is not just remarkably successful in a very short space of time, it is demonstrably the most reliable method we have for understanding reality. So this tired old chestnut is risible, especially since I have never known anyone to (falsely) claim science is infallible. unlike religions of course. 

So it's not wise to assume that something is true because it's science. As you know, the proper method in science demands that we make no such assumption.

Sigh, I did not assume, nor do I assume, any such thing, another straw man. 

No doubt you've read about the replication crisis in scientific journals now. 

And this has what to do with my point contrasting the objective nature of the methods of science with the unevidenced subjective nature of religions? How many deities and religions have humans imagined? The adherents of archaic superstition's don't seem bothered at all with religion's inability to replicate the endless deities imagined in various epochs and locations and cultures. See the difference?

For example, Denis Noble, who for many years taught and researched biology at Oxford University (where he supervised Richard Dawkins' PhD research), says that certain assumptions made these days about how evolution works should be seriously questioned. 

Since that supports the point of my post, I am at a loss as to why you are telling me what I already know, or why? Yes a vital aspect of the methods of science, and one of its greatest strengths, is that no idea can ever be ringfenced from critical scrutiny, and all ideas must remain tentative in the light of new evidence, in stark contrast to religions that have long claimed to possess immutable truths.  

He and other specialists in the field say there is sufficient evidence to throw doubt on what used to be the main consensus. 

Groovy, and when there is a consensus on that, after his claims have been properly validated by the methodologies of science, it will change if needed. Science doesn't bend to the whims  and opinions of scientists, this tired old canard is trotted out by creationists all the time. However if the objective evidence demands it, there is no idea science won't amend or discard. Again in stark contrast to religions. 

However, he said that as a research scientist he knew he would not get funding if he proposed a project to test the new theories.

Well he would wouldn't he, what's your point? 

Despite the new ideas being completely scientific and grounded in objective investigation, the prejudice in favor of current models dictated where the money would go. This I think should be worrying to anyone who cares about objective research. 

A conspiracy theory, really, you are funny fair play. lets stop using the methods of science, and base what we think on conspiracy theories and subjective opinions, that's bound to improve the method. Try and understand, I have not, nor do I imagine, that the scientific methods are infallible. It would help again, if you read what i actually posted, instead of charging off into straw men ideas that are nothing to do with me. 

Also you are begging the question about whether religious people care about truth. Of course they want to believe what is true. They just reach their conclusions in ways that you don't approve of.

I think it is fitting you finish with a straw man. I never claimed nor implied theists don't want their beliefs to be true, or care about whether they are true, try reading it more carefully and you might post less of these awful straw men. Caring more about the belief, than whether you can validate it in any objective way, does not suggest you don't care at all about whether it is true, but the subjective nature of religious "evidence" is wholly unreliable, or we'd likely not have it being used as faith to produce countless different deities and religions. In stark contrast to the methods of science, as these facts change only in line with the objective evidence, and not according to subjective anachronistic and cultural beliefs.