Anti-science madness

It's deeper than just anti-science. We know that there are many different interpretations of the Quran, the hadith, Muslim history, etc.; but once a Muslim has given a response to a non-Muslim regarding a particular topic within Islam, I rarely see alternate Muslim views presented. It's kind of frustrating because I want to hear multiple Muslim perspectives, not just one at a time.

My observation in years of discussion here is that most Muslims are very reluctant to say anything critical of another Muslim in the presence of non-Muslims. (Of course perhaps they have the same reluctance when non-Muslims are not present -- how would I know? -- but I don't think so.) There seems to be an ethic embedded in Muslim culture that the divide between Muslim and non-Muslim supercedes all other divisions, including even such things as the division between truth and falsehood. Apparently, for a Muslim to criticise another Muslim in a discussion, let alone to side with a non-Muslim, would be seen as disloyal to the faith or the ummah or something.

I may be wrong, and if so I would be glad to hear it. What do Muslims think about this?

Todays science is not an exact science as almost ALL of it is conjucture. I exclude Mathematics and Medical Science from this s these are based onevidence and which we can test empirically. However, when it comes to Astronomy and Astrology they are the works of satan to fool the human beings into believing that we are insignificant. On the contrary, our Creator Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala created us as a special creation and even asked the Angels to prorstrate to a human being.

One thing to remember is that all these things are meant to happen as the Great Deception is part of the signs of the end times.

Abu Loren wrote: ..You keep connecting Science with religion for some strange reason. There's no need for it, I can worship my Creator without science just perfect thank you very much

Now that's an odd idea, unless a leap is made at the very beginning that the religion is perfect.
(in which case any discussion is indeed pointless, as it is closed off by that initial assumption.)

Failing that, whenever a religion or its central text makes a statement about physics (or history, biology) these can be compared with other sources of awareness of physics, history or biology.
Sources need cross-checking whenever means are available, surely.
If a beautiful idea can never be destroyed by an ugly fact then the most unsound and untrue (but beautiful) idea will continue to survive.
That doesn't seem healthy or wise.

.What I'm trying to do however is to highlight the darn right lies within the scientific comunities. The new one being the ninth planet?

What's wrong with finding evidence for a 9th planet?
Uranus was found in in 1781. Neptune in 1846 and   Pluto in 1930, though later, better observations revealed that it was too small to class as a full planet (it was for a while considered the 9th full planet of the solar system. We now know it is only the second biggest dwarf planet. (so if Pluto counts as 9, we already have 10!)
This is called progress in knowledge.
Better ideas from better observations replace weaker or less accurate ideas.

Now where any religion touches on these areas, why should it have some sort of "religious immunity"?
(like diplomatic immunity only more so.)

If granted for one religion it needs granting for all.
Whatever it is. That doesn't seem very palatable given the range of religions that exist.

Test the science, history, biology too, of course. But declare any religion "science proof" and you can't tell wisdom from nonsense.

Abu Loren wrote: The trouble with finding evidence is that there is absolutely NO evidence.

I don't know what you call evidence, but evidence there is.
Measurements taken do not fit the behaviour of the solar system as we understand it.
Therefore (logic step, no conjecture) there is evidence for something that we don't yet know about.
Conjecture as to what that might be is perfectly good science, as these conjectures or hypotheses *can be tested* against observations and against predictions made using them, to see which initial idea is a better fit to reality... and refinement or elimination of false ideas can go on from there. What on earth (or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter) can you have against that?

They just use conjucture, if you look at their statements they say things like 'probable' 'likely' 'could be' etc etc etc. This is not an exact science.

"Probably" sounds good. It means there is work to do closing in on the right possibility.
I don't know how you got the strange idea that science is exact, or that it needs to be.
It is often remarkably exact but except in bad teaching of it is not *perfectly* exact. It can even make measure of its own uncertainty a lot of the time.

There is no way of proving it unless you send a camer up there, which is impossible.

Photography may not be impossible at all If where to look can be refined mathematically, Hubble or even a ground based telescope may be adequate, though that might be just when planet IX (yes if it is as predicted) crosses the line of a star and occludes it.

Other sites suggest it would take (only!?) the diversion of several major telescopes for about fifty days to have a very good chance of making a direct visual observation.

We've got EVIDENCE, (the "wrong" orbits of several known distant objects) so let's go looking.

Science is extremely happy when something doesn't make sense according to what is already known. It means that there is something else to know.