hostility, with religion usually taking the part of the aggressor against new scientific ideas. The historical conflict thesis was a popular historiographical approach in the history of science during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but its original form had been discredited by the 1980s and is not held by historians of science today. Despite that, conflict theory remains a popular view among the general public and is limited to a few sets of controversies such as creation–evolution, stem cells, and birth control. Books such as The God Delusion still argue for the conflict thesis. Studies on the actual beliefs held by scientists show that most scientists globally do not subscribe to conflict thesis and instead the majority believe that the relation between science and religion is independence or collaboration. Historians of science including John Hedley Brooke and Ronald Numbers consider the "religion vs. science" concept an oversimplification, and prefer to take a more nuanced view of the subject. These historians cite, for example, the Galileo affair and the Scopes trial; and assert that these were not purely instances of conflict between science and religion as personal and political factors also weighed heavily in the development of each. In addition, some historians contend that religious organizations figure prominently in the broader histories of many sciences, with many of the scientific minds until the professionalization of scientific enterprise (in the 19th century) being clergy and other religious thinkers. Some historians contend that many scientific developments such as Kepler's laws and the 19th-century reformulation of physics in terms of energy were explicitly driven by religious ideas. Recent examples of tensions have been the creation–evolution controversy, controversies over the use of birth control, opposition to research into embryonic stem cells, or theological objections to vaccination, anesthesia and blood transfusion. Counterarguments to claims that religion is harmful to society Some studies show that some positive links exist in the relationship between religiosity, moral behavior and altruism. Some studies have shown similar correlations between religiosity and giving. Some argue that religious violence confuses religious moral rules and behaviour with non-religious factors.Esposito, John (2005), Islam: The Straight Path, p.93. This includes the claim that events like terrorist bombings are more politically motivated than religious."Terrorism: The Current Threat" , The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 10 February 2000. Mark Juergensmeyer argues that religion "does not ordinarily lead to violence. That happens only with the coalescence of a