Can Christians Do Science?
by Matt Kaufman on 07/10/2009 at 8:00 AM
The answer should be obvious: Of course they can. But not everyone seems so convinced, according to a story in The New York Times.
President Obama has nominated Francis Collins, a big-league geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, to head the National Institutes of Health. Not everyone is happy about that, the Times reports, due in part to Collins' "very public embrace of religion."
He wrote a book called The Language of God, and he has given many talks and interviews in which he described his conversion to Christianity as a 27-year-old medical student. Religion and genetic research have long had a fraught relationship, and some in the field complain about what they see as Dr. Collins's evangelism.
If you're wondering whether this is all about evolution, it's not -- not directly, anyway. Collin believes in theistic evolution, the view which amounts to "evolution happened, but God made it happen." Plenty of Christians would challenge that position, but Christians aren't the ones complaining about Collins. Scientists are -- just because he sees God at work in the physical universe at all.
His critics aren't willing to be quoted by name in the Times story, which refers only to people who "privately expressed unease." There's little doubt, though, that they reflect a real body of opinion. A lot of scientists (in certain fields, anyway) insist that the material world can only be explained through materialistic explanations. There's no room for God in their worldview. And, apparently, not much room for the likes of Collins, especially in the upper echelons of science or government.
How widespread are these attitudes? Let's hear especially from those of you with training in the natural sciences. What have you seen, from the classroom to today? Are Christians -- or religious believers of any sort -- getting any respect?
1. Megan said the following at 8:48 AM on Jul 10:
1
I read Collin's book, and was impressed by what he saw, ie God in the physical universe.
I was a mathematics major, and it's easy to get lost in all the formulas and proofs, etc. but it's also very easy to see the beauty in mathematics ... and I believe that Collins feels the same way about the natural sciences. Where does this beauty originate?
Psalm 19 1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. 3 There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. 4 Their voice [b] goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, 5 which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. 6 It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.
It amazes me that so many people who have never studied science are so willingly ready to believe something (evolution) that has not been proven, yet demand that someone prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God exists. We have proof all around us.
The truth is that Satan is at work here. If so many people willingly believe that God doesn't exist (through the theory of evolution), then Satan can not exist. It's a great way to fool the world.
The attitude is very widespread.
Although, kudos to the President for appointing Francis Collina.
2. hlc said the following at 9:22 AM on Jul 10:
2
I have a PhD in cancer biology and have met with Francis Collins and heard him speak a few times. He is an amazing person and an incredibly smart scientist!! I think those that know him have nothing but respect for him. He's very well liked and respected by those who know him. I am excited by his appointment!
I think in general as a Christian in the sciences, our respect is one that is earned. I think scientists can get paranoid and conjure up all sorts of negative stereotypes of Christians. I think the Christians in science I've worked with, have earned a lot of respect from colleagues and trainees who often will remark that there's something "different" about them. I've been able to get to know people from all sorts of faiths (Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, agnostic) and have some really awesome conversations about faith with them. I've definately not had a problem with respect, but usually people meet me as a scientist first and then learn I'm a Christian, so I have a chance to earn their unbiased respect. However, scientists who just know we're Christians and don't know us will probably always give us some slack.
3. Ronnica said the following at 9:22 AM on Jul 10:
3
If we as a nation only allow science to be done by those with a particular worldview (atheism), then we can only assume the results are going to reflect that worldview: that there is no God.
4. Ashley said the following at 9:25 AM on Jul 10:
4
I studied chemistry last year and am taking anatomy, physiology, and biology right now. In my biology textbook, they refer to belief in a force outside of natural laws as vitalism, and they claim that vitalism crumbled in the 1950s because of an experiment someone did in which they created organic molecules ("life") using a combination of lightning and gases which they believed came from early earth. They make it sound like evolution is practically indisputable even though there are still a lot of unexplainable phenomena out there.
I also find it amusing when professors use the words "designed" or "programmed" to refer to the structure of an organism. This is probably because the organism exhibits such order and complexity that it doesn't seem like it was put together by random forces. But scientists won't say that, for fear of sounding "unscientific."
If you think about it, the Big Bang Theory is not scientific by their standards because it is historical. Scientific hypotheses must be tested over and over again even to turn into theories, and one cannot test evolution because no one observed these changes over millions of years and the transformation of one-celled bacteria to multicellular humans and cats cannot be replicated in a lab setting. A historical event happened one time and the chances of it happening again in exactly the same way (i.e. in a lab) are pretty small.
5. JB said the following at 9:32 AM on Jul 10:
5
I seriously doubt there are many scientists who would object to Collins just because he's a Christian. However, if he actually does advocate nonmaterial explanations of phenomena in his work (and I doubt he does) that would be inappropriate. Empirical natural science, which is what the NIH does, demands material explanations exclusively because only material causes can be observed, predicted, and reproduced. It's not just an epistemological issue either. The purpose of science is more to obtain power than to discern Truth. A scientist who attributes the pathogenesis of cancer to the miraculous intervention of Zeus is useless to us, even if she were correct. A scientist who sticks to material explanations can generate useful therapies.
That being said, I personally believe in the existence of nonmaterial phenomena in the world, but I leave that out when I do science. Similarly, I believe in the permissibility of catching balls in my everyday life, but I avoid that when playing soccer.
6. Dr. Who? said the following at 9:47 AM on Jul 10:
6
I spent eight years earning a BA in biology and a doctorate in a medical field and it is a tough world for believers. You learn the material whether you believe it or not so you can pass the test but there is not even a question about evolution and no mention of alternative theories. In science everything is questioned save evolution which is simply assumed. The world is flat until it is proved round, the universe revoled around the earth until we discovered a heliocentric solar system, Newton's laws of gravity apply until Einstein's theory of relativity emerges but evolution is never questioned. All scientific 'laws' are simply the best explanation we have at the moment and change when a better theory comes along save evolution. However the more of learn of the function of this universe and the makeup of living creatures the more I am convinced there must be a creator for such intricacy could never be the result of accident or gradual steps over billions of years! However you are considered an idiot if anyone knows you might harbor such views. I highly recommend Ben Stein's documentary 'Expelled' on this topic, it is quite interesting. I think it a great tragedy that science is missing half the story of existence, but I also think alot of christians misquote or misuderstand science. Both sides could learn much from one another but the scientific community (for the most part) treats christians as if they carried leprosy of plague. In every other aspect scientists are open minded and curious individuals but anything beyond the physical is almost anathema; it is like trying to describe colors in a dimly lit room, you can get a vague idea but never a full understanding. Christians trained in the sciences have much to offer their skeptical colleagues. It is a tough row to hoe but if you can survive the peer pressure there is much that can and is needed to be done in the scientific and medical fields by trained believers.
7. Chris said the following at 10:00 AM on Jul 10:
7
How widespread are these attitudes? Let's hear especially from those of you with training in the natural sciences. What have you seen, from the classroom to today? Are Christians -- or religious believers of any sort -- getting any respect?
And thus, like the article, we make the erroneous jump from anecdote to data.
8. obewan said the following at 10:13 AM on Jul 10:
8
Yes, Christians can do science, but they must be prepared to face scorn in the workplace.
I went to a major Christian university known for science and engineering. It is ranked in the top 10 in the Southwest by US News America’s Best Colleges. Virtually all of the major fortune 500 come there to recruit on a regular basis due to the strong morals and work ethic seen in the grads, and for the strong academics as well. We have alumni in major government positions, at NASA, and the major medical and scientific research centers.
However, when a Christian scientist or engineer goes into the workplace from that school, the "Christian" reputation precedes them, and in most cases, co-worker people who are atheists or agnostics tend to have a mocking attitude towards that person's academic qualifications; i.e. the medical school students score at the top of their admissions exams, but some have the credits for their biology classes called into question because they teach creationism. So far, my experience has been that this is a problem that impacts peer-peer relationships more than employee-management relationships though.
9. ElisabethB said the following at 10:26 AM on Jul 10:
9
As a christian in medical school I find the beauty and complexity of the human body astounding. Many of my collegues would agree but not to the extent they would credit God with the design. Instead most are happy to remain in ignorance not even investigating the possibility of a creater God.
10. Jordan Peacock said the following at 11:05 AM on Jul 10:
10
With scientists as I've met them, the concern over beliefs isn't a concern in their field *unless* one defaults to 'magic' explanations rather than defaulting to 'naturalist' explanations.
It's ok to concede that there may be supernatural explanations, as long as it does not prevent you from seeking natural explanations: ie., the domain of science. Otherwise the possibility of you missing an answer due to stopping short is too possible for your colleague's comfort.
11. Samantha said the following at 11:35 AM on Jul 10:
11
By this logic, any scientists with strongly held religious beliefs may not be able to "do science" including atheists.
12. rushncap said the following at 12:02 PM on Jul 10:
12
A person's religious belief is irrelevant unless it starts interfering with that person's work. That is equally true both in scientific and non-scientific fields. Science does not deal with the supernatural by the very definition of the discipline, much like sculpture does not deal with sound. If a person brings his or her religious outlook into the lab, they will be rightly ostracized. However, outside of the lab, a person's view of religion is entirely their own business.
Obewan -- there is good reason for calling into question "biology classes" which teach creationism. Those are not biology classes. I would call into question "physics classes" of anyone who was taught geocentrism or "anatomy classes" of anyone who talks about the humors. Creationism is not biology, and the only science to study that phenomenon is sociology (as well as, possibly, social history).
13. Josh said the following at 12:20 PM on Jul 10:
13
If non-believers are under the impression that Christians cannot do science, its probably our own fault.
14. obewan said the following at 12:34 PM on Jul 10:
14
#12. rushncap said the following at 12:02 PM on Jul 10
Obewan -- there is good reason for calling into question "biology classes" which teach creationism. Those are not biology classes.
-----------------------------------
I don't see how they are not as long as they teach the fundamentals of disciplines like anatomy and genetics or the equivalent for plant genetics. They can teach about bacteria mutations without getting sidetracked by debates over the big bang theory and the whole spiel that goes with it. It is not that my alma mater does not teach evolutionary THEORY; it is that they teach that all TRUTH comes from GOD. When I was there, they presented all theories, but admittedly there was a slant toward teaching that there was a creator. In my Old Testament theology class, the theory of "theistic evolution" was presented. The professor did not endorse it, but he taught about it.
If a Christian biochemist is going to work in pharmaceutical research, what does it matter if he or she was taught creationism, theistic evolution, or evolution, as long as they have a grasp of biochemistry? Many of the greatest scientists in human history believed in a God. Most hard-core evolution "science" has a secular humanist agenda running through its veins that has little to do with the fundamentals of real scientific "facts".
15. Jenna said the following at 12:41 PM on Jul 10:
15
I've been very blessed to attend a Christian University and part of the lower division requirements for us was to take Creation Studies. I highly recommend the Answers in Genesis website for anyone who is wondering how they can defend their beliefs against Evolution.
16. Joey Tyson said the following at 12:41 PM on Jul 10:
16
Matt, two comments, coming from someone with a Master of Arts in mathematics who did upper-level undergraduate research in physics.
First, the NY Times article includes much praise for Collins, devoting only a small portion to concerns over his faith. I don't understand how you can conclude there's "not much room for the likes of Collins" given his many endorsements.
Second, it appears to me that you're making the mistake of confusing methodological naturalism with ontological naturalism. In the practice of science, the researcher purposefully limits himself to natural explanations, since those are the only ones to which criteria such as repeatability apply. One may personally believe in the supernatural, but God cannot be studied in the same way as electromagnetism. That's not to say there's no room for God in science, merely that methodological naturalism and Biblical Christianity can coexist.
17. Jim H said the following at 12:53 PM on Jul 10:
17
Based on the contributions of the below mathematicians and scientists, I believe Christians can do very good science. I should also make the caveat that Max Planck believed in an eternal God, but not a personal God, so he could not be regarded as a Christian in the strictest sense. I sure there are more, but this is what I came up with after a half hour or so of research.
George Stokes – Physicist and Mathematician whose contributions were in fluid dynamics and the wave theory of light. Those who have taken vector calculus will no doubt recall Stokes Theorem.
James Maxwell – connected electricity, magnetism an optics through a set of partial differential equations which now bear his name. He wrote a paper refuting evolution and presented it to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1873.
Samuel Morse – creator of single-wire telegraph and Morse code
Lord Kelvin – Thermodynamics, Electricity and Magnetism
Carl Linnaeus – Botany, taxonomy
Michael Faraday – Electricity and magnetism
Isaac Newton – Mathematics and Physics
Donald Knuth – mathematics, computer science. Considered to be the father of algorithm analysis
Max Planck – Quantum Theory
18. Scott said the following at 12:57 PM on Jul 10:
18
My degrees are in biology and psychology from a Christian university, and I have seen some ideological discrimination, though not as much as I originally would have expected. The majority of scientists out there are not hostile to religion as long as you don't attempt to bring religious explanations for phenomena into the laboratory. The minority who are hostile, however, are rabidly so.
19. Chris said the following at 1:16 PM on Jul 10:
19
Jim H writes:
Those who have taken vector calculus will no doubt recall suffering through Stokes Theorem.
There. Fixed that for you.....;^)
20. BDB said the following at 1:28 PM on Jul 10:
20
Can Christians do Science?
If they're any good.
21. Carol said the following at 1:46 PM on Jul 10:
21
I am a Christian and a scientist (BS in Chemistry) and I have never felt that the two were difficult to reconcile. I worked three years in forensics, and many of my colleagues were also Christians. Now I am a high school science teacher, and it is a different story in the public schools. I have found that the school culture is biased against Christian beliefs, especially the textbooks. But I am doing my best to promote open dialogue.
By the way, I was highly encouraged by an article I read in National Geographic several years ago about Francis Collins' faith.
22. Matt Kaufman said the following at 2:52 PM on Jul 10:
22
Joey (#16), no blanket indictment of natural scientists intended: When I wrote that there's "not much room for the likes of Collins," I was describing the attitudes of the segment of scientists described in the previous two sentences--those who insist on a strictly materialistic view of the physical world.
Re: The distinction between the types of naturalists, the group I spoke of is best described as the ontological stripe. The lines between the groups aren't always clear; some who say that they're merely methodological naturalists are, in practice, closer to ontological naturalists. But I take your point and thank you for noting the distinction.
23. Jeremy said the following at 2:54 PM on Jul 10:
23
Jim H (#17):
Don't forget the greatest of all mathetmaticians (opinion, sure, but find me someone who disagrees), Leonhard Euler, also a devout Christian.
I think it is very telling that a disproportionate number of the greatest scientists throughout history seem to have been genuine, committed believers. Science, and in particular mathematics, points to God in a way few other things do.
24. Jim H said the following at 3:49 PM on Jul 10:
24
Jeremy #23,
Thank you for that excellent point. I found the below website lists the top 100 scientists of all time and their respective religious affiliation (if any). This is a very impressive list, but I tried to restrict my list in the previous post to those who had written about their faith or who others had observed their faith and written about it (e.g. just because someone belongs to the Lutheran or Catholic Church does not necessarily make them a practicing Christian). And since I only did about 30 minutes of research, my list is FAR from comprehensive. One other point: if you include those scientists with Deist inclinations but not necessarily Christians, the list of scientists who believe in God (but not necessarily the Christian belief in a personal God) expands even more.
http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html
Below is a text excerpt from this list with the top 20 scientists of all time (in their opinion).
1 Isaac Newton the Newtonian Revolution - Anglican (rejected Trinitarianism, i.e., Athanasianism;
believed in the Arianism of the Primitive Church)
2 Albert Einstein Twentieth-Century Science - Jewish
3 Neils Bohr the Atom - Jewish Lutheran
4 Charles Darwin Evolution - Anglican (nominal); Unitarian
5 Louis Pasteur the Germ Theory of Disease - Catholic
6 Sigmund Freud Psychology of the Unconscious Jewish - Atheist
7 Galileo Galilei - Catholic
8 Antoine Laurent Lavoisier - Catholic
9 Johannes Kepler Motion of the Planets - Lutheran
10 Nicolaus Copernicus the Heliocentric Universe - Catholic (priest)
11 Michael Faraday the Classical Field Theory - Sandemanian
12 James Clerk Maxwell the Electromagnetic Field - Presbyterian; Anglican; Baptist
13 Claude Bernard the Founding of Modern Physiology - none
14 Franz Boas Modern Anthropology - Jewish
15 Werner Heisenberg Quantum Theory - Lutheran
16 Linus Pauling Chemistry - Lutheran
17 Rudolf Virchow Cells - none
18 Erwin Schrodinger Wave Mechanics -Catholic
19 Ernest Rutherford the Structure of the Atom - none
20 Paul Dirac Quantum Electrodynamics - none
So scientists who are Christians should take heart - you are in the company of some of the greatest minds in history!
25. Jethro said the following at 4:26 PM on Jul 10:
25
I think it is difficult for Christians to demand they be taken seriously in the field of science if they endorse the strict creationist view.
When you're claiming that the earth is 6,000 years old, and you are essentially doing to on the basis that the Bishop Usher was added up the ages of people in the Bible, you can't expect to be taken seriously.
This of course does not seem to apply to Collins.
26. Jim H said the following at 4:35 PM on Jul 10:
26
Jethro #25,
Many Christians adhere to the idea that God created the universe, but without the literal "young earth" interpretation of the Genesis account.
27. Chris said the following at 7:26 PM on Jul 10:
27
This is interesting, given the topic. Results regarding religious beliefs are near the bottom. The majority appear to believe in God or a "higher power".
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549
28. Jen R. said the following at 8:44 PM on Jul 10:
28
I'm an English and Sociology major, and didn't even take standard chemistry in high school, so although I don't have direct experience, I have a few Christian friends who study/studied science. For them, it's a matter of thinking that both go perfectly hand-in-hand, going by "the heavens declare the glory of God". However, in terms of frustration with thinking that Christians don't make good scientists, I think that not only the secular science world but also, to some degree, the church, can be a hindrance to Christians thinking that pursuing science is okay. I have to admit, I have been sometimes sceptical of other Christians who study biology, thinking that they must be evolutionists and so therefore don't believe in the sovereignty of God. Now of course, that's my own issue and not theirs at all; however, I think that is a tension within the Christian community.
29. Celeste said the following at 9:14 PM on Jul 10:
29
While Answer in Genesis is widely known as a proponent of the Christian Young-Earth viewpoint, it is a shame that Reasons to Believe is not equally well known as a proponent of the old-earth view, which is in fact held by many thinking, reasonable Christians. http://www.reasons.org/
30. Kyle said the following at 9:37 PM on Jul 10:
30
This reminds me of a lecture I heard by a surgeon. He was talking about the fact that he would have some patients with relatively minor injuries that do not make it and then other patients that he assumes have no chance of surviving make a full recovery. He talked about how God is ultimately in control and He will heal who He wants to heal. The surgeon went on to say, "I know there is supposed to be a separation of church and state but in the medical field, they cannot be separated."
31. Charlotte C. said the following at 5:51 AM on Jul 11:
31
Why not?
Interesting though I remember one biology professor who opposed Christian beliefs and openly criticized how God and the creationist's point of view had nothing to do with explaining science. He thought the Bible and everything to do with it were fables.
He admitted he was an atheist and believed that there was no God at all. He didn't like Christians studying science as well because he thought that they 'meddled' with it and put their 'godly beliefs' in science. I suppose he didn't want to respect them much either or give them proper credit because they had a religion.
But it all sounds like stereotypes to me. I don't think Christians scientists should be treated lesser than non-Christians scientists.
32. Mike Theemling said the following at 11:15 AM on Jul 11:
32
Jeremy (#23),
I personally think Karl Gauss was the "greatest of all mathemticians" but Euler's contributions certainly were phenomenal as well.
33. Clif said the following at 2:57 PM on Jul 11:
33
As a Ph.D. chemist, my Christianity is seldom an issue at the bench, though, when venturing into conversations about the beliefs of scientists around me, it is often viewed as anti-intellectualism. Dr. Collins stands as a testamony that true faith and good science are not mutually exclusive.
I would say more, but many other posts above substantially embody my views on naturalism, epistemology, scientific method, history, and personal religion.
As this dialogue continues, please remember to "avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called 'knowledge', for by professing it some have swerved from the faith" (1 Tim. 6:20-21).
www.clifandcorrin.com
34. Carl said the following at 6:17 PM on Jul 11:
34
There is no science in the Bible!
Oh the humanity!!!
35. Jethro said the following at 7:11 PM on Jul 11:
35
Kyle (#30),
Something tells me that in all of God's spontaneous healing, that surgeon has never seen an amputated limb grow back.
I ask this genuinely, why do you think that is?
36. brx said the following at 12:34 AM on Jul 12:
36
The Christians that I see getting respect in the natural sciences field are the ones who first earn it by humbly (honestly) demonstrating their technical expertise and understanding in their field. Then, sometimes I hear comments like 'I can't believe that person is one of those Christians' -- unless that Christian is equally good at articulating the reasoning behind their faith in a clear technical manner.
Explanations such as "that's just how I was raised" or "because that's what the Bible says" doesn't cut it with this crowd. We won't believe you're a good scientist with an explanation like that because really, it demonstates lack of expertise and understanding of your faith...
But PLEASE friends, don't fall into the trap of trying to explain and argue your way toward convincing someone to accept God and/or Jesus. It's a trap of the Enemy to snag us by our pride and serves ONLY to build walls that must later be torn down.
Grace, peace & invitations into the 3rd spaces for witnessing
37. brx said the following at 12:43 AM on Jul 12:
37
It's got some risque content, but I still really like the 1985 HBO film "Creator" staring Peter O'Toole as a medical research prof who professes to teach 'the big picture' and ends up getting schooled a bit in the big picture himself.
Grace, peace & humility...
38. Aaron said the following at 8:56 AM on Jul 12:
38
I agree with those who say that holding God as the Creator of the universe poses problems for scientists in the fact that you can't adequately provide empirical evidence for God (yes, He did reveal Himself in His creation, but you can't very well put that into a test tube and measure it); in fact, I think we as Christian's would be in far more trouble if we actually could prove the existence and methods of God's creation with science, because for man to have God "figured out" causes God to cease being God.
However, the problem I think is that macro evolution, etc. is a security blanket for many of those in the scientific community. To accept that God had a hand in the making of the world basically would mean having to admit that we can't explain everything in the universe, and pulling most of Life Origin material out of the science field and putting it into the theological.
39. Lauren T. said the following at 10:18 PM on Jul 12:
39
Jethro: #25
And yet those who claim everything in the universe came about essentially by accident ARE taken seriously.
People take seriously those they want to, not necessarily those who are espousing truth.
40. Joey Tyson said the following at 6:47 AM on Jul 13:
40
@Mike (32): While we're on the subject, many people list Gauss, Archimedes, and Newton as the three greatest mathematicians ever. I might take Euler over Newton, but few would argue that any mathematician was more prolific than Euler.
btw Matt, thanks for the reply - appreciate the clarifications.
41. #John1453 said the following at 1:26 PM on Jul 13:
41
Though I do not personally do science, my work as a lawyer requires me to work with scientists and to evaluate their arguments closely. It is my observation that the only kind of Christians who cannot practice science are those who reject methodological naturalism and who believe in the truth of a conclusion before using the tools of science (field observations, math, laboratory experiments, etc.) to investigate natural phenomena.
Consequently, young earth creationists of the ICR, CMI or AIG variety explicitly do not do science because they reject the two above principles of science. Where the data (and science) is against their conclusion, they resort to either postulating a miracle or to stating that God will eventually provide an explanation that supports a young earth belief.
It is this latter type of Christian that is regularly held up for mockery by non-Christian scientists and which give a bad name to other Christians scientists who do practice conventional science (which was founded on, and made possible by, a Christian world view). I am not attacking the faith or sincerity of the AIG Christians, only pointing out the difference between science and what it is that they do (and yes, there are people with science degrees that belong to AIG, but that is not my point either). What they do in support of their YEC beliefs is not considered by scientists to be traditional science.
Regards,
#John1453
42. Jethro said the following at 7:36 PM on Jul 13:
42
Lauren (#39),
I am not sure what point you are trying to make?
Why must 'accident' (to use your term) necessarily be problematic?
43. Chris said the following at 8:15 PM on Jul 14:
43
Lauren T writes:
Jethro: #25
And yet those who claim everything in the universe came about essentially by accident ARE taken seriously.
Setting aside the issue of evolution, if you're referring to the development of the universe, those people are taken seriously because the science and its observations back them up.
I should also point out that scientists can't really answer why the universe started the way it did. Their models just explain what happened afterwards.
44. Ben said the following at 11:51 AM on Jul 15:
44
I have a BS in Chemistry and Biology and am fortunate to work in a Federal laboratory where there is a written policy against political and religious discussion in the workplace. When someone (colleague or other) tries to entrap me in the Do I believe in God argument I just cite the Federal policy and that usually shuts them up.
45. Vincent said the following at 5:33 PM on Sep 5:
45
I can speak from an intense "youtube science" experience point of view.
What I see is that creationism is simply not taken seriously. When taken slightly seriously people can always get more than enough evidence that backs up their claims. Most commenters are filled with arrogance and use creationist beliefs as daily laughing sessions.
However, I think there's some fundamental area's where they don't have anything to say. Well, they always have something to say, but I mean; nothing that can make a christian stumble.
Somewhere came the anti-god agenda of people. They tried to explain the universe and mankind from a godless, not moral-bound, perspective. That's obviously the first thing they do wrong. And secondly... Somewhere came in the idea that the earth is billions of years old. Which is extremely fortunate, because you can explain everything you want if you throw big numbers at it, but luckily for us also very much baseless.
Evolutionists usually claim that every process we see on this earth today has been going on like that from the beginning. Plate tectonics for example; they see plates moving so slowly. And then they see mountains. For mountains to have become that large these processes must've been going on for millions of years!
The whole idea that the earth is very, very old is an assumption that has been made to explain just about everything that speaks for evolution. And scientists easily adapt their formula's, theories and ideas to that assumption. The fact that all fields of science believe this should make a christian extremely skeptical about almost anything science claims about evolution.
Last month (of intense youtubing) I saw more than ever that intelligence can be a horrible curse. When you are smart enough to create plausible theories that are generally accepted as truth while they spit on the Word of God, or if you believe them... You would be better of born deaf, blind and dumb while being filled with the Spirit.
A word of encouragement to christians who struggle with living in a world of science that tries to destroy religion: Whatever they try to prove about evolution is unprovable.
There was no one around to observe evolution, and we can't recreate it (because it was a process of millions of years right!?). Therefore it can't be proven right. Ever. If they claim evolution is happening today in the same way it would've happened in the past there is not a problem at all: If they can observe evolution happening today, it still doesn't mean we came into existence because of it. And it isn't even wrong for a christian to agree with those observations as far as I know!
So we can take our stand in the unprovability (is that a word?) of their ideas. Don't expect to win an argument, but we can at least have this little comfort-zone in a world filled with people to whom morals are just a cultural side-effect!
46. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 2:30 PM on Apr 19:
46
What a joke that a non-scientist like #John1453 tries to re-define science in a self-serving way as materialism. Luckily Newton and other founders of modern science were not so dogmatic. See also ‘It’s not science’ by Dr Don Batten, who is a scientist with an earned doctorate in plant physiology. See also Does science need evolution?