RE: Why are there so few Christians in Science?
July 1, 2012 at 8:28 pm
(This post was last modified: July 1, 2012 at 8:50 pm by Simon Moon.)
(June 30, 2012 at 8:46 pm)Drich Wrote: To all who say scientist are always accepted on the merrit of their work:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/19kentucky.html
Because the merit of his work is being effected by his beliefs.
How would you feel if there was a teacher at a medical school teaching 'The Curse Theory of Disease' because the Bible says diseases are caused by curses?
(July 1, 2012 at 2:02 pm)Drich Wrote: You guys seem to be getting away from the question that was asked and the point being made.
Why aren't there more scientists that are Christian?
Stats were provided.
Point being made, Scientists are not considered scientist unless they renounce God/religion.
I provided a story from the New York times to support this claim, Then you all support my assertion by calling into question this professor's academic abilities and over professionalism.
Scientists are not considered scientists if they don't do science. Trying to fit the observed facts to your already existing beliefs is NOT science.
(July 1, 2012 at 2:02 pm)Drich Wrote: Everything that has been said by any of you has only supported my original statement. That you all believe that unless a 'scientist' renounces God he can not be a legitmate scientist. Therefore any polling with this prejudice setting the standard will be able to produce numbers that support the claim that their few if any 'true Scotsmen.'
Just a few scientists that have not 'renounced god' and are/were still great scientists:
Max Planck
Francis Collins
Kenneth Miller
Edwin Hubble
V.S. Ramachandran
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekh
Ooops, the last 2 believe in a different god than you do. Do they sill count?
But here's the thing that made them great scientists. They did NOT try to fit the facts to their existing beliefs.
I am really getting the idea you don't understand what the scientific process is, and why creationist 'scientists' are not engaged in that process.
Let us know if that is the case and we'll explain it to you.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
