Why are there so few Christians in Science?

[Epimethean]

Oh brother, this again?



http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integri...s-not.html

[Minimalist]

Would you hypocrites hire an atheist to teach your stupid fucking bible classes?

[Jackalope]

ID advocates merely uphold the law of conservation of mass,

Like hell they do. Asserting "goddidit" does no such thing.

[Tobie]

It was likely this that didn't get him hired. The story of creation is not supported in astronomic evidence (which, in fact, proves the creation hypothesis wrong)... And he wants to be a professor of astronomy? How can they ensure that the proper information will be conveyed to students? It's like a biologist not believing in evolution. Sure, they probably exist, but they shouldn't expect any respect for their research outside of their religious circle-jerk.

This is the exact prejudice that I was talking about. Just because one has not renounced belief in God does not mean he would look to push doctrine in inappropriate situations.
Nor does it mean he was seeking to teaching these things to students. I have reconciled the genesis account with the evolutionary account "On-line." This does not make me a less effective at my job. Nor does it mean I force this reconciliation onto anyone of my employees.

Reconciling the creation account with astronomical findings is not good science, it is trying to force a conclusion which is probably not correct. If all scientists were like that, we'd still be stuck in the dark ages.

---

Exactly. Professors teach facts and evidence first. The evidence never changes. Interpretations do. Why is it we can say, “this evidence indicates stars evolved” but not “this evidence indicates the presence of a designer”? Why is it okay to assert materials generate on their own, but not to assert the materials could not have generated on their own? We have positive and negative explanations, and here we cannot consider the negative. We can’t even question that materials generate on their own. We have never seen materials spontaneously generate, and I can’t question that they do?

Science can show within reasonable doubt the processes involved in star evolution, using models and data collected. None of this evidence indicated a creator was involved, so they can say one but not the other.

Intelligent Design is the belief that spontaneous generation is not possible. ID advocates merely uphold the law of conservation of mass, which is 100% scientific and has been tested using the scientific method.

Mass is never conserved in physical processes, which is why energy is released/absorbed in them.

[Epimethean]

"Mass is never conserved in physical processes, which is why energy is released/absorbed in them."

I think he must be referring to god's universe as a closed system. Metaphorically, at least, I'd agree, and I hope it stops expanding.

[Annik]

A little more reading.

http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/settlement-...ase-006427

I recommend you both read the article posted here.

And remember that when you try and fit/twist evidence into a conclusion, it's not science.

[Drich]

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.

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.'

[Epimethean]

What "stats" did you offer before you threw out your fat red herring, and how many repetitions does it take for you to understand that religious affiliation is not to be a source of discrimination in employment in this country unless it can be determined that said religious affiliation will interfere with a potential hire's ability to do his or her job in the most professional manner?

Your professor's credibility was determined to be less than acceptable, as is yours for insisting against the decisions made in his regard.

[Drich]

What "stats" did you offer before you threw out your fat red herring, and how many repetitions does it take for you to understand that religious affiliation is not to be a source of discrimination in employment in this country unless it can be determined that said religious affiliation will interfere with a potential hire's ability to do his or her job in the most professional manner?

Your professor's credibility was determined to be less than acceptable, as is yours for insisting against the decisions made in his regard.

your confused read the OP

[Faith No More]

I have yet to see any scientist being forced to renounce god. What I have seen is that when a scientist works backwards from a conclusion, i.e. the universe is 6,000 years old and how can I support it, they are disqualified for a scientific position and rightfully so.