Why are there so few Christians in Science?

[Drich]

To all who say scientist are always accepted on the merrit of their work:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/19kentucky.html

[Annik]

Ms. Shafer found online, Dr. Gaskell tried to reconcile the creation account in Genesis with recent astronomical findings.

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.

[Epimethean]

It's not that you can't be religious and be a scientist: It's that you can't bring your religion into the workplace and be a scientist.

[Undeceived]

Christianity and science have never been in conflict. The real conflict is between interpretations of what we see, and in taking those interpretations beyond science. Speculating on the origin of various materials or processes is not science, it's history. You can't use the belief of Creation to help you in science, but you can't use the belief of Evolution to help you with science either. Creation and Evolution are endpoints in science, not qualifications.

[Annik]

Christianity and science have never been in conflict. The real conflict is between interpretations of what we see, and taking those interpretations beyond science. Speculating on the origin of various materials or processes is not science, it's history. You can't use the belief of Creation to help you in science, but you can't use the belief of Evolution to help you with science either. Creation and Evolution are endpoints in science, not qualifications.

Just one quibble... Evolution is a scientific theory... And so is the Big Bang... So yeah, science.

[Epimethean]

Uh, no. Plenty of conflict, always.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationshi...ristianity

[Drich]

Ms. Shafer found online, Dr. Gaskell tried to reconcile the creation account in Genesis with recent astronomical findings.

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.

[Epimethean]

A little more reading.

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

[Minimalist]

Just because one has not renounced belief in God does not mean he would look to push doctrine in inappropriate situations.

That's about all you fuckers ever do.

[Undeceived]

Just because one has not renounced belief in God does not mean he would look to push doctrine in inappropriate situations.

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?

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.