Can a Scientist believe in God?
I was sitting in a gathering of scientists at a Geological Society of America meeting when a speaker gave the warning: “One should not let science fall to the fraud of creationists.” Next, another scientist characterised “biblical catastrophism” (that is, the Genesis great flood interpretation) as “dishonest” and “nasty.” Then yet another slandered creation science as “erroneous pseudoscience.” There were more.1
What had helped stimulate this pasting of creationism was a then recent Gallup Poll that found that just 9 per cent of adults surveyed believed in an evolutionistic god-less model of the origins of humankind. What’s more, 44 per cent said they believed God had created humankind within the past 10,000 years. The same poll has been repeated five times2 since, with essentially the same results. Most people find it difficult to accept that we just “happen” to be on earth, and that life has no meaning or purpose outside of mere existence.
the controversy
Well over a century ago, Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution. At that time he had a famous, able and loyal defender, Thomas Huxley— sometimes referred to as “Darwin’s bulldog.” Huxley declared that no-one could be “both a true son of the church and a loyal soldier of science.”3 Is Huxley right, or can one believe the truthfulness of the Bible and also be a loyal scientist?
The controversy between science and the Bible has been especially intense during the past two centuries and, in the light of the above, isn’t about to abate. Science has brought us many wonderful discoveries, and so it isn’t surprising that many feel that science is superior to all other areas of inquiry. A key issue is whether God is allowed into the science picture.
Science is defined as observations and explanations about nature, while God is represented in the Bible as both the originator and sustainer of nature. The Bible states in Romans 1:20 that God’s divinity and power are clearly seen in what has been made, and there is no excuse to believe otherwise.
can scientists believe in God?
One can extract any number of misrepresentations of surveys about what scientists believe by looking at the unbridled Internet and elsewhere. However, two studies published in the prestigious journal Nature can be assumed to be reliable.4 The results were surprising.
One thousand randomly selected scientists listed in American Men and Women of Science were queried about their belief in God. But what does one mean by God? Is God a person, a principle, a force of nature or nature itself? The questionnaire gave a very narrow definition of God, one not designed to encourage a positive response. To be classified as a believer in God, the scientists had to agree to the statement: “I believe in a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind, that is, a God to whom one may pray in expectation of receiving an answer. By ‘answer’ I mean more than the subjective psychological effect of prayer.”
The scientists were also given the choice of not believing in such a kind of God, or of being in doubt. About 40 per cent said they believed in the kind of God described, 45 per cent did not, and 15 per cent didn’t know. Interestingly, this 1996 survey was a repeat of one taken 80 years earlier, which had just about the same result.
Another survey of a smaller group, taken soon after the 1996 one, queried only members of the National Academy of Sciences. There, just 7 per cent said they believed in a personal God.5 Perhaps specialists tend to be highly focused at the expense of a broader outlook. Obviously, the National Academy of Sciences, which comprises less than 2 per cent of scientists listed in American Men and Women of Science, doesn’t represent the broader scientific community.
Some wonder if a scientist can believe in a six-day creation, as described in the Bible. The answer is yes. Dr John Ashton, an Australian science researcher (see box, pages 28 and 29), has compiled the comments of 50 scientists, all with doctorates, giving the reasons why they believe the biblical account of creation.
It appears that many more scientists believe in God than one would suspect from the usual scientific stance seen in science textbooks, articles and media. There, all kinds of alternatives are proposed, but seldom, if ever, is God mentioned as a causal agent. To do so is considered to be “unscientific.” This stance can probably be best explained sociologically.
new data favours God
There’s an abundance of data to suggest God designed the natural world. Nature is consistently far too precise and complicated to have arisen by itself. And recent discoveries make the case even more compelling. Some examples include: the precise value of many physical constants necessary for the existence of our universe;6 the very complicated nature of even the simplest microbe;7 and the interdependence of the numerous complexities found in advanced organisms, such as the elaborate relationship of the eye to the brain.8
Science that excludes the concept of a designer God stands mute when trying to adequately explain the origin of these marvellous things.
founders believed the Bible
Chemistry students very soon learn about Boyle’s law that delineates the inverse relationship between the volume and pressure of a gas. Robert Boyle, the “father of chemistry,” discovered that law and other important principles centuries ago. He wrote extensively about both science and the Bible. He saw an “absolute harmony”9 between the two. He believed that God was the Creator and sustainer of the world. Furthermore, he donated much of his wealth to religious causes in Ireland and New England.
Boyle is typical of the leading pioneers who helped extricate science from the confusion of the Middle Ages by emphasising observation and experimentation. Many of the basic laws and principles of science were discovered by these intellectual giants. Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Pascal and Linnaeus are well-known examples. Few of them denied God’s existence. Most were deeply committed religious thinkers who believed the Bible and saw no conflict whatsoever between their religion and their scientific discoveries. They were discovering the principles and laws that God had created.
God fits with science
An impressive number of leading scholars10 support the concept that modern science developed in the Western world because of its Judeo-Christian background. In other words, instead of science and the Bible being worlds apart, science owes its origin to the Bible. The argument is that the Bible speaks of only one God who is consistent, reasonable, and who believes in cause and effect as science sees in nature.
Science did not develop in countries such as India and China, although they had plenty of time, because these countries harboured concepts of many gods that were capricious and unpredictable. These did not fit with the law and order of science. It’s difficult to unequivocally affirm this broadly accepted concept; it’s just that its existence suggests a close relationship between the God of the Bible and science.
the verdict
Many scientists feel that as scientists they want to deal only with what they can observe in nature. This is understandable, since the study of nature is their specialty. In doing this, however, God is often excluded even though there is compelling evidence for God in the precision and complexities science has discovered.
Some scientists even define science as excluding God, but in so doing they compromise science’s claim to find truth. For instance, science cannot find God as long as it pretends there is no God.
It would seem preferable for science to return to the broader view that the pioneers of modern science had that included the possibility of God. Science made its greatest philosophical error more than a century ago when it rejected God and tried to explain everything within a limited naturalistic (mechanistic) perspective.
Can a Bible-believing person be a scientist? Some scientists imply that a religious person may not be able to interpret nature correctly because of a religious bias. One can reverse the implication and ask if a scientist who does not believe in God can find truth in case God exists.
In science, let the data of nature speak openly for itself, including any evidence that there is a God. In my opinion, this would be a better scientific approach. We must also recognise that, in a spirit of open inquiry, we can, in varying degrees, evaluate truth in nature in spite of our biases. Furthermore, many scientific questions, such as the chemical reactions in hardening cement, don’t involve the God question or anything having to do with religion.
Finally, if you say that a religious person cannot be a scientist, you have to eliminate the 40 per cent of scientists who believe God answers their prayers, as well as most of the pioneers of modern science. Isaac Newton, who certainly believed the Bible and is considered by many to be the greatest scientist of all time, would not qualify as a scientist! So my conclusion is that most assuredly a Bible believer can be a scientist searching for explanations about nature.
References
1. For more detail, see A A Roth, “Where Has the Science Gone?” in Origins 10:48-49, 1983.
2. <http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/ pr010305.asp>
3. T H Huxley, Darwiniana: Essays, D Appleton and Co, New York and London, 1893, page 149.
4. E J Larson and L Witham, “Scientists are still keeping the faith,” Nature 386:435-436, 1977.
5. id, “Leading scientists still reject God,” Nature 394:313, 1998.
6. For a good review, see D L Overman, “A Case Against Accident and Self-organisation,” M D Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc, Boulder, Colorado, 1997, pages 103-175.
7. See A A Roth, Origins: Linking Science and Scripture, Review and Herald Publishing Association, Hagerstown, Maryland, 1998.
8. ibid, pages 94-129.
9. D L Woodall, “The Relationship Between Science and Scripture in the Thought of Robert Boyle,” in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49:32-39, 1997.
10. These include A N Whitehead; R G Collingwood, R Hookas; S L Jacki et al. For 12 such references see, A A Roth, Origins: Linking Science and Scripture, Review and Herald Publishing Association, Hagerstown, Maryland, 1998.
finding 50 scientists who believe in creation
Since its publication, In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, edited by Dr John Ashton of Newcastle, NSW, has sold more than 15,000 copies, an extraordinary achievement for a book that tackles the evolution– creation controversy from a Christian perspective!
In Six Days is a compilation of responses to the question: “Can a scientist with a PhD be sceptical about evolution and believe in the idea of a literal six-day creation?”
“It isn’t bedside reading,” says Ashton, who argues the sense and logic of the biblical creation account rather than the widely accepted theory of evolution. “A person without a scientific background would not understand large portions of it, but they would still get the gist that there is scientific evidence out there that supports Creation.”
Ashton developed the idea for the book following an encounter with a fellow scientist, who remarked that he’d mentioned Ashton’s name at a Macquarie University, Sydney, seminar when challenged to name any PhD who believed in a literal six-day creation.
“That’s when I mentioned your name!” his friend said.
“I said I didn’t mind, and was happy to testify to my belief in Genesis 1. Then a couple of days later the thought came to me, Why not ask PhD qualified scientists why they believe in a literal six-day creation and publish their reasons for others to believe? I began emailing scientist friends and soon had dozens of names. I began receiving encouraging testimonies—well thought-out arguments and accounts—from highly educated Christians who were willing to share the reason for their faith in God’s Word. I approached my publisher, who welcomed the proposal. The result was In Six Days.”
Ashton, who has an honours degree in chemisty, an MSc from the University of Tasmania, and PhD from Newcastle University, says his reason for believing is a combination of faith and knowledge. In respect to faith, he says, he’s seen answers to prayer in his life.
On the scientific side, he says it was the complexity and interdependence of life that convinced him of creation, and the obvious lack of intermediate fossils in the geologic column that convinced him evolution wasn’t viable or sustainable. “There was a huge amount of evidence that supported a young age for the earth and that things were created.”
As to finding 50 creationists with high qualifications in the scientific world, he says that today he could probably find “many hundreds.”
Criticism of the book comes from such elevated quarters as Richard Dawkins from Oxford University, who argues that a number of contributors had doctorates from church-based universities, and were therefore predisposed, or have qualifications outside of relevant fields. Ashton rebuffs such criticism pointing to the large number of eminently qualified people who are included, whom Dawkins chooses to ignore.
Ashton characterises the scientific population as honest yet “concerned that their academic careers may be jeapordised should it become well known that they were creationists.”
“If you were a scientist in some circles, and said you were a creationist,” Ashton asserts, “then the view would almost almost automatically be, Well, you can’t be a scientist. You would be suspect, and a student might even expect some discrimination.”
A reason for the book was to provide an aid to students who held a belief in Creation and needed something with which to defend themselves against ridicule. The scientists in the book are “highly intelligent people who could stand with any in the world in terms of peer review,” he says, so they provide powerful and persuasive testimony to a belief in Creation. —Lee Dunstan
Home - Archive - Topics - Podcast - Subscribe - Special Offers - About Signs - Contact Us - Links
 |
 |
|
Copyright © 2006 Seventh-day Adventist Church (SPD) Limited ACN 093 117 689
