From: Chris Ho-Stuart <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Presbyterians
Date: 23 Apr 1999 00:54:59 GMT
Organization: Queensland University of Technology, Australia

Gordon Coleman <> wrote:
[snip]
> > It is one thing to hold to a point of view because you consider
> > the bible (literally interpreted) to be a more reliable indicator
> > of truth than scientific study. That is okay. Incredibly naive,
> > but at least self consistent. It is another thing entirely to
> > construct deliberately deceptive nonsense and pretend it is science.
>
> I don't deny that this goes on - but I think there is also some truth in
> the assertion (by "Creation Scientists" among others) that many
> scientists who hold to evolutionary theory do so as much out of an a
> priori assumption that God does not exist and therefore cannot have
> created, as they do on the basis of the evidence.

I think there is no truth to that assertion.

Certainly many scientists (by no means all) see in the workings of
evolution a reason for denying the workings of God -- but note that
I have reversed the implication.  The assumption that God does not
exist lends no support whatsoever to evolutionary theory.

Think about it. Presume that God does not exist. How does evolution
follow from this? Evolution is fairly specific on how diversity
arises; even the notion that populations change over time is by no
means a necessary consequence of God's non-existence. It is derived
specifically from the physical evidence available.

It could be that people who are *not* scientists and who have not
made any particular examination of the evidence available are aware
of two models -- and prefer the one which does not depend on God's
existence without really understanding the scientific aspects of
the matter, or conversely prefer the one which fits best with their
reading of the bible without really understanding the scientific
aspects of the matter.

Even if such people happen to be scientists (engineers, mathematicians,
chemists, whatever) it is misleading to speak of scientists believing
evolution because God does not exist, or of scientists believing
scientific creationism because it makes a better case.

>                                                    I've been ridiculed
> and parodied by fellow scientists (usually good-naturedly, but not
> always so) for my commitment to a relationship with God through Jesus
> Christ. They see it as naivety, and anti-intellectual.  And that's even
> before we get to the question of whether there was a literal six day
> period in which God created the world - I don't easily get caught up in
> that debate these days, as I regard it as being peripheral to the
> central question of God's existence and His claims on us.

Your experience is regrettably common.

In my opinion, science does not address that question of God's
existence. God does not come into it, and God is not disproved
by science.

However, disbelief tends to become more common as people gain
more education in science. The effect is slight, but reasonably
well established for people with a basic education in science. For
professional working scientists, disbelief becomes more common than
belief. For scientists at the very top of their profession, belief
in God is distinctly unusual.

Bear in mind that this trend tells you nothing about an
individual -- individuals can retain conventional Christian
beliefs no matter what their scientific background.

In my opinion, the real reason for the high rate of disbelief in
scientists is not that science actually disproves God, but that
science disproves -- conclusively and without question -- some of
the peripheral beliefs which people associate with their belief in
God. (I am using "peripheral" here as you have used it, I think.)

Belief in God also flourishes in an atmosphere of uncertainty.
In days of old we did not know why it rains; but it was attributed
to God. We did not know how life came to be. It is attributed to
God. Science tends removes the need for God as a resolution to
these uncertainties.  (Other uncertainties remain. What happens
after I die?  How do we decide what is good? In my opinion, these
remain potent subconscious bases for belief in God. But that is
another topic.)

It would take an exceptionally thick individual to make their way
through a science course without stopping to re-evaluate what they
believe about the world -- no matter what their beliefs.  An atheist
is faced with the conundrum of beauty in the law that regulates
the universe; a Christian is faced with the dilemma of reconciling
God's action with the seeming inevitability of natural law.

Many thoughtful Christians may have already faced this dilemma. For
example, Christians seem able to give thanks to God for rain while
at the same time conceding that the theory of meteorology is solidly
grounded in fact. We don't berate meteorologists for dogmatically
asserting that El Nino is a fact; or say that they "believe in
meteorology" from the assumption than God does not exist!

Most educated Christians somehow reconcile belief in God as the
creator of the Earth with recognition of the physical processes by
which the Earth is formed.

Evolution comes in for special attacks from believers not because of
any scientific question, or because it is any less well supported
than meteorological theory. It is because we feel that this matter
hits a bit close to home. Mountain building is okay, but it is
somehow harder to reconcile belief in God with recognition of the
physical processes by which our bodies are formed.

You may like to *think* that there is some basis for questioning
evolution on scientific grounds. The hard lesson to learn is
that there is not. The fundamentals of evolution are actually as
solidly grounded as (for example) the atomic theory of matter. Of
course, this is not to deny the many questions and unknowns which
exist within evolutionary biology, or the active debates that take
place within the field. But none of this scientific melee brings
any comfort to those who consider scientific creationism to be a
credible alternative to evolution.

>                                                           Scientists
> are as prone to hubris as the rest of the human race.

Probably moreso.

To use this as a basis for rejecting their claims is the fallacy
ad hominem.

Best wishes -- Chris Ho-Stuart