Do believers make poor scientists?

[OldWiseGuy]

Can one who believes in special creation carry on the duties and functions of a scientist, or do they need an 'evolutionary' mindset. Or will understanding of the concepts of evolution but not the belief suffice?

 

[bhsmte]

Can one who believes in special creation carry on the duties and functions of a scientist, or do they need an 'evolutionary' mindset. Or will understanding of the concepts of evolution but not the belief suffice?

Depends on the type of science they are doing. Understanding the TOE is crucial to those who study biology and the medical sciences, so they would clearly be conflicted if they didn't believe the TOE was legit.

 

[justlookinla]

Can one who believes in special creation carry on the duties and functions of a scientist, or do they need an 'evolutionary' mindset. Or will understanding of the concepts of evolution but not the belief suffice?

In my opinion, one who believes in special creation can be a very good scientist.

 

[justlookinla]

Depends on the type of science they are doing. Understanding the TOE is crucial to those who study biology and the medical sciences, so they would clearly be conflicted if they didn't believe the TOE was legit.

One need not embrace the worldview that humanity is the result of only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago to be successful in the study of biology and the medical sciences. That particular creationist worldview has nothing to do with the actual experimentation and observation used in the study of biology and medical sciences.

Two try to equate the two is misleading and dishonest.

 

[MuchWiser]

Can one who believes in special creation carry on the duties and functions of a scientist, or do they need an 'evolutionary' mindset. Or will understanding of the concepts of evolution but not the belief suffice?

Quite a few well respected scientist openly admit that their beliefs run contrary to what they know is true,
they say despite what they know is true they want to believe in God.

Who is that guy Francis Collins who says what he believe is not true but says he still want's and needs to believe it because he was made a believer before he became a scientist.

 

[justlookinla]

Quite a few well respected scientist openly admit that their beliefs run contrary to what they know is true,
they say despite what they know is true they want to believe in God.

Who is that guy Francis Collins who says what he believe is not true but says he still want's and needs to believe it because he was made a believer before he became a scientist.

LOL! What?

 

[bhsmte]

Quite a few well respected scientist openly admit that their beliefs run contrary to what they know is true,
they say despite what they know is true they want to believe in God.

Who is that guy Francis Collins who says what he believe is not true but says he still want's and needs to believe it because he was made a believer before he became a scientist.

Collin's embraces the TOE firmly and has communicated his opinion on the importance understanding it plays into those who work in biology and or medicine. He is a physician and DNA expert and has excellent credentials to make these comments in regards to biology and medicine.

His believes in God and also accepts the reality of what science tells us and is able to reconcile the two, which many can.

Could a creationist who does not agree with the TOE perform biological science? In theory yes, as long as he understood how the TOE works and they are applied correctly to his work. I would think these folks would be few and far between though, with 99% of PHD biologists who are members of the national academy of sciences agreeing with the TOE.

 

[Oncedeceived]

LOL! What?

Right!!!!!

 

[bhsmte]

Quite a few well respected scientist openly admit that their beliefs run contrary to what they know is true,
they say despite what they know is true they want to believe in God.

Who is that guy Francis Collins who says what he believe is not true but says he still want's and needs to believe it because he was made a believer before he became a scientist.

Makes no sense.

There are scientists who believe in a God and still accept the work of science and can separate the two. They will admit their belief in God is on faith and their support of science is based on empirical evidence.

 

[Dizredux]

Good question.

To a great degree it depends on the field. I suspect that much of chemistry but excluding biochemistry, some physics and perhaps archeology if you take out the global flood it probably would not make a lot of difference.

With much of the rest like geology, biology, paleontology and pretty all of astronomy and astrophysics belief in a young earth, universe, global flood and no evolution would not work all that well.

You also have methodological naturalism in which for the sake of doing science, the natural world is all that is considered. I suspect scientists could believe in YEC for religious reasons but not let it interfere with their work. They could simply keep these separate.

Since around 95% of scientists and 97+% of biologists accept evolution, old earth/universe, no global flood it is not seen as much of a problem.

I could see problems for some but as long as they stay out of areas where it is important they would probably do OK.

If you are a chemist researching better dish washing soaps, it probably doesn't matter all that much.

Again interesting question.

Dizredux

 

[Dizredux]

Quite a few well respected scientist openly admit that their beliefs run contrary to what they know is true,
they say despite what they know is true they want to believe in God.

No you are incorrect, they are expressing religious beliefs they feel have merit. The ideas that their beliefs are contrary to what they know is true is just your projecting. That dog won't hunt very well and to try to use it is a bit foolish.

Who is that guy Francis Collins who says what he believe is not true but says he still want's and needs to believe it because he was made a believer before he became a scientist.

Into mind reading or projection are we today? How do you know how Collins thinks or feels? Did your read some of his writing perhaps talk to him?

The thing is that, at least right now, we cannot prove or disprove the existence of God so to make a statement that what Collins believes is not true is, again I use the word as an applicable term, foolish.

Dizredux

 

[driewerf]

Collin's embraces the TOE firmly and has communicated his opinion on the importance understanding it plays into those who work in biology and or medicine. He is a physician and DNA expert and has excellent credentials to make these comments in regards to biology and medicine.

His believes in God and also accepts the reality of what science tells us and is able to reconcile the two, which many can.

Could a creationist who does not agree with the TOE perform biological science? In theory yes, as long as he understood how the TOE works and they are applied correctly to his work. I would think these folks would be few and far between though, with 99% of PHD biologists who are members of the national academy of sciences agreeing with the TOE.

bhsmte,
to be honest, your post is really hard to understand for someone who's first language is not English.

 

[MuchWiser]

Who is that guy Francis Collins who says what he believe is not true but says he still want's and needs to believe it because he was made a believer before he became a scientist.

I was wrong about Francis Collins being raised a Christian because he was not, he did not become religious until he was about 25, I apologise for my error.

 

[bhsmte]

bhsmte,
to be honest, your post is really hard to understand for someone who's first language is not English.

Sorry.

 

[ChetSinger]

Can one who believes in special creation carry on the duties and functions of a scientist, or do they need an 'evolutionary' mindset. Or will understanding of the concepts of evolution but not the belief suffice?

Heh, what an opening! I guess my response is that most scientific research has nothing to do with evolution. For example, most of my research has been in acoustics. Evolution is irrelevant.

 

[lesliedellow]

Quite a few well respected scientist openly admit that their beliefs run contrary to what they know is true,
they say despite what they know is true they want to believe in God.

Who is that guy Francis Collins who says what he believe is not true but says he still want's and needs to believe it because he was made a believer before he became a scientist.

I guarantee that nobody ever heard Francis Collins say that. And it was an experience he had with a patient when he was already a hospital doctor which set him on the road to faith.

 

[Strathos]

Well, using AV's definition of "scientist"...

 

[MuchWiser]

The thing is that, at least right now, we cannot prove or disprove the existence of God so to make a statement that what Collins believes is not true is, again I use the word as an applicable term, foolish.

I agree, unfortunately on that basis anything we can imagine could possibly exist.

 

[biggles53]

Ok...I've just finished reading Evolving out of Eden, by Price and Suominem...

I've never seen a question they raise answered by those who both accept the ToE and have religious belief...It basically goes like this...

If you accept the ToE, then you accept that there was no 'original pair of humans'....there was no Adam and Eve in a literal, physical sense... I would have thought, then, that this presents an enormous problem for the concept of an original, heritable 'sin' which has been the foundation of the 'Fall' of mankind; ie, if there was no 'source' of sin, there could not have been a Fall....

So, if there was no 'fall of mankind', what need is there for 'salvation'...? Doesn't the entire Christian religion hinge upon the idea that we all need to be 'saved' from the stain of that original transgression...?

 

[Dizredux]

I agree, unfortunately on that basis anything we can imagine could possibly exist.

No not really unless you are dealing with someone who has little connection with reality. They do exist but for the most, faith deals with things within the realm of possibility. Religious faith falls will within this category.

The thing here is that someone who says that God is a scientific fact and someone who says that it is a scientific fact that God does does not exist are both wrong.

If someone states that they believe in the existence of God and someone who states that they don't, both are stating real possibilities and while not scientific, I feel both can be considered valid in that context.

You cannot criticize someone who expresses faith in God unless you leave yourself open to the same criticisms.

Just my thoughts.


Dizredux