Does Believing in Evolution Make A Person a Better Scientist?
There have been stories of reputable scientists who have been fired or denied tenure because they do not hold to the theory of evolution. Was there anything wrong with their science? No. It’s that they did not believe in a molecules-to-man origin theory, a completely rational and scientific belief. See the book Slaughter of the Dissidents by Jerry Bergman.
Also see the 2008 documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed directed by Nathan Frankowski and starring Ben Stein. “The film contends that the mainstream science establishment suppresses academics who believe they see evidence of intelligent design in nature and who criticize evidence supporting Darwinian evolution and the modern evolutionary synthesis as a ‘scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms.’”
Why is it that the greatest scientists were theists? Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Robert Boyle (1627-1691), and Isaac Newton (1643-1727) come to mind. These three men based their scientific investigation of the world on the belief that a rational God was behind it all. Kepler, for example, “incorporated religious arguments and reasoning into his work, motivated by the religious conviction and belief that God had created the world according to an intelligible plan that is accessible through the natural light of reason.”
This was true of nearly all scientists of the day.
Trending: The New Testament and Civil Disobedience
Some atheists will say that before Darwin, most scientists were theists, and they would be right. French mathematician and astronomer Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827) is often mentioned as a rare exception. But even Laplace, often called the French Newton, was most likely not an atheist.
Today, however, evolutionists consider anybody who has not adopted evolutionary presuppositions should not be considered true scientists. They go so far to argue that only Darwinists can be true scientists. Believing in evolution is akin to believing in gravity or global warming.
Of course, this is absurd. Some of the finest scientists in the world today reject the pure materialism, irrationalism of something from nothing (spontaneous generation), and the inability of a matter-only worldview to account for reason, the mind, and morality of the evolutionary worldview and have no trouble doing science. In fact, non-evolutionist scientists wonder how something-from-nothing evolutionists can do science if they were truly consistent with their operating assumptions. It’s the fact that they aren’t consistent that allows them to do science.
You may remember the article that Virginia Heffernan, a writer for Yahoo News, formerly of the New York Times and formerly-formerly a TV critic for Slate, in which she stated that she was a creationist. She was beaten up by her fellow-journalists not by citing any science but by advocating for a philosophy held by the science guild.
There are scientists, many of whom are evolutionists, who have a great deal of trouble accounting for the basis for the science behind evolution. Pontificating on the origin of life in terms of empirical science is a non-starter. It’s outside the realm of science. No human was there. No one has ever shown evolution – something from nothing – to have taken place.
I would like an evolutionist to explain how someone who believes that the complex human body is the product of a Designer rather than the result of gradual development of a chemical mass over billions of years would disqualify someone from doing delicate brain surgery. Everything that a surgeon uses to perform surgery was designed by a designer, but the brain being operated on, much more complex than a man-made computer, somehow evolved?
Pray tell, who is the irrational scientist?