Again with another “Science and Faith” Saturday broadside. This time from the WSJ:

You can read it for yourself, it’s much of the same we’ve seen before. In Bible college we often joked that when the angels need a laugh they will read from the tomes of “scientific thesis” that come from man.

As you know, I spend a large part of the 90s on several “Faith vs. Reason” debates, specifically with the challengable theory of macro-evolution, which many scientists no longer are willing to bet their PhD on.

Nevertheless, I wouldn’t go as far as chucking the work of so-called atheists scientists in other areas of study simply because they don’t believe in God – although I believe it does color imperfect the presentation of their findings.

It is simply a matter of fact that the greatest scientists were men of faith such as Sir Issac Newton who’s deep belief in God and his conviction that scientific investigation leads to a greater knowledge of God the Creator of the universe. In writing of the movement of planets he wrote:

‘This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God” παντοκρατωρ [pantokratòr], or “Universal Ruler”. … The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect.’

I’ve always found it interesting how a scientist could describe himself as an atheist, when the very tenant of science is to not form a conclusion until all facts could be investigated. Indeed unless one can claim perfected knowledge of the universe they could never scientifically assert that God or some supreme being does not exist.

It’s precisely that unwillingness to explore which I believe puts an atheist at a distinct disadvantage.

Technorati Tags: , ,