Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: You've never provided an explanation of the universe, none that I've read. My questions were trying to elucidate such from you, but you say you don't know. If you don't mind, please explain and clarify your explanation of the Universe?

I suspect matter has always existed in one way or another. This means the singularity that expanded to become the Big Bang, either has always existed, or was something else before coming together to become the singularity.

You suspect matter has always existed...
I'd be interested, in what science you draw from, or whether you just believe matter of factly.
Especially given you reject multiverse.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:If science can explain everything (which I see limits to, although you evidently believe it has no boundaries),

No; I have been very clear; science does not have all the answers.

Great, then my previous assertions stand as valid.
If there are some things outside of science that are nonetheless true, than science is still compatible.
As I said previously,

• "there is no clash between science and Christian miraculous claims when we understand the respective boundaries of each. The Christian claim of the virgin birth isn't that Jesus was naturally conceived, but that God Himself chose to get off His throne and come to us in human form. Science has no claim on this, anymore than it does at explaining where our universe came from (which according to you we cannot know)."

Science doesn't have an answer for such things, because I claim such is outside the boundaries of what science can get at. Just like, if there are infinite universes separate from ours, then we'll never be able to get at them unless by some chance they "bump" into each other. However, there is no clash between science and these other universes existing (if they do); just like these is no clash between God existing and science.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:then we should be able to detect through science when God intervenes and explain what exactly is going on.

This presupposes the existence of God who intervenes; something neither I nor science claims

I'm not sure what you're debating here, but in any case science neither claims nor disclaims God's existence. Rather, one's philosophy does.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:You know, just because we get use to a regularity, does not mean irregularities do no occur. So if someone does rise from the dead and science can answer all, then science should be able to work out what happened.

But if nobody has risen from the dead, and science does not know all…..

Kurieuo wrote:Such doesn't go against science necessarily, only one's preconceptions of what ought to be possible.

It goes against scientific claims.

No it doesn't. How so? I think it's more Kenny claiming science claims, rather than science actually claiming anything.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Without having 100% knowledge of the universe, something you claim to be ignorant of, then you can't say whether a person coming back from being dead is indeed physically impossible.

But I feel confident in believing it to be physically impossible

Kurieuo wrote:Science doesn't work with such certainties, only probabilities, even if such possibilities are very unlikely. However, I will qualify, that if Jesus was just a man, then that itself topples the Gospel.

As a side reflection, I find the pure physicalist position on human life intriguing. Physicalists obviously believe us humans to be entirely physical (although with philosophers the tides have changed who are realising more and more that logically, there is more to us than what can be physically accounted for)... Yet, if we die, we often understand there is no coming back. Although science deals with probabilities, you claim, "it's a scientific certainty, science claims people do not come back to life". Right? And yet, if we are just physical beings, then it should be physically possible to reconstitute someone physically to bring them back even from death. For some reason, we can have the body before us, but can't "reanimate" it, breath life back into it... maybe one day, one day we'll be able to do full body transplants, eh? Or do you think such is beyond science?[/color]

Currently it is beyond science. I don’t think I said “science claims people do not come back to life, I think I said “science makes claims about death and none of them include coming back to life” (or something like that)

Great! So if someone comes back from the dead then you'd agree with my original point that such is beyond science. Therefore, there is no clash, right? Especially considering you claim, "science does not have all the answers."

So then, if science "claims" that people don't come back from the dead, and someone actually comes back from the dead the answer to such lies beyond science. The one thing you cannot say is that dead people would never come back to life, because then such presumes science makes absolute claims, does have all the answers and further only that knowledge science discovers can be real. That is scientism however Kenny, not science (see below).

I wish I could leave it there, because I see that I've won on that front. Sadly, however, Kenny is claiming science claims. This is bad science on Kenny's part, because science doesn't actually claim anything with absolute certainty. So, if someone came back from the dead, then science can't rule out such a possibility. It can only be said that by and large dead people do not naturally come back to life. And I agree wholehearted with this, as I'm sure every resurrection believing Christian would!

Re: Jesus resurrection, the claim when fully reduced to a base level isn't that someone came back from the dead (though that's part of it), but rather the central claim is that the Being who created and sustains our world into existence chose to intervene. Such is beyond science, and therefore presents no clash whatsoever. There is only an issue if one presumes all that is true or real must be discoverable by science. To claim such oversteps and errs into scientism.

• Scientism: is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning - to the exclusion of other viewpoints. Accordingly, philosopher Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."[1] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society".[2] The term "scientism" frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[3][4] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[5] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[6] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[7] and Tzvetan Todorov[8] to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable.[9] Philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg have also appropriated "scientism" as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.

Philip wrote: Because what instantly emerged could only come from great intelligence. But you seem to believe this was unnecessary to instantly produce unfathomable complexity. The inverse is that random, chaotic, dumb and blind things can produce such complexity. But that is entirely illogical. And because YOU can't prove or show me even ONE thing, just ONE example of random, chaotic, uncontrolled things that have produced great sophistication and complexity? There's my proof!

Humm....So your proof is determined by whether or not I can prove you wrong? I could just as easily claim proof of the Tooth Fairy lies in weather or not you can prove he does not exist. Such logic might work for you, but it doesn't work for me.

Ken: So you claim the Universe was created with purpose? Please explain the purpose of the Universe.

Philip wrote:What I am saying is that, in the design, complexity and specificity of what was created, all things were PURPOSELY created, as to their functionality, ability, and according to the design of each thing and organism - and that the purposes were to ultimately produce a universe and eventually a world that could and would support life, and where a great diversity of life itself would also be created.

So if the purpose of the Universe is to produce a diversity of life, you would think there would be life all over the place; instead of just this tiny planet. Where is all the other life?

Philip wrote:For our, yes, purposes, I am only speaking as to the intentional creation and design of what came into existence, as these were the exact inverse of random things, but instead were INTENDED things and organisms of marvelous design and programming. That is not to say that random things don't exist, only to say they don't produce unfathomable complexity, design and function. Again, name me just one instance of such randomness producing anything of complexity. As well, randomness does not follow precise laws of amazingly consistent function and interactivity - the "God of the universe's clock," as Einstein asserted. If you assert something to be caused by randomness, that thing is not going to function in a perfectly predictable manner as paralleled by other supposedly "random" things. When you see massive parallels and astonishing consistency within uncountable examples from physics, chemistry and biology, each showing stunning consistency and perfect parallels in how they function, in both the array of abilities they have, but also in their design limitations, then this is the opposite of the very definition of randomness. This shows purpose of design and intended parameters of functionality!

But what is the purpose of such a huge Universe that is hostile to the existence of mankind? It seems to me, if the Universe was created by an intelligence that sees mankind as the most important being in the Universe, this creator would have made the Universe in a way that it would be useful to mankind. All I see is a Universe that is 99.999∞ useless to mankind.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: You've never provided an explanation of the universe, none that I've read. My questions were trying to elucidate such from you, but you say you don't know. If you don't mind, please explain and clarify your explanation of the Universe?

I suspect matter has always existed in one way or another. This means the singularity that expanded to become the Big Bang, either has always existed, or was something else before coming together to become the singularity.

Kurieuo wrote:You suspect matter has always existed...
I'd be interested, in what science you draw from, or whether you just believe matter of factly.
Especially given you reject multiverse.

I’ve been very clear; science does not have an answer to this question here. Why would you assume I would draw from a source that doesn’t have an answer?

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:If science can explain everything (which I see limits to, although you evidently believe it has no boundaries),

No; I have been very clear; science does not have all the answers.

Kurieuo wrote:Great, then my previous assertions stand as valid.
If there are some things outside of science that are nonetheless true, than science is still compatible.
As I said previously,

• "there is no clash between science and Christian miraculous claims when we understand the respective boundaries of each. The Christian claim of the virgin birth isn't that Jesus was naturally conceived, but that God Himself chose to get off His throne and come to us in human form. Science has no claim on this, anymore than it does at explaining where our universe came from (which according to you we cannot know)."

No; that would be like me claiming because the existence of the Easter bunny are outside the claims of the Gospels, that Gospel claims are compatible with the claims of the Easter bunny. In order for the Gospels to be compatible with Easter Bunny, the Gospels would have to support the claims of the Easter Bunny.
In order for your claims to be compatible with science, your claims would have to be supported by science.

Kurieuo wrote:Science doesn't have an answer for such things, because I claim such is outside the boundaries of what science can get at. Just like, if there are infinite universes separate from ours, then we'll never be able to get at them unless by some chance they "bump" into each other. However, there is no clash between science and these other universes existing (if they do); just like these is no clash between God existing and science.

To describe imaginary creatures and events as undetectable by reality does not make them compatible with reality.

Kurieuo wrote:Great! So if someone comes back from the dead then you'd agree with my original point that such is beyond science. Therefore, there is no clash, right? Especially considering you claim, "science does not have all the answers."

I said “of the claims science makes about death none of them include coming back to life.
Some of the claims science makes about the body after it dies include
*Blood stops flowing
*Organs shut down
*Body begins to deteriorate.

Now if you know of a scientific claim that includes the body coming back to life, I would like to see it.

Ken

Ken: Humm....So your proof is determined by whether or not I can prove you wrong? I could just as easily claim proof of the Tooth Fairy lies in weather or not you can prove he does not exist. Such logic might work for you, but it doesn't work for me.

Ken, I'm afraid a better statement is that logic doesn't work for you, at all. Apparently you even refuse what science prolifically asserts precisely about the elements, design and functions of what immediately emerged at the universe's beginning. And if it had not, we wouldn't have the universe and world we have. Really, I think you'd argue that a blue sky at noon was more likely one of midnight darkness on a cloudy night, as how could someone PROVE you to be wrong? It's not a matter of things that need proving to you, because of at least the things you CAN observe, and the knowledge widely agreed upon by scientists around the world, you refuse to acknowledge, as when you so disingeniusly dodge with some nonsense about the tooth fairy.

And as soon as one obvious thing is presented about the early universe, you use another dodge about why some other thing (also the universe) the way YOU would expect it to be. You also are assuming there. Isn't other life anywhere else in a vast universe. However, I'm sure if it were, then you'd assert that it would prove that life in the universe is common and thus nothing special, it is to be expected. Really, Ken, your problems are not a lack of evidences or any asserted necessity for "proof," and it's certainly not even an issue of basic logic. Your problem is that, no matter what evidence or logic is presented, no matter how compelling it is, you'll refuse it with some nonsensical dodge. You'll keep pointing to new rabbit holes, as in, "Well, what about THIS." You want evidence ONLY on YOUR terms, and that will never happen. Truth doesn't work like that. A thing isn't only true just when it perfectly conforms to your personal expectations.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote: I suspect matter has always existed in one way or another. This means the singularity that expanded to become the Big Bang, either has always existed, or was something else before coming together to become the singularity.

You suspect matter has always existed...
I'd be interested, in what science you draw from, or whether you just believe matter of factly.
Especially given you reject multiverse.

I’ve been very clear; science does not have an answer to this question here. Why would you assume I would draw from a source that doesn’t have an answer?

If science can explain everything (which I see limits to, although you evidently believe it has no boundaries),

No; I have been very clear; science does not have all the answers.

Sorry, I've found you a bit all over the place personally.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Great, then my previous assertions stand as valid.
If there are some things outside of science that are nonetheless true, than science is still compatible.
As I said previously,

• "there is no clash between science and Christian miraculous claims when we understand the respective boundaries of each. The Christian claim of the virgin birth isn't that Jesus was naturally conceived, but that God Himself chose to get off His throne and come to us in human form. Science has no claim on this, anymore than it does at explaining where our universe came from (which according to you we cannot know)."

No; that would be like me claiming because the existence of the Easter bunny are outside the claims of the Gospels, that Gospel claims are compatible with the claims of the Easter bunny. In order for the Gospels to be compatible with Easter Bunny, the Gospels would have to support the claims of the Easter Bunny.
In order for your claims to be compatible with science, your claims would have to be supported by science.

Whatevs Kenny.

It seems to me you no understand what compatible and incompatible means.

I guess there's a whole lot of things incompatible with science then...
A beginning to our universe, morality, real events in history now forgotten, heck, even the proposition that only empirical methods give meaningful knowledge isn't supported by science. Oh, my, gosh!

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Science doesn't have an answer for such things, because I claim such is outside the boundaries of what science can get at. Just like, if there are infinite universes separate from ours, then we'll never be able to get at them unless by some chance they "bump" into each other. However, there is no clash between science and these other universes existing (if they do); just like these is no clash between God existing and science.

To describe imaginary creatures and events as undetectable by reality does not make them compatible with reality.

I really don't understand what you're talking about? But, please do explain.

The rest of your post, I'll just wave you off to my previous post.

Philip wrote:Ken, I'm afraid a better statement is that logic doesn't work for you, at all. Apparently you even refuse what science prolifically asserts precisely about the elements, design and functions of what immediately emerged at the universe's beginning.

What have I said that indicates I refuse what science asserts about elements, design, and function? All I did was ask for proof, and your exact words were

YOU can't prove or show me even ONE thing, just ONE example of random, chaotic, uncontrolled things that have produced great sophistication and complexity? There's my proof!

Those were your exact words. Sorry but that isn’t proof to me.

Philip wrote:You also are assuming there. Isn't other life anywhere else in a vast universe. However, I'm sure if it were, then you'd assert that it would prove that life in the universe is common and thus nothing special, it is to be expected. Really, Ken,

I never suggested there isn’t other life in the Universe, you said the purpose of the Universe is to create diversity of life, so I asked where is all of this diversity of life! One would think if the purpose of the Universe is to produce any type of life, that said life would be apparent; thus far it has not been.

Philip wrote:your problems are not a lack of evidences or any asserted necessity for "proof," and it's certainly not even an issue of basic logic. Your problem is that, no matter what evidence or logic is presented, no matter how compelling it is, you'll refuse it with some nonsensical dodge. You'll keep pointing to new rabbit holes, as in, "Well, what about THIS." You want evidence ONLY on YOUR terms, and that will never happen. Truth doesn't work like that. A thing isn't only true just when it perfectly conforms to your personal expectations.

What evidence have you provided? You claimed as “FACT” intelligence created the Universe, I asked you to prove it, and you challenged me to prove you wrong! The problem is not me refusing to accept proof, the problem is you refusing to provide any.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Science doesn't have an answer for such things, because I claim such is outside the boundaries of what science can get at. Just like, if there are infinite universes separate from ours, then we'll never be able to get at them unless by some chance they "bump" into each other. However, there is no clash between science and these other universes existing (if they do); just like these is no clash between God existing and science.

To describe imaginary creatures and events as undetectable by reality does not make them compatible with reality.

Kurieuo wrote:I really don't understand what you're talking about? But, please do explain.

The rest of your post, I'll just wave you off to my previous post.

You started this topic claiming Christianity is compatible with science. I define “compatible” as “to be in agreement with” and began providing examples where science isn’t in agreement with Christianity.

You seem to be defining “compatible” as “does not refute” and since science does not refute many of the claims of Christianity that are outside of what could be studied by science, said claims are not refuted thus “compatible” by your definition.

I countered by making the point that if we are going to use that definition, I could come up with any imaginary character and define it in a way that we have no way of refuting; but this does not make my imaginary character compatible with reality.

That’s the way I’ve seen this discussion transpire. Sounds like something else we might just have to agree to disagree on.

Ken

Well now you, and IceMobster who liked your post, both don't know your English.

• compatible
  adjective
  1. (of two things) able to exist or occur together without problems or conflict.

Kurieuo wrote:Well now you, and IceMobster who liked your post, both don't know your English.

• compatible
  adjective
  1. (of two things) able to exist or occur together without problems or conflict.

Bringing up the points I mentioned earlier, a body begins to deteriorate after death. This deterioration is in conflict with the body coming back to life, isn’t it?

Ken

It is, unless the body is rejuvenated.

I'll re-quote my whole first fuller reply to you here, which I now half-regret, but I'll continue because I love you Kenny... ok, so let's go a full circle, wheee! Boy, that was fun! Maybe we can go around again?

Kurieuo wrote:If science is like "c, d, e and f" and we have something else "a, b" (lets say metaphysics philosophy) and yet something other "g, h, i, j" (let's call such spiritual truths) --- then indeed all these things are compatible. Touching upon different areas they never come into conflict with each other.

Such are only incompatible if they clash. The only way they can clash is if you believe "science" can determine all truth and is the judge and juror of everything. Such isn't "science" but Scientism. And clearly science has limits. Even Morny acknowledges as much when we discussed methodological naturalism.

You know, consider historical truths. There are a very large array of them that are beyond science to detect. And yet, are we now saying very real events of the past are incompatible with science? That's just silly. Such truth might be beyond and inaccessible to science, but not incompatible.

Science is just a pursuit of truth that attempts to build knowledge based upon our observed experiences in the world. Where we can't set up tests, or observe first hand what is going on, such is beyond science.

If something is beyond science, such doesn't mean that something is incompatible with science. It just means there are limits to science, and whatever you're trying to deal with isn't likely in the realm of scientific enquiry.

And then, how science is compatible with miracles, is because they don't touch upon each other:

Kurieuo wrote:Indeed that our Universe with it's physical set of laws came into existence is the biggest miracle. To answer this, one must break with what science says is/isn't natural, because we're talking of a period existing before the physical laws we depend upon for scientific enquiry.

So then, yes, there are certain stable laws in our universe which naturally results in childbirth.
When physical life dies, physical bodies do not naturally rise after death.
And when our universe formed with all its physical laws, such indeed is a miracle beyond science itself.
Science can only deal with natural claims within its scope.

Therefore there is no clash between science and these Christian miraculous claims when we understand the respective boundaries of each.
The Christian claim of the virgin birth isn't that Jesus was naturally conceived, but that God Himself chose to get off His throne and come to us in human form. Science has no claim on this, anymore than it does at explaining where our universe came from (which according to you we cannot know).

As for the resurrection,

Kurieuo wrote:Re: Jesus resurrection, the claim when fully reduced to a base level isn't that someone came back from the dead (though that's part of it), but rather the central claim is that the Being who created and sustains our world into existence chose to intervene. Such is beyond science, and therefore presents no clash whatsoever. There is only an issue if one presumes all that is true or real must be discoverable by science. To claim such oversteps and errs into scientism.

Scientism: "Only what can be established scientifically is true, objective, and valid everywhere and for everybody."
- Eric Weil

Kurieuo wrote:It is, unless the body is rejuvenated.

So in accordance with science, how can a dead body become "rejuvenated" once it has started to deteriorate after death?

Kurieuo wrote:I'll re-quote my whole first fuller reply to you here, which I now half-regret, but I'll continue because I love you Kenny... ok, so let's go a full circle, wheee! Boy, that was fun! Maybe we can go around again?

Kurieuo wrote:If science is like "c, d, e and f" and we have something else "a, b" (lets say metaphysics philosophy) and yet something other "g, h, i, j" (let's call such spiritual truths) --- then indeed all these things are compatible. Touching upon different areas they never come into conflict with each other.

Such are only incompatible if they clash. The only way they can clash is if you believe "science" can determine all truth and is the judge and juror of everything.

Obviously as a Christian you believe your God can determine all truth and is the judge and jury of everything.
I think it is fair to say only to the Christian is Christianity compatible with science; to those of other religions (who believe their God determines truth and is judge of all) they may see their religion as compatible with science; and of course to the non believer, Christianity (and the other religions) will conflict with science. Can we agree on that?

Ken

This reply is going beyond to original topic, but nonetheless...

My God is also your God even if you do not concede such, or you do not think a supremely intelligent being is logically necessary or the what-have-you. God is real, and you'll stand before this being at some point eating all your words here.

Now as I understand you, your "God" if you will -- that foundational something to everything else -- is just our Universe as brute fact. Despite science and the break down the physics as we know them at the "big bang" singularity (where mind you the universe appears to have had lots and lots of energy injected into it in an instant from apparently nothing), you nonetheless believe, "well actually, the Universe always was." Yet, you claim ignorance of how, nonetheless presuming to know that the Universe just always existed. At least some others actually try to logically explain such scientific observations with multiverse and what-not, but you won't budge, won't investigate any science and logic of such, preferring to just hang your hat up on a "I don't know" while claiming that actually the Universe has always been around.

See, you have royally committed yourself to a Materialistic view of the world simply based upon your willful choice. You don't want God to exist, that much is clear. Though you probably will not admit to such, if you even realise that you are running away. You've made a clear decision to reject God, NOT based upon reason, but your heart hides and buries any such knowledge.

Yet, your materialist reductionist view has a problem when it comes to explaining consciousness. It's been a problem practitioners of reason have long tried to reconcile by actually removing it from the equation. Behaviourism, for example, pretends there's no one running the machine (physical body) and a "person" just responds to stimuli. Any sense of us as a person is just illusory, a strange side effect to a certain physical arrangement like smoke ascending from a fire.

You see, my Foundational Something can explain consciousness, why we believe morality exists, concepts of justice and fairness, love, true meaning and purpose in the world. All these things you just take for granted, which are just suspended in mid air around you -- a Foundational Something possessing intelligence provides a foundation for. It's a matter of whether you embrace your intuition on such things, or reject it -- but if you reject such then I have no doubt you'll still act and behave like some things really are right or wrong, your life and the life of others has true meaning and purpose, you'll be outraged at injustices in the the world and what-not.

And yet again, if Materialism is true, you ought not to be. Everything is just reduced to matter at the end of the day. It's matter that's bouncing around and the like. And "us" the effect, is nothing more than a mechanical process just carrying about itself.

So then, it seems to me that materialism isn't compatible with the nature of the world we see, experience and intimately believe to be true. You believe your "God", that is, the logically necessary something for everything that exists is just material. I see intelligence, meaning, purpose, goodness, justice makes sense, value and the like and see something more than a mere rock or atom is required.

So then, having set up a true stage, compared to your ridiculous Easter Bunner assertion...

I see other Theistic religions as compatible with science also. Nonetheless, they are incompatible with Christianity because they proclaim different spiritual truths. Heck, some religions like Hinduism (as I pointed out) appear to pride themselves on contradiction.

If you don't mind answering, here's some questions back for you Kenny:

• Can a scientist who is Christian, that is they believe in God, believe Christ was God and indeed rose from the dead in physical form, truly be a scientist? Can such a person perform science with the foundation that they are seeking to understand how God designed and sustains the natural world, rather than than a belief that God is entirely devoid?

Kurieuo wrote:If you don't mind answering, here's some questions back for you Kenny:

• Can a scientist who is Christian, that is they believe in God, believe Christ was God and indeed rose from the dead in physical form, truly be a scientist? Can such a person perform science with the foundation that they are seeking to understand how God designed and sustains the natural world, rather than than a belief that God is entirely devoid?

I believe it is possible. But I don’t think it is a coincidence that only 7% of the members of the National Academy of Scientists identified themselves as theists, the rest either atheist or agnostic.
It would probably depend on the type of scientist. A Paleontologist would probably be able to justify his study of Evolution by saying God put evolution in place to get us here (or something like that). An astronomer would probably take your position and believe God started the Big Bang, but would recognize what he believes is not supported by what he studies. It would probably depend on the type of Christian as well. I would imagine the minority of Scientists who are theists would not consider themselves fundamentalists, saved, or born again.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:If you don't mind answering, here's some questions back for you Kenny:

• Can a scientist who is Christian, that is they believe in God, believe Christ was God and indeed rose from the dead in physical form, truly be a scientist? Can such a person perform science with the foundation that they are seeking to understand how God designed and sustains the natural world, rather than than a belief that God is entirely devoid?

I believe it is possible. But I don’t think it is a coincidence that only 7% of the members of the National Academy of Scientists identified themselves as theists, the rest either atheist or agnostic.
It would probably depend on the type of scientist. A Paleontologist would probably be able to justify his study of Evolution by saying God put evolution in place to get us here (or something like that). An astronomer would probably take your position and believe God started the Big Bang, but would recognize what he believes is not supported by what he studies. It would probably depend on the type of Christian as well. I would imagine the minority of Scientists who are theists would not consider themselves fundamentalists, saved, or born again.

Thanks Kenny (for answering questions).

So then, if it is possible for someone to be a "scientist" and "Christian", then by the same measure "science" and "Christianity" do not clash. As far as "fundamentalist" is concerned, such is warped today beyond its original meaning. I don't know really what anyone means by the term anymore, except something derogatory really. And the "you must be born again", similarly while there is a very real Christian truth behind such, I myself feel it's often associated with your "Word of Faith" types who a probably more interested in your hip pocket. So I really don't know what you mean by such, except that you have some distorted Christian types in mind who you consider more legit Christians.

Let me say that, I don't just think Christianity is compatible with science, but think that it provides a very fertile foundation for science to be conducted. Many early pioneers of science were Christians such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Pascal. For such, creation reflected the rational nature of the Creator, was therefore orderly and uniform. While you beg to differ, Christianity provides logical grounding for science in a way that Materialism cannot. And, Christianity is all for affirming truth as something real and knowable, something science needs. But anyway, that's another discussion to be had if you ever accept this much more weak claim of compatibility.

As for the National Academy of Scientists, I hardly think such is representative of all scientists. In fact, it represents a tiny number of scientists -- two thousand members or the like, compared to the millions in the US. Maybe you should pay more attention to polls of greater significance, like Pew Research which shows more than half scientists believe in God or a higher power.

Some of the greatest scientists have come from Christians or Theists. Guess who proposed the theory of an expanding universe? Should it come as any surprise really now. What about Francis Collins, who was Atheist, but is now a devout Christian. You'd be aware I'm sure that he's the geneticist behind the Human Genome Project, is the director of the National Institutes of Health. On the topic of whether science and religion are compatible he writes:

• I am privileged to be somebody who tries to understand nature using the tools of science. But it is also clear that there are some really important questions that science cannot really answer, such as: Why is there something instead of nothing? Why are we here? In those domains I have found that faith provides a better path to answers. I find it oddly anachronistic that in today’s culture there seems to be a widespread presumption that scientific and spiritual views are incompatible.

So then... I guess we're at an impasse.

Kurieuo wrote:
So then... I guess we're at an impasse.

Too bad it's not a logical impasse!