# Christians: Why are scientists more likely to be non-believers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 1, 2013, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322 "2013-07-01T06:22:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 35
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/681 "2013-07-19T16:04:04Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > He’s not actually trying to convince anyone here that he’s right. He doesn’t think he should have to, he’s proselytizing. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/682 "2013-07-19T16:29:10Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > I am not askign about the formation of oil. **I am observing that oil complanies hire geologists who use an old-earth model to find where to drill for oil.** As you are a Flood believer, I would think that a practical application of non-Flood geology in a religiously neutral situation might help you begin to examine the weaknesses of Flood geology. Can you cite this please, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/683 "2013-07-19T16:32:17Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Can you cite this please, thanks. Is there any chance you would read the cite if it was given? ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/684 "2013-07-19T16:32:34Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > In Genesis 1:3 the word is " 'owr", in 1:16, both words used for ‘light’ (ie, greater light and lesser light) are “ma’owr”. > > There is no differentiation between the two other than ‘greater’ and ‘lesser’, the _LIGHT_ is the same. > > Pointing to 1:3 is simply irrelevant. > > I don’t need to really. > > The same word for the Greater light is used for the Lesser light. The difference between the two lights is ‘greater’ and ‘lesser’, not that one reflects light and one produces light. You seem to be arguing a distinction without a difference. > > The Bible considers both of them lights, as in, producing lights, but we know this is incorrect - or rather, those of us that accept science do. Since you accept scripture, you obviously have to believe that the Moon produces light. > > Prove this please. Let’s remember that it’s not just static life that Genesis refers to, it’s “And the earth **brought forth** grass, [and] herb **yielding seed** after his kind”. > > Which is rather fast, but regardless. You have to show that without heat, the sun, water, etc a plant could stay alive for 24 hours. Please show how this is possible without the heat from the Sun: > > Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so. > Gen 1:1o And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good. > > How is there any ‘seas’? There’s no heat! It should be blocks of ice. The ‘water’ in the cells of the plants would expand and destroy the plant - it would not enable the plant to grow (as 1:11 indicates) or bring forth seed. > > Your position is invalid and your defense has failed. > > So there was enough light from verse 3 to make the Sun irrelevant. Where is this light now? Further, why was the Sun created? In fact, when the Sun was created, why didn’t this instantly kill everything on the planet? > > Another attempted defense (a magical light from verse 3) has yet with more failure. > > No concession necessary - your position is absurd, as has been repeatedly shown. All you can do is put forth handwaving guesses (you have not backed any of your positions with **any** sort of empirical evidence to show that it’s possible). In fact, your position indicates that you haven’t thought critically about the issue. Maybe a fourth time will let this sink in for you. You originally asked how plants could survive without the sun. I immediately pointed to Gen 1:3, in my first reply. This is the original source of the light, which I explained in my first response to you. I hope that helps. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/685 "2013-07-19T16:35:49Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Is there any chance you would read the cite if it was given? I check all your cites, if it is simply a talkorigins glossary, with no help from you or others on direct references, then why should I bother, if you didnt?? ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/686 "2013-07-19T16:35:51Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Can you cite this please, thanks. No more than I can cite an astronomer specifically stating they use a heliocentric model. But you can, if you wish, ask any oil driller. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/687 "2013-07-19T16:38:12Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > No it isn’t. The point this started with was your assertion that the bible is an authority because of > > And this has been shown to be false. The bible is full of inaccuracies, contradictions, and just plain baloney. > > There is no evolution vs creationism debate. It’s over. Evolution won a long time ago. All creationism has now is the same old tired talking points that have been long debunked. There’s a reason creationism has to try and force itself on students by trying to get it voted into schools, it’s because it isn’t science, it’s religion. It has no scientific validity, has produced nothing scientific, etc. If you’re going to cite [creation.com](http://creation.com) as a source, you may as well cite conservapedia, or uncyclopedia for that matter. They both have about the same veracity. No, it has not been shown to be false. Maybe you want to revisit Matthew 24:34 first, and see all the other references to the word ‘generation’ in Psalms. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/688 "2013-07-19T16:43:34Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > No more than I can cite an astronomer specifically stating they use a heliocentric model. But you can, if you wish, ask any oil driller. You seem to have asked around more on that than me. What exactly did they tell was so advantageous about the old earth model in finding oil deposits? ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/689 "2013-07-19T16:46:04Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Wow, you’re not even reading the cites, you’re just spitting talking points back. > > I’m not even going to bother quoting from the cite to show you that you’re wrong, I’m going to let you go read it for yourself. I’ll give you a hint though, you’re totally wrong, but not for the reason you might think. > > And your cite is laughable. It’s crammed full of bias, cherry picked quotes, logical errors, and outright bs. Which is exactly what you’d expect from any creationist source. It quotes the bible as a factual source, in an attempt to refute the idea of deism. Saying ‘he got his ideas from deism and other sources we don’t like so Darwin is wrong’ is an ad hominem argument, and does nothing to disprove any of his actual work. There are 74 references, did you want to comment on the innacuracy of any one in particular? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/690 "2013-07-19T16:46:40Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Here: > [Natural selection - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection) > > The seals evolved from…seals. If you’ve ever been up close to an elephant seal, you’d know they are a lot different from the sea lions and seals you find in San Francisco. They are very different species. (A sea lion trying to mate with an elephant seal would not be pretty.) Go far enough back, they aren’t seals any more - in fact they’d be living on land, like the precursors to whales. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/691 "2013-07-19T16:47:21Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > Maybe a fourth time will let this sink in for you. You originally asked how plants could survive without the sun. I immediately pointed to Gen 1:3, in my first reply. This is the original source of the light, which I explained in my first response to you. I hope that helps. I’ve repeatedly responded to this. Have you even read my entire response? I don’t think you have. When did the ‘light’ in Gen 1:3 go away? ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/692 "2013-07-19T16:53:45Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > No more than I can cite an astronomer specifically stating they use a heliocentric model. But you can, if you wish, ask any oil driller. He could read [Glenn Morton’s story](http://www.oldearth.org/whyileft.htm). Glenn was a YEC (who wrote papers for “Creation Research Society Quarterly”) and a geologist who had to leave YEC because he was constantly presented with evidence to the contrary, a brief sample: > [@](#): > > In order to get closer to the data and know it better, with the hope of finding a solution, I changed subdivisions of my work in 1980. I left seismic processing and went into seismic interpretation where I would have to deal with more geologic data. My horror at what I was seeing only increased. There was a major problem; the data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian. Doubts about what I was writing and teaching began to grow. Unfortunately, my fellow young earth creationists were not willing to listen to the problems. No one could give me a model which allowed me to unite into one cloth what I believed on Sunday and what I was forced to believe by the data Monday through Friday. I was living the life of a double-minded man–believing two things. You’ll notice that Reef Shark’s attitude is similar to those of Glenn’s fellow creationists who just would not listen. > [@reef\_shark](#): > > No, it has not been shown to be false. Maybe you want to revisit Matthew 24:34 first, and see all the other references to the word ‘generation’ in Psalms. Assertions are not evidence, try again. ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/693 "2013-07-19T16:55:41Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If you’ve ever been up close to an elephant seal, you’d know they are a lot different from the sea lions and seals you find in San Francisco. They are very different species. (A sea lion trying to mate with an elephant seal would not be pretty.) Go far enough back, they aren’t seals any more - in fact they’d be living on land, like the precursors to whales. ‘Go far enough back’..You mean assume something other than what is observed? You already said you dont know what they supposedly evolved from. I suggest sticking to what is observed, no assumptions. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/694 "2013-07-19T16:59:28Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > There are 74 references, did you want to comment on the innacuracy of any one in particular? Care to comment on [creation.com’s “About Us” page](http://creation.com/about-us), especially > [@](#): > > 6.By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. If the evidence doesn’t not fit with their preconceived notions, it is thrown out as invalid. Why do you use this site as a source? ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/695 "2013-07-19T17:08:50Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > No, it has not been shown to be false. Maybe you want to revisit Matthew 24:34 first, and see all the other references to the word ‘generation’ in Psalms. Maybe you should read Matthew 24:34 and stop falling back on subjective interpretation to support your own bias. You want more? Easy to find lots more. [Somehow Egypt still exists, the Nile isn’t dried up.]([Ezekial - Ezekiel’s Inaugural Vision - In my - Bible Gateway](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekial) 29:8-12&version=NASB) [Again, the Nile is still fine.](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2019:5-8&version=NASB) [Nebuchadnezzar failed to conquer Tyre. Even after being conquered by Alexander the Great, somehow it still exists.](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel%2026:7-14&version=NASB) [Nope, Israel is fighting with it’s neighbors.](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel%2028:25-26&version=NASB) There’s a lot more, if you bother to look that is. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/696 "2013-07-19T17:20:27Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > There are 74 references, did you want to comment on the innacuracy of any one in particular? What does any one reference being wrong have to do with anything? If the article says ‘Darwin said this’ and gives a reference to the book the quote is from, the fact that the reference is correct does not mean the article itself is correct. Reference 9 tries to refute the concept of deism by quoting a bible verse. That’s not a biased source or anything. Besides, you’re missing the point entirely. You still haven’t read my original cite. It might help… ---
**Author:** ![reef\_shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bbe5ce/32.png) [@reef\_shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reef_shark)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/697 "2013-07-19T19:32:03Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > I’ve repeatedly responded to this. Have you even read my entire response? I don’t think you have. > > When did the ‘light’ in Gen 1:3 go away? > **[Genesis 1 Commentary - Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible (Complete)](https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/genesis/1.html)** > > Read Genesis 1 commentary using Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible (Complete). Study the bible online using commentary on Genesis 1 and more!... 'Verses 3-5 We have here a further account of the first day’s work, in which observe, 1. That the first of all visible beings which God created was light; not that by it he himself might see to work (for the darkness and light are both alike to him), but that by it we might see his works and his glory in them, and might work our works while it is day. The works of Satan and his servants are works of darkness; but he that doeth truth, and doeth good, cometh to the light, and coveteth it, that his deeds may be made manifest, Jn. 3:21 . Light is the great beauty and blessing of the universe. Like the first-born, it does, of all visible beings, most resemble its great Parent in purity and power, brightness and beneficence; it is of great affinity with a spirit, and is next to it; though by it we see other things, and are sure that it is, yet we know not its nature, nor can describe what it is, or by what way the light is parted, Job. 38:19, Job. 38:24 . By the sight of it let us be led to, and assisted in, the believing contemplation of him who is \*\*light, infinite and eternal light \*\*(1 Jn. 1:5 ), and the Father of lights (Jam. 1:17 ), and who dwells in inaccessible light, 1 Tim. 6:16 . In the new creation, the first thing wrought in the soul is light: the blessed Spirit captives the will and affections by enlightening the understanding, so coming into the heart by the door, like the good shepherd whose own the sheep are, while sin and Satan, like thieves and robbers, climb up some other way. Those that by sin were darkness by grace become light in the world. That the light was made by the word of God’s power. He said, Let there be light; he willed and appointed it, and it was done immediately: there was light, such a copy as exactly answered the original idea in the Eternal Mind. O the power of the word of God! He spoke, and **it was done, done really, effectually, and for perpetuity, not in show only, and to serve a present turn, for he commanded, and it stood fast: with him it was dictum, factum—a word, and a world. The world of God (that is, his will and the good pleasure of it) is quick and powerful. Christ is the Word, the essential eternal Word, and by him the light was produced, for in him was light, and he is the true light, the light of the world, Jn. 1:9 Jn. 9:5 .** The divine light which shines in sanctified souls is wrought by the power of God, the power of his word and of the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, opening the understanding, scattering the mists of ignorance and mistake, and giving the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ, as at first, God commanded the light to shine out of darkness, 2 Co. 4:6 . Darkness would have been perpetually upon the face of fallen man if the Son of God had not come, and given us an understanding, 1 Jn. 5:20 . That the light which God willed, when it was produced, he approved of: God saw the light that it was good. It was exactly as he designed it, and it was fit to answer the end for which he designed it. It was useful and profitable; the world, which now is a palace, would have been a dungeon without it. It was amiable and pleasant. Truly the light is sweet (Eccl. 11:7 ); it rejoiceth the heart, Prov. 15:30 . What God commands he will approve and graciously accept; he will be well pleased with the work of his own hands. That is good indeed which is so in the sight of God, for he sees not as man sees. If the light is good, how good is he that is the fountain of light, from whom we receive it, and to whom we owe all praise for it and all the services we do by it! 4. That God divided the light from the darkness, so put them asunder as that they could never be joined together, or reconciled; for what fellowship has light with darkness? 2 Co. 6:14 . And yet he divided time between them, the day for light and the night for darkness, in a constant and regular succession to each other. Though the darkness was now scattered by the light, yet it was not condemned to a perpetual banishment, but takes its turn with the light, and has its place, because it has its use; for, as the light of the morning befriends the business of the day, so the shadows of the evening befriend the repose of the night, and draw the curtains about us, that we may sleep the better. See Job. 7:2 . God has thus divided time between light and darkness, because he would daily remind us that this is a world of mixtures and changes. In heaven there is perfect and perpetual light, and no darkness at all; in hell, utter darkness, and no gleam of light. In that world between these two there is a great gulf fixed; but, in this world, they are counterchanged, and we pass daily from one to another, that we may learn to expect the like vicissitudes in the providence of God, peace and trouble, joy and sorrow, and may set the one over-against the other, accommodating ourselves to both as we do to the light and darkness, bidding both welcome, and making the best of both. 5. That God divided them from each other by distinguishing names: He called the light day, and the darkness he called night. He gave them names, as the Lord of both; for the day is his, the night also is his, Ps. 74:16 . He is the Lord of time, and will be so, till day and night shall come to an end, and the stream of time be swallowed up in the ocean of eternity. Let us acknowledge God in the constant succession of day and night, and consecrate both to his honour, by working for him every day and resting in him every night, and meditating in his law day and night. 6. That this was the first day’s work, and a good day’s work it was. The evening and the morning were the first day. The darkness of the evening was before the light of the morning, that it might serve for a foil to it, to set it off, and make it shine the brighter. This was not only the first day of the world, but the first day of the week. I observe it to the honour of that day, because the new world began on the first day of the week likewise, in the resurrection of Christ, as the light of the world, early in the morning. In him the day-spring from on high has visited the world; and happy are we, for ever happy, if that day-star arise in our hearts. ’ ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/698 "2013-07-19T20:08:50Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/genesis/1.html Commentary _def_ 1. Opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/699 "2013-07-19T20:13:41Z")
> [@reef\_shark](#): > > ‘Go far enough back’..You mean assume something other than what is observed? > > You already said you dont know what they supposedly evolved from. I suggest sticking to what is observed, no assumptions. Observed in the fossil record. How do you propose observing their ancestors today? What do you think the limits of evolution are. Even creationists have been forced to accept what they call microevolution, since we see it happening. We’ve seen speciation happening also - I don’t know if creationists accept this. In my experience they seem to work with “kinds” which were on the ark. What mechanism do you propose keeps species which can no longer interbreed from drifting further and further apart with time? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322/700 "2013-07-19T20:18:01Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > No more than I can cite an astronomer specifically stating they use a heliocentric model. But you can, if you wish, ask any oil driller. Not oil drillers, but petroleum geologists can find oil using the methods they learned at good universities. Maybe he can give us some top universities that teach the young earth model. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=34) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-why-are-scientists-more-likely-to-be-non-believers/662322.md?page=36)