I don’t really follow how high caliber and highly respected research scientists like Francis Collins can be Christian. I think I can parse being religious and generally ‘spiritual’ as a scientist…but I can’t grasp the concept that the basic requirements of Christianity are held by such scientists.
I’ve briefly read the Wiki on Francis Collins, and while I see his spirituality, I don’t find a lot about ‘Christianity’ specifically.
How does a highly respected research scientist with a great deal of training in gathering empirical evidence for something to be accepted as true, rectify such natural law defying occurances as the divinity of Jesus. How do they account for the virgin birth, the resurrection and the miracles attributed to Jesus?
Its quite logical. If an omniscient God exists, then He can bend the natural laws of the universe.
For those that believe, no explanation is necessary.
For those that don’t, no explanation will suffice.
If an omniscient God exists he would know about bending the natural laws of the universe, and would be able to narrate about it.
It would take an omnipotent God to actually bend them. 
Sorry, I couldn’t help being a smarty pants, those are two of my favorite words. 
Didn’t I read in “A Brief History Of Time” that Hawking was asked to explain the Big Bang Theory to a Pope who told him that as long as Hawking didn’t speculate on conditions BEFORE the BB, the Pope (and therefore, the RC Church) had no problem with it?
Many people call themselves Christians, but if you question them on what they actually believe, they don’t truly support all the Christian doctrine.
I know plenty of people calling themselves Christian, that are much closer to the definition of a Deist.
I don’t know if that is the case with Collins, but it could explain what is baffling you.
when does one know that the natural laws are being bent or not?
Also, I’m really asking for insight on how Research Scientists rectify these occurances. It would be great if an actual Ph.D. type research scientist who is Christian could clear this up a bit.
This would, in fact, clear up much of my confusion. Though I find it oddly distasteful that such a person would really call themselves Christian.
That’s not the case with Francis Collins who is an evangelical Christian.
Francis Collins is a member of BioLogos which subscribes to the following creed: http://biologos.org/about
The central tenet of Christianity - that Jesus was the manifestation of God made into man - is not a normal part of anyone’s experience. There’s no reason why a lawyer or a plumber or a secretary would have an easier time accepting it than a scientist. The Christians who believe this accept it as an extraordinary unique event and they accept it on faith not on reason. There’s no reason a scientist can’t do the same.
The guy that proposed the Big Bang Theory was a priest.
I’ll leave it to the reader as to what was going on just before the Big Bang or as to what triggered the event.
The exact definition of “all the Christian doctrine” is, of course controversial, unless by “Christian” you mean “those people who agree with my version of Christian theology”. Which of the people who “call themselves Christians” are being excluded here from being “Christians”?
If this Wiki entry is correct, he doesn’t sound like a traditional evangelical that believes in intelligent design.
Actually, what is described below, sounds much more like something a Diest would come up with. Especially the idea that God set everything in motion, and is now non-interventionist.
Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that “evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God”,[3] and “Theistic evolution, which accepts that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God”.[4] The term was used by National Center for Science Education executive director Eugenie Scott to refer to the part of the overall spectrum of beliefs about creation and evolution holding the theological view that God creates through evolution. It covers a wide range of beliefs about the extent of any intervention by God, with some approaching deism in rejecting continued intervention.
See the link I provided. Additionally, plenty of evangelicals/orthodox Christians have been open to evolution such as the Princeton theologians BB Warfield and AA Hodge or even Billy Graham. Additionally Collins isn’t a non-interventionist since he does believe in the various miracles recorded in Scripture.
Shit-ton of Catholics: Lemaître, yes. The name was coined by Hoyle (not religious) as maybe mockery, although he maybe disputed that. But he didn’t believe it.
And Mendel. You might’ve heard of him in high school. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who had some weird ideas, but was quite scientific even when associated with a hoax. Lots of people from the Vatican Observatory. [Pontifical Academy of Sciences](Pontifical academy - Wikipedia of Sciences), although being Catholic is not a requirement, like Collins.
Pius XII’s encylical Humani generis. Plus later Popes. Maybe not trained scientists, but based on conclusions from said.
Orthodox: Dobzhansky and Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.
I don’t know any specifically Anglican/Episcopalian sources, but I’m sure that there are quite a few.
Gould was not religious but his NOMA statement was criticized by many Dawkins-types.
Evolutionary creation(ism) is a dumb name and ignores that theistic evolutionism way closer to evolution than it is to creationism or even ID.
Be sure to mention that he probably meant “reconcile” where he has “rectify”.
If someone ever asked me for the perfect example of “trite”, I think I would use this hoary phrase. It is nothing more than an unevidenced assumption of “specialness”.
I’m a PhD. (as of May 2013) and a researcher in plant biology- for privacy’s sake I’m not interested in stating my university affiliations or my work topics right here and now, but you can PM me if you want. And a Christian, though not always the most orthodox of them. What are your questions, exactly?
Re: ‘creation’ vs. evolution, I don’t think Christianity requires any specific doctrinal beliefs about how the universe and life came into being. Some of the early Christians flatly denied that God had created the material universe at all. Christianity is not, in essence, about creation, but rather about salvation: specifically, about salvation through the life, work, and death of Jesus Christ. Those of us who believe in the Nicene creed accept, on faith, that God is in some sense the ultimate power behind creation, but that doesn’t mean that He supervised evolution in any particular detail.
The more interesting questions, to me, concern the events of the Gospels, so I’m hppy to debate those if you want.
Not all evangelicals believe in intelligent design. The fact that this fellow doesn’t do so, doesn’t mean he’s a deist rather than a Christian.