Question 55 – Are there any scientists that reject evolution?

From the answers to the preceding questions, it becomes abundantly clear that there are countless scientists who, based on their scientific knowledge, are convinced of the existence of a creative intelligence. They acknowledge that the astounding harmony and complexity of the world cannot be explained without the necessity of an intelligent Creator. Among these scientists are graduates from the most prestigious universities worldwide and many Nobel Prize laureates. Biophysicist Alexander Fink, director of the German Institute for Science and Faith, notes: 

"According to a survey among a thousand randomly selected American scientists in 1916, it was found that 24% believed in a personal God. By 1996, this figure had risen to 39%. This was a surprising result as it was expected that the number of atheists would significantly increase." [41]

At this point, however, it is important to note that not all believing scientists have faith in the same way or share the same view of the Creator, whom they all invoke. The manner in which the believing scientific community approaches the question of God's existence and the depiction of the Bible can be simplified with the following illustration:

In the book, I use quotes and expressions from scientists across these opinion groups. My primary aim is to dispel the incorrect and mistaken notion that a believing person cannot be educated, that they are foolish and hinder scientific progress. Furthermore, my ambition is to challenge the deeply rooted belief that the description of the Bible is unbelievable and lacks any scientific justification. On the contrary, I want to show that faith in God and the Bible is meaningful, rational, and stems from the very weight of evidence in the natural sciences. Yet, when we talk about science, which is a sharp tool used by many atheists to refute the existence of God, we must say something about whom we owe the development of modern science to a great extent.

Science = A Child of the Christian Worldview

"As I try to discern the origin of that conviction, I seem to find it in a basic notion discovered 2000 or 3000 years ago, and enunciated first in the Western world by the ancient Hebrews: namely that the universe is governed by a single God, and is not the product of the whims of many gods, each governing his own province according to his own laws. This monotheistic view seems to be the historical foundation for modern science." – Dr. Melvin Calvin, Nobel Prize laureate in biochemistry [42]

Allow me to make a very provocative statement for many – modern science would never have emerged without a Judeo-Christian worldview on the world [43]! This statement is not the desperate cry of Christian fanatics but a personal confession of many scientists present at the beginnings of modern scientific disciplines as we know them now.

Christian scientists were indeed at their inception. This includes fields such as surgery (Joseph Lister), microbiology (Louis Pasteur), astronomy (Johannes Kepler), molecular physics (Lord Kelvin), quantum theory (Max Planck), genetics (Gregor Mendel), mathematics (Gottfried Leibniz), physics (Lord Rayleigh, Alexander Fleming), astrophysics (William Herschel), or electromagnetism (André-Marie Ampère), among others. It is, therefore, no accident that modern science arose in Christian Western society. For it to emerge, the basic premises for its existence must be met, provided by the Judeo-Christian belief in God.

These Premises Are as Follows [44]:

• Rationality and order of creation, which faith in the biblical God presupposes, imply predictability and logic inherent in natural laws; without this, any inquiry would be meaningless. God's character also points to constancy, which can be assumed in nature as well. Historian Joseph Needham, for example, answers the question of why science did not emerge in China like this: 

"There was no confidence that the code of Nature's laws could be unveiled and read, because there was no assurance that a divine being, even more rational than ourselves, had ever formulated such a code capable of being read." [44]

• The material world is real (not, for instance, a Hindu illusion) – it can be known.

• Desacralization of nature, which many philosophies and religions consider part of divinities. Its examination and dissection would for many be a desecration. However, God is not part of this world; it is instead His creation, which can be studied.
• Matter is regarded as good according to the Bible, contrary to the views of the ancient world, which often considered it evil.
• Additionally, the concept of creation ex nihilo as opposed to eternal matter, and the linear concept of time as opposed to the cyclic concept prevalent in many significant ancient cultures, led to ignoring the need for searching causal connections (so critical to science).

Yes, other cultures had a certain degree of knowledge (e.g., Greek algebra, Chinese astronomy), but it was not science in the true sense. One of the historians of science, Stanley Jaki, expressed it in this way: 

"The technical innovations of Greco-Roman times, Islam, and imperial China, let alone innovations of prehistoric times, do not constitute science and can rather be described as traditional doctrines, skills, knowledge, techniques, crafts, technology, technique, or merely knowledge." [44]

Let us now allow several significant figures of emerging modern science to speak on this topic from their perspective:

"In non-scientific circles, there is the mistaken belief that a scholar, knowing more about being, must be an unbeliever. On the contrary, our work brings us closer to God. It enhances our respect for His wonderful power, before which our poor tools – though they appear titanically perfect – fail miserably." – Ernest Rutherford, founder of modern nuclear physics; Nobel Prize laureate for chemistry [42].

"Any man who believes in God must realize that no scientific fact, as long as it is true, can contradict God. Otherwise, it would not be true. Therefore, any man who is afraid of science does not possess a strong faith." – Lecomte du Noüy, [corrected spelling] Nobel Prize laureate for chemistry [45].

"I have worked a lot with John Brooke, a historian who specializes in science. He told me that the hardest thing is to convince the public that there is actually no conflict between science and religion. The problem is that Dawkins, Hawking, and others fuel the myth that there is a battle between science and faith. There is always a need to address this supposed battle. I must explain – it is absurd; I can name plenty of Oxford professors of natural sciences who are believers. And I can name even more who are atheists. It is evident that both believers and non-believers practice science." – John Lennox, professor of mathematics and philosophy of science at Oxford [2].

We could continue with many more statements from significant figures in science, such as Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Johannes Kepler, Gregor Mendel, or even Albert Einstein, who, although not a Christian, acknowledged the existence of God.

So What Happened to Science?

Later, after its emergence, it was exploited and, with the help of evolutionary theory, used as a tool to deny God's existence. Not due to greater understanding, as many mistakenly believe, but due to the utterly nonsensical overestimation of science's capabilities. An often-used argument by critics is the claim that the aforementioned scientists were unaware of modern scientific knowledge. If they had known, they probably would not have believed in God. I consider this argument utterly nonsensical and alibistic. Surprisingly, even today, there are increasingly more prominent scientists who believe in God just as their predecessors did.

They frequently raise serious assertions that more and more scientific findings point to the insufficiency of the atheistic worldview and the necessity of acknowledging God's existence.

Lastly, Let Us Hear from Scientists Who Cannot Be Considered Outdated:

"When I think about the beauty of the laws of physics and that only a small number of the most basic ones enable the workings of immensely complex systems, like living organisms, it does not seem possible to me that all this came to be merely by chance without some plan. In nature, we see such ingenuity and perfection at every step, that the existence of a Creator who planned it all seems to me the most natural explanation of what I observe." – physicist Prof. Tomáš Tyc [46]

A formerly skeptical professor of theoretical physics, Paul Davies, director of the SETI Research Center, is now convinced an intelligent Designer stands behind the existence of the universe. He says: "Through my scientific work, I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it as a brute fact... I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama." [4]

Elsewhere he adds: "It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion." [4]

Professor Antony Flew, once possibly the most influential philosophical atheist of the twentieth century alongside Bertrand Russell, who devoted almost his entire life to propagating and defending atheism, said the following about changing his stance: "I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe's intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science." [47]

Allan Sandage, one of the most respected scientists of our time, stated: "The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? How is each part specified at conception?" [4]

Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe, astrophysicist and mathematician: 

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." [48]

Beside these examples, which are merely the tip of the iceberg, I personally have known many highly educated Christians, from engineers and doctors to a professor of nuclear physics.

Summation

The very widespread belief in foolish and unscientific Christians must be rejected based on indisputable facts. It is a persistent slander and untruth rooted in ignorance (or arrogant and conscious ignoring) of the evidence of the ever-growing community of believing scientists and their arguments for God's existence.