Obviously you don’t. Or, choose not to.
”. . . there are no doubt more scientists who believe in God than don't.”
There is very much doubt about that assertion. You are not the first I’ve queried on this subject. So far, when pressed, they have been unable to support their contention. The honest ones have admitted as much, and we’ve then been able to go on and have positive discussions. The dishonest ones have discovered pressing business elsewhere and took it on the lam, later reappearing on other threads (presumably having taken care of their pressing business). Should you choose to participate, perhaps you will have better fortune in your search for supporting evidence.
”What exactly is your problem with this?”
There are several.
You have started that you “pound sand” for a living and that you are not a scientist. Consequently, although you read a lot of science, you do not hold yourself as a science expert. Fair enough. I can relate. I’m a retired nozzle jockey and do not claim any expertise in science at all, but I do pay attention and think about what my limited background permits me understand. You go on to report that, for guidance in your thinking about science, you rely on the knowledge of experts. Apparently not, however, the knowledge of a whole host of highly respected, award-winning scientists whose scientific opinions do not precisely coincide with your own. So your deference to scientific authority is apparently highly selective.
Now it appears that a sizable number of Christians on this site have opted to accept the judgment of preeminent scientists who believe that their expertise in science gives them carte blanche to make value judgments and philosophical verdicts on religion, cultural trends, and various other non-scientific matters. For this judgment you chose to slander them with invective. I presume then, that you reserve the same harsh judgment (liars!) for those scientists too, no matter how peer-acclaimed they may be?
We have a large number of Christians who frequent this website. They conduct devotional threads where argument is not permitted because controversy is not the point of the thread. They conduct other threads where differing religious viewpoints are exchanged and discussed (and then there are the ‘open’ threads where debate tactics are even less reserved). In these threads, almost all the Christian participants (almost, not all) are able to exchange their religious views (many of them very deeply held convictions) without resorting to calling each other liars. Almost all the science advocates (almost, not all) who haunt these threads not only resort to calling their opponents liars, they use the appellation as a common debating tactic. You should understand that when you come on this site hurling “liar!’ right and left like a drunken cowboy shooting up the town on a Saturday night, you immediately mark yourself as a rhetorical gunslinger. You’re as easy to spot as one of the seminar callers on Rush’s talkshow.
Another gem of a comment, but your metaphor is turned around backwards. Here, let's see if I can straighten it out for you... Read the posts on this thread, what do you see?
What I see is a lawless town with a whole bunch of drunken cowboys carousing in saloons and shooting out windows!
Those few brave citizens willing to defend "the law" (of science) have already been shot down, with just a couple of wounded law defenders left standing.
And now, just like the movies, what are the good Christian citizens of our "town" doing? That's right, they are quaking in their boots, hiding behind locked doors, afraid to say anything which might upset the terrorists shooting up their town.
Remember this YHAOS, the vast majority of Christians belong to churches which teach something called "theistic evolutionism," and which I've been trying to defend here. Our outlaws don't hesitate even a second to call this and everything else about science a Big Lie, but you don't want me to ruffle THEIR feathers, do you?
As to just who is the "rhetorical gunslinger," I'd say you pack a good piece yourself, but you are not defending the side of law and order, are you?
Here you've wrapped your argument up so tight, I'm having a hard time unpackaging and figuring out just what you're trying to say.
I think you're asking, do I condemn lunatics whether they go under the banner of science, or politics or religion or anything else, and of course the answer is "yes." I'm only here to defend the science of evolution -- not to defend ANY nonsense from any scientists speaking their personal opinions. They have the same rights as anyone else to those opinions, and we have every right to ignore them. So let's do it!
Was that your point?