Believing Scientists Respond: Why Are You a Christian?

Jeff Hardin, chair of the department of zoology, University of Wisconsin (BioLogos Board Chair)

I’m a Christian because the Christian story of the world – and of myself – makes sense of reality. The Gospel – an old English word for “Good News” – is a Big Story that involves each one of us, but it’s also one of cosmic proportions. When I began to grasp the personal and cosmic dimensions of this Big Story, I began to catch a tiny glimmer of how it makes sense of everything else. First, it made sense of my own life. When I was first presented with the Good News about Jesus of Nazareth, I saw that the Gospel story ran right through my own life. It explained why I, if I was really honest, could be capable of acts of love, goodness, and kindness, but why I could be simultaneously petty, mean, and disingenuous. It was why, when this truth about myself came crashing down on me as a middle schooler, I gratefully accepted, by God’s grace through Christ, something I could not do for myself. Second, the Big Story of the Scriptures is consilient with all that we know. It makes sense of the moral nature of reality that we all perceive, the “unreasonable reasonableness” (to borrow from physicist Eugene Wigner) of the universe, and of our own ability to perceive the moral and rational fabric of reality.

Robin Pals Rylaarsdam, acting dean of the College of Science and professor of biological sciences, Benedictine University

I’m a Christian because of the gracious offering of love that God extends to me. As the old hymn says “my heart would still refuse you, had you not chosen me.” That gift, along with the countless gifts of believing parents and a community of believers around me throughout my life, is something I accept with thankfulness. In my daily life, especially during times when I was working full-time in a research lab with all the inevitable failure that goes along with that work, it was a comfort to be regularly reminded that life is more than my work, and that God is bigger and older and “more than” everything.

Keith Miller, research assistant professor of geology (retired), Kansas State University

Both my parents were committed Christians whose lives demonstrated what it means to live out their faith. There was no sacred/secular dichotomy demonstrated in their lives. Everything that they did—from their professional work, to their work with youth in scouting and in church fellowships, to hosting international missionaries, or sponsoring refugee families, to making themselves and their home available in the service of others—was a reflection of their faith.

But why am I a Christian? In addition to the example of my parents, I was involved in the Christian youth movement of the ’70’s where I experienced my first sense of real Christian community. This was followed by active involvement in college and graduate school in the ministry of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, and then in the Graduate and Faculty Ministry of IVCF. When pursuing my doctorate, I was part of a diverse and dynamic Bible study group of PhD students that challenged and stretched me. This continued with my involvement and writing for the American Scientific Affiliation, an association of Christians in the sciences. That challenge continues to this day as I seek to be faithful to the calling of Christ to serve others.

The above may not sound like a basis for my personal Christian faith—no discussion of a conversion experience or a deep theological revelation. But through all these steps in my life. my understanding of God and what it means to follow Christ has been continually challenged and stretched through the community of other believers. The claims of scripture have grown stronger, not weaker in the process. Nothing else makes sense of all that I know of the world and humanity, including all its pain and suffering.

I am a Christian by the grace of God, beginning with the grace I received when I was baptized as an infant. And since then I have “received grace upon grace,” to use a phrase from St. John. The seeds of faith were planted in me as a small child by my parents and the good Sisters who taught me in parochial school, and (thanks be to God) I have never lost that faith. I had many questions and some intellectual difficulties when I was young, though I never doubted the existence of God (which always seemed luminously self-evident to me), the divinity of Christ, or the divine origin and authority of the Church.

As I wrestled with difficult theological, philosophical, and historical questions raised in my mind by the teachings of the Church, God gave me the patience and (over time) the insights that allowed me to work through them. Some of these insights I derived from the works of authors I was fortunate enough to encounter when I was young, such as Chesterton and Lonergan. My persistent study and reflection gave me a growing conviction of the coherence and solidity of the Church’s teachings. All this I attribute to God’s grace.

I am convinced that the purposelessness of a purely natural/materialistic outlook is missing something significant. There is a purpose to our existence that goes beyond chemistry, physics and biology. Of course, Christianity is not the only possible solution to this problem. I am a Christian because the overarching story of purpose and redemption and the ethical vision for love, service, justice is compelling.

Ian Hutchinson, professor of nuclear science and engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology I became a Christian, as an undergraduate at Cambridge University, because of the person of Jesus. He was, to me, an exceedingly attractive figure for what he taught and what his life and death was said to represent. But it was only then that I heard clearly and came to accept that the evidence for his Resurrection is strong, and gives good reason to believe it is true. I also heard clearly the call to repentance and discipleship, and I accepted it. My subsequent decades of experience in the Christian faith have confirmed to me the reality of God's presence, and my intellectual exploration has strengthened my conviction that the Gospel is supported by compelling evidence and logical arguments.

Kristine Johnson, aerospace engineer, Honeywell Initially I became a Christian when my parents introduced me to Jesus as a child. As I matured, I wondered about the truthfulness of Christianity and the Bible. I investigated the reliability of scripture and the truthfulness of its claims. Many people from other religions have claimed to have peace with God, mountaintop experiences, and other emotional and spiritual reasons for their belief. I have found that Christianity is more than spiritual experiences and that the Christian faith is based on factual claims that are well supported by the evidence. Today I am a Christian because Christianity is true and because Jesus died and rose from the dead to pay the penalty for my sin.

S. Joshua Swamidass, assistant professor of laboratory and genomic medicine, Washington University in St Louis (member of BioLogos Voices)

I follow Jesus because he bodily rose from the dead, demonstrating to the whole world that God exists, is good, and wants to be known. I find that Jesus is beautiful and compelling. I have searched all over and find nothing greater than him. Nothing threatens him, not even science. Nothing here diminishes him. There is evidence, but coming to Jesus, for me, was more like falling in love than solving a math problem.

Sarah Bodbyl Roels, research associate/senior scientist specializing in evolutionary biology and education, Michigan State University (member of BioLogos Voices) Drawing from the title of a mid-20th century U.S. radio series, Christianity is “The Greatest Story Ever Told.” The Biblical story is infinitely relatable, full of promise and pain, ultimate suffering and salvation, but overall, the pages are bound together with intense love. The gospel message is radical and countercultural, and gives both meaning and purpose to life. There is a reality to Christianity that I struggle to grasp as a scientist, since the field doesn’t inform this area of reality, but that I nevertheless know to be true.

Fr. Nicanor Austriaco, associate professor of biology and instructor in theology, Providence College

I am a Christian because I was baptized when I was an infant. The grace of that sacrament moved me to encounter my Savior while I was a graduate student at MIT. Since then, the Lord has become an intimate friend who has called me to his holy priesthood to serve him and his Holy Church. I am a Christian because the Christian life is an adventure, a romance, and a mystery, all at the same time. Christ makes it all worthwhile.

No it isn’t

Yes, a system that is complex and works together for certain purposes is intelligent design.

YOU gloss over the fact that TRUE science (not the phony Lying Leftist false “science” of today) knows from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that living things don’t randomly come together in a complex working design.

ID is absolutely scientific.

“OK, let us say you are a scientist. Show us how you would use ID in an experiment. Or in a conclusion. What tool will you build in the real world? How will you apply ID? How will your ID finding be reproducible?”

You make good points.

Substitute evolution for ID and the same questions apply.

>>Show us how you would use TToE in an experiment.<<
I have isolated a virus. TToE suggests it will become resistant to antivirus treatments over time. I will conduct experiments to determine if it eventually becomes resistant

>>What tool will you build in the real world? How will you apply TToE? <<

I will attempt to develop an antivirus that adapts in a similar manner as the virus it is attacking. I will then apply my tests against this recursively.

>>How will your finding be reproducible?<<

I will publish my findings including the makeup of my antivirus and have then follow my steps and methodology. I invite them to create their own resistance scenarios.

And that was off the top of my head.

Waiting for the same for ID.

>>Yes, a system that is complex and works together for certain purposes is intelligent design.<<

You are begging the question. Repeating yourself doesn’t change your failed argument.

>>knows from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that living things don’t randomly come together in a complex working design.<<

It says no such thing. It deals with how energy and work relate. Trying to scotch tape it to the side of TToE is a non sequiter.

Now: how about answering the questions I posed to you and stop building straw men.

The nature of randomness and chance means there is no science, there cannot be reproducible results.

Any experiment you do is a one off....................

That there is a design means you can discover the design and know that it is always true.

But admitting a design means that there is a creator and we won’t go where that evidence leads..........

“I will attempt to develop an antivirus that adapts in a similar manner as the virus it is attacking. I will then apply my tests against this recursively.”

That doesn’t depend on evolution any more than ID.

“I will publish my findings including the makeup of my antivirus and have then follow my steps and methodology.”

Again, fail.

Not evolution. Or, either is as much evolution or ID.

I’m a biochemist/molecular biologist. One could substitute ID for evolution and there would be the same utility.

Neither one is much of a science.

Look at a molecular phylogram for example. One could call it the evolutionary relationship or the design relationship, it’d be the same thing.

We call it an evolutionary relationship but it is in fact a physical relationship we infer is evolutionary. The physical relationship is what is important for drug design, for example, it doesn’t matter whether the structure evolved or was designed or some other paradigm.

>>That doesn’t depend on evolution any more than ID.<<

Of course it does. Immunology is based on adapting to the environment, which is the entire foundation of TToE.

Don’t let your ignorance of TToE omehow make your argument.

>>I’m a biochemist/molecular biologist. <<

That is the most amazing thing I have ever read on the internet. I don’t know how that is possible.

>>We call it an evolutionary relationship but it is in fact a physical relationship we infer is evolutionary. The physical relationship is what is important for drug design, for example, it doesn’t matter whether the structure evolved or was designed or some other paradigm.<<

You are saying ID has nothing to do with science. I agree. That is not the thesis that began this discussion.

My argument hasn’t failed, there’s no strawmen here, and how about YOU answering the challenge I initially issued you about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which you summarily and erroneously dismiss.

The second law of thermodynamics states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state. https://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html

I did not mention earlier you made the common mistake of mixing up natural selection and evolution.

“Immunology is based on adapting to the environment, which is the entire foundation of TToE.”

That is incoherent, a weird non-sequitar.

Adaptive immunity is selection in response to encountered antigens.

You’re understanding of biology and logic is very weak and it would take a lot to explain to you how you are mixed up.

1) your example of designing a drug to adapt itself in response to a virus adapting to become resistant to the drug is incredibly vague.

Perhaps you could explain it more.

Essentially all you have said is, immunity is adaptive and evolution is adaptive and therefore I would use evolution to design a therapy to help the immune system respond to a virus that adapted to evade being immunologically neutralized.

The scientific method is just a limited tool.

It will never be able to give meaning to anything it observes or measures.

So ultimately, the scientific method is meaningless.

The scientific method is definitely useful, just ultimately meaningless.

People who place their faith in it are mere faith-based operators.

>>The scientific method is just a limited tool.<<

It will never be able to give meaning to anything it observes or measures.<<

Not what it is supposed to do.

>>So ultimately, the scientific method is meaningless.<<

Says the person posting on the Internet.

>>The scientific method is definitely useful, just ultimately meaningless.

People who place their faith in it are mere faith-based operators.<<

That wasn’t what I have been arguing. I specifically said that I a surprised scientists DON’T see God as they see His wonders exposed by science.

>>My argument hasn’t failed, there’s no strawmen here, and how about YOU answering the challenge I initially issued you about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which you summarily and erroneously dismiss.<<

You won’t answer my questions (no surprise) and don’t understand my answers.

We are done here.

>>Are you a scientist?<<

Yes, but not the lab coat type.

That has nothing to do with our discussion. I ask to be evaluated on what I post. Your questions suggests another agenda.

You will not draw me out to refight the CREVO wars.

We agree ID has nothing to do with science, which was my main point.

I let you draw me out by your irrelevant statement comparing ID and TToE. That is on me, as I should know better.

Have a blessed evening.

Glad we both agree that the scientific method is just limited tool and nothing more.

But, you too are just another person posting on the Internet, so you did nothing to help your cause there.

Nonetheless, your last statement is completely wonderful. Kudos!

>>But, you too are just another person posting on the Internet, so you did nothing to help your cause there.<<

It was a dry observance of how “meaningless” science gave us the internet. But I eventually saw your meaning of “meaning” was spiritual, so there we go :)

“Yes, but not the lab coat type.”

What does that mean?

“That has nothing to do with our discussion.”

True, but it has to do with how to try and explain things to you.

I still hold ID and evolution could be interchanged and not change anything.

If there were a bizarro world where ID was the accepted paradigm it wouldn’t change anything. Instead of talking about evolutionary relationships we’d be saying the design relationship.

I have no interest in crevo wars. But in all candor, you seem to.

YOU won’t address the FIRST issue in this discussion - the one I brought up to you - the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

You come across as chicken.

And the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which you don’t seem to understand, IS the answer to your hypos.

You’re way off the track here free-dumb. Come back when you’re able to answer substantive issues rather than deflecting with hypos.

Bye.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.