Because God is not applicable directly to science. It informs the opinions and philosophies of scientists such as myself who are Christian most certainly, but nobody wants to hear what a scientists “feels” about the data in his science publications.
How would a science that incorporated God sound like?
“God’s humble servants made the discovery that in HIS infinite wisdom, and as long as HE wills it to be so, Protein X activates transcription of Gene Y in response to hormone Z, glory be to our Lord Jesus Christ.”
What a waste of words. And their only actual impact would be to drive away any non Christians from your scientific finding.
There is a reason why science is universal, and religion is different all over the globe.
Because God is not applicable directly to science. It informs the opinions and philosophies of scientists such as myself who are Christian most certainly, but nobody wants to hear what a scientists “feels” about the data in his science publications.
How can the author not be applicable to that which He is responsible for being in the first place?... that’s wholly and utterly non-sensical!
It sounds very sovietesque to keep your opinions thqat formulate your science philosphies silenced, as if they’re somnehow taboo! Not to mention puts up a wall between communications and scientific exploration!
The chemist didn’t talk about his feelings other than that he didn’t see any progress to be made with evolution, he could just as easily used the word I don’t “predict”, instead of “I feel” and you know it and everyone knows it.
The rest of your strawman isn’t worth arguing anymore, you’re just never going to understand it is strawman with your obvious bias in the way.