by F.J. Foster

Created on: February 06, 2010   Last Updated: October 12, 2010

 Such a question, as posed here, assumes an awful lot. In reality, not all scientists do. We may as well ask why taxi drivers hate the color red.

After all, doesn’t the light always turn red at the most inconvenient time? And red is the universal color that says “stop,” the bane of a profession where “go” is the only way of making a living. Yet, some taxi drivers might favor red, although not on a traffic light. 

Just as there is no universal rule for taxi drivers and the color red, so too for scientists and evidence for the existence of God. Life and human beings are too complicated for such whopping over-generalizations. The problem begins with the evidence itself.

Evidence is not discovered labeled  "for God” or "against God."   Indeed, it isn’t even labeled “evidence.” When it is found, it is declared by its discoverer to be evidence. It is then filtered through the scientist’s presuppositions, and it becomes evidence for or against God. In other words, it must be interpreted. 

All humans have presuppositions.  Those are the beliefs we hold as automatically true.  As such, they make up the basis of our worldview, the way we see reality.

Scientists, before all else, are human.  They come with biases and presuppositions, just as we all do.  Their presuppositions follow them into the laboratory, just as our own accompany us through the day.

Depending on individual presuppositions, the evidence scientists examine will indicate either one thing or another.  Although some say evidence speaks for itself, it doesn’t. The scientist speaks for it.  If fossils talk to you, the only scientist you need is a psychiatrist.  A really good one.

Because evidence must be interpreted, scientists face a sticky situation where God’s existence is concerned. Everybody has the same evidence.  But, one scientist sees a fossil and sees evolution, while another sees the same fossil and sees creation. The worldview of each scientist profoundly affects the interpretation.

Ultimately, it is unfair to expect scientists to rise above their humanity and produce unbiased interpretations. We all, scientists included, have biases, like it or not.  And it is simply foolish to expect their scientific professions to provide them infallibility.  Nor is it reasonable to fault them for their imperfections. They are, after all, just like the rest of us.

They are only human.

Learn more about this author, F.J. Foster.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.