Paging scientific method...scientific method to the front desk...

www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

I love how they trot out one "scientist" with an obviously limited understanding of scientific method, to try to claim that science and Christianity have anything in common (I guess this scientist has forgotten centuries of active oppression of science in Christian countries up to and including executions).

I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.

So you've run your "beliefs" through the scientific method and...oh wait...of course you haven't.

I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?"

So he went and adopted the most unlikely explanation, completely devoid of reasonable scholarship and empirical proof.

Science is a hell of a lot better prepared to explain those things because it approaches them from a systematic and empirical direction instead of just coming up with something off the top of your head and declaring the discussion ended.

My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

No more daring than Christianity (or any other religion) since faith is an assertion of a universal explanation of everything completely devoid of evidence and completely contrary to every one of the other belief systems in the world. In the absence of proof, the universal negative is the only position one can take from a scientific perspective. If you don't see a purple elephant, and nobody else can prove they've seen a purple elephant, than the true scientist must say that purple elephants do not exist subject to eventual further scientific discovery. This is not a true universal negative, since there is always room in science for further discovery, it is simply taking the obvious position in the face of no evidence to the contrary. Science could always prove or disprove God once and for all. Anything could happen. Until that time, the proper scientific position is to say it doesn't exist.

But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.

Reason can't prove the existence of God at all. Reason seeks absolute proof and faith is the opposite of absolute proof. It can be very interesting to listen to the voices in your head, but never forget that those voices are still in your head.

For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life,

There's remarkably strong historical evidence of my life (Did Jesus have a Social Security card or a driver's license? I do.) that doesn't make me the messiah.

who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor,

As did pretty much every religious prophet, preacher, guru, man on the street corner and even most non-theists.

and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing.

Not really. Plenty of people claim to be things they're not. We have places for them now, they're called insane asylums. The last guy we had who did that ended up burning down a building with his followers inside.

After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.

Translation: He got sick of being bombarded by obnoxious Christians in every arena of his life so he decided to drink the kool-aid and join the maddening throng.

The proper response to uncertainty is not to embrace the most unlikely explanation. It can be nice to completely abandon reason and just accept things on faith but it's not science.

Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?

Can a scientist believe in anything without subjecting it to the scientific method? I'm sure plenty a science masters student has wished he could defend his thesis by saying "Well, I can't prove my hypothesis, but I believe it with all my heart."

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers.

Considering well over 90% of Americans believe in some sort of supernatural being, I'd say that number's not very impressive. Most of the 40% were probably educated at Liberty University or other such evangelical "colleges".

Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

Better not say that too loudly around the kool christian kids or they might just throw you out of the party.