Quote:

Well I thought Creationism claims "scientific" reasons for rejecting evolution, and not only Christian faith?


Were you under the impression that evolutionists only became that way after they got their degree? The fact of the matter is that both Christians and non-Christians alike start with a bias, and then they accumulate evidence for their bias throughout their scientific careers. As evidenced by the many people on this forum who dont have relevant degrees, ..yet are so willing to have an opinion But you are right, we should always stick to the facts, numbers of people which believe one way or the other really dont change facts any.

As you know, Christians are the same as non-Christians in this respect, there are the majority which just accept what their leaders tell them, and there are the minority that want to investigate. Both Christians and non-Christians alike can show a tendency to study things, and they both can show a tendency to ignore facts.

Christianity itself would logically appeal to a "dumber" geographic because the central principles of hope for the suffering, the poor, and the mistreated. Unfortunately those who suffer the most among us are generally not as educated. However, this doesnt make them "dumb", if Newton or einstein were born in rural africa their intelligence might have been supressed by the more urgent need to survive

For example, in my many discussions with non-Christians I happen to know that most of them simply accepted whatever their high school biology said without question and without knowing even a fraction of the theory.


Quote:

Anyway there are many Christian scientists, who have no problems to be a Christian and an evolutionist scientist at the same time.


Right, and I dont think there is anything "damning" about belief in the theory of evolution I just know that the type of Christian which believes in a literal translation of the Bible is generally a creationist. I dont really know how someone could read the Bible otherwise, however, I try to keep open minded about evolution, like perhaps God guided evolution, or perhaps he just "wound the universe up" like a giant watch. I wouldnt rule out the possibility at all.


Quote:

As you said yourself Newton ,same as many other scientists beleived in God
The reason is that, at the time, the hypothesis of God was reasonable

I never agreed to whether Newton would have believed in the modern world or not, I only asserted that it would be pointless and worthless to speculate what he might have been, that would be all anectdotal evidence for which there would be no possible way for us to determine the validity. I would not bother with trying to figure out what Newton MIGHT HAVE BEEN, I only care about what he actually was. And he actually was a very passionate born again, fundamentalist creationist, who found his scientific ideas via the filter of harmonious order which he observed, (much like Keplers perspective) in addition to that, he was surrounded by people who disagreed with his ideas.

Quote:

Vice versa , there are more un-Christian than Christian scientists because there are more evolutionists scientists.

No. People do not become Christian or un_Christian because of science. If so then 99% of the people on this forum would be hopelessly non-catagorized because there are very few here who know the major points of evolutionary theory, and almost noone here can understand Einsteins theories, which certainly have relevance to universe' origins.

Therefore it is not by science that people choose whether God has created the heavens and earth. It IS by their own personal bias and/or their ability to accept blind interpretations of facts from "authorities" for no other reason than the fact that they are alleged authorities.

Most of the scientists and doctors I have talked to knew their position on God and creation well before they entered college.

So my original hypothesis is still valid. There are less Christian scientists simply because there are less literal Christians. It has nothing to do with facts or intelligence, it is simply a demographics game.

As a matter of fact the journey from hypothesis to theory is anything but orderly. What makes a hypothesis a theory? When 50% of the scientists agree? Or when all of the dissenters are gone? Its ridiculous that a theory is only true when it is accepted by the majority of scientist...

True science delegates every theory to a provisional, tentative, arguable status...nothing like the tautology and numbers game seen today.