If the universe clearly suggests a designer, why do so many physicists and biologists not believe in God?

Question

A tenet defended by many advocates of classical theism, intelligent design, and natural theology is that the universe provides crystal-clear evidence of design, leaving everyone without excuse, as Christians commonly assert by quoting passages such as Romans 1 or Psalm 19. However, statistics suggest that scientists, especially physicists and biologists, may not necessarily see things that way.

The following quote comes from Leading scientists still reject God - Nature:

Our chosen group of “greater” scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.

This other quote comes from Scientists and Belief - Pew Research Center:

The Pew Research Center poll of scientists also found that levels of religious faith vary according to scientific specialty and age. For instance, chemists are more likely to believe in God (41%) than those who work in the other major scientific fields. Meanwhile, younger scientists (ages 18-34) are more likely to believe in God or a higher power than those who are older.

Lastly, the following quote comes from Eminent scientists reject the supernatural: a survey of the Fellows of the Royal Society:

Fellows of the Royal Society of London were invited to participate in a survey of attitudes toward religion. They were asked about their beliefs in a personal God, the existence of a supernatural entity, consciousness surviving death, and whether religion and science occupy non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). Overwhelmingly the majority of Fellows affirmed strong opposition to the belief in a personal god, to the existence of a supernatural entity and to survival of death. On 'NOMA’, the majority of Fellows indicated neither a strong disagreement nor strong agreement. We also found that while (surprisingly) childhood religious upbringing and age were not significantly related to current attitudes toward religion, scientific discipline played a small but significant influence: biological scientists are even less likely to be religious than physical scientists and were more likely to perceive conflict between science and religion.

If the universe provides crystal-clear evidence of design, how is it that physicists, who study the fundamental laws underlying everything, and biologists, who deal constantly with the complexity of biology, largely fail to believe in a designer God? How is it that something supposedly so obvious turns out not to be obvious for the vast majority of scientists?

I'm interested in published Christian explanations of why so many scientists are not theists.

---

NOTE: people who want to debate about design vs. non-design hypotheses should take it to chat, either here, here, or here.

Answer 1

Paul actually mentions "scientific" opposition against the Bible at the end one of his letters to Timothy:

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Paul says that it's not truly science, which is a good point; because an unbiased view of the facts clearly does point to a Creator. But the key word is: Unbiased. I.e., as mentioned in the comments, ultimately, it boils down to this: Many people don't want to see evidence of the Creator (II Peter 3:5, "willingly are ignorant of"). Often, people--especially scientists--like to think of themselves as rationally weighing all the evidence and coming to a conclusion based on cold statistics and rigid logic. In many areas which do not challenge their lifestyle, they do just that, and a good job of it, such as when they build amazing rocket engines and computer chips. However, when it comes to acknowledging that they have a Creator, complete with an Owner's Manual that they aren't particularly fond of, well, that's quite a different matter! Someone has said that people often think that they reason to their conclusions; but in reality, very often, we choose our conclusions, and then we grasp for whatever reasons we can find which seem to best defend our choice.

But why would people, including scientists, not want to see evidence of a Creator? The Bible gives several reasons:

• Peer pressure. Proverbs 29:25 says, "The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the Lord shall be safe." Jesus specifically said, "How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?" The scientific community has a lot of peer pressure not to officially question certain important paradigms, such as universal common descent or naturalism. There's a documentary by Ben Stein called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed which outlines some examples of people who were ostracized for advocating or allowing for intelligent design (to say nothing of biblical creationism specifically). Scientists have to ask themselves, "Do I really want to risk my career for this?" I heard an interesting interview by Ron Neller, a fluvial geomorphologist who came to the conclusion, as a non-Christian, that there was a global flood. But there were certainly career pressures for him not to go down that path. He realized that he may not necessarily be respected in the professional world as he once was. He eventually became a Christian, and was willing to sacrifice his scientific career and prestige, if need be.
• Pride. Psalm 10:4 says, "The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts." It's a humbling thing to admit that we are responsible to a Creator, and that He has a right to tell us how we ought to live. It's a freeing thing, really, but it goes contrary to our prideful "captain of my own ship" kind of mentality.
• Sin. In John 3:19, Jesus said that "men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." In other words, if we are being dishonest, inconsistent, or destructive in our lives, that's a pretty strong motivation to stay away from the light, which will make the "wrongness" of those things clear. Jesus stresses earlier in that passage that He came to save the world; but we must "come to the light," which ultimately is Jesus Christ Himself, to be saved. (Luke 20:18). This is painful and humbling, but just as with surgery (or the Bible's example, circumcision), it's for our own good; and it is infinitely better to be broken to be healed (Luke 20:18), than to become eternally hardened in a crusty and sinful state, to be broken without remedy (Proverbs 6:15; Revelation 22:11).
• Blindness. In Matthew 6:22-23, Jesus said, "The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" One way we could apply Jesus' words here is this: It is extremely important that our faculty of perceiving truth (our metaphorical "eye") be singular, or whole and coherent, and not evil, or diseased and dishonest. For example, if we live in constant internal dishonesty with ourselves, it is not surprising if we cannot see things outside ourselves clearly (see Psalm 15:2). If we lie to ourselves in the little things, we will lie to ourselves in the big things. Jesus gives a very serious warning in this regard. We can actually ask God for clarity of vision, and for Him to point out to us any crooked or dishonest aspect of our lives (Psalm 139:23-24; Revelation 3:18).
• Ingratitude. In Romans 1:21, Paul says that people were not thankful to God, which is associated with their not glorifying Him as God. We may not think of gratitude as affecting our ability to see the truth, but actually, I think it applies quite strongly! It does seem to be my experience that people who are more grateful on the whole tend to see the big issues of life more clearly. I think that's certainly implied in Romans 1 as well, regarding seeing evidence for a Creator.
• Spiritual warfare. The Bible mentions that we are in a spiritual war (Ephesians 6:12), and that the devil deceives the nations (Revelation 20:3). It makes sense that in our day, given our scientific advancements, the devil would target science heavily with his lies in an attempt to deceive us. In countries which are more "mystic," he uses other tactics, like pagan rituals or witches. But in a "scientific" society, it makes sense that he would try to hijack science, and focus many of his lies there.
• Rejection of greater light. One reason why scientists in particular may believe in God less is that they have seen more, and thus, had to "make up their mind" more firmly, if you will. A biblical principle is that those who have received greater light, and reject it, are more accoutable than those who had less light (e.g., Luke 10:13; 12:48).

Of course, the good news from the Bible is that Jesus came and died and rose again to save us from sin and death--even from our own self-deception, if we allow Him to. And when we are able to look at nature with unclouded eyes, and to see it clearly, wow, what an amazing thing! We can see the wonder of nature in so many ways and realize that indeed, the heavens do declare the glory of God.

Answer 2

If the universe provides crystal-clear evidence of design [...]

Let's start with that "if".

Paul is quite clear that there is no "if". "What can be known about God is plain to [the unrighteous], because God has shown it to them. ²⁰For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Romans 1:19-20)

"The heavens declare the glory of God." (Psalm 19:1) All around us is clear evidence that Creation has a Creator. "Common Descent", which at heart is a rejection of the Creator, is contradicted by mathematical models, by historical evidence, and by ongoing observation. Abiogenesis is in a similar boat. When it comes to cosmology, one atheist (the astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson) stated that "if none of us knew in advance that stars exist, front line research would offer plenty of convincing reasons why stars could never form". Nor has such formation ever been observed, nor is the belief in non-miraculous star formation consistent with observations.

Geology and local astronomy are also chock full of evidences that Earth and its local neighborhood are not millions of years old, much less billions.

In short, all of nature, but especially biology, point to a Designer.

how is it that physicists, who study the fundamental laws underlying everything, and biologists, who deal constantly with the complexity of biology, largely fail to believe in a designer God? How is it that something supposedly so obvious turns out not to be obvious for the vast majority of scientists?

In fact, many studies have suggested that disbelief is not nearly so widespread as the cited studies would suggest. There's also a strong political incentive toward atheism, or at least to keeping one's beliefs private. (See for example The Altenberg 16.) Even so, there are surely enough unbelievers as to require an explanation.

...And once again, Paul has answers: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." (Romans 1:18) "They became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²²Claiming to be wise, they became fools". (Romans 1:21-22) Why? Because "people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil". (John 3:19) Scripture warns what that, for these people, "God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false". (2 Thessalonians 2:11)

It's human nature to flee from accountability, but it's self-evident that we, as Creations, would be accountable to our Creator. Moreover, knowledge of our shortcomings is "written on our hearts". We know, deep down, that we're broken, but many people are in denial. That denial can only be reinforced by denying God as well, and so that's exactly what many people do, and what God helps them do so that, when they are called to account, they will be "without excuse".

If you look into it, you'll find that this reasoning is clear. Modern "science" "accept[s] scientific claims that are against common sense [...] in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories". Why? "Because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism [...] not [because] the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, [because] we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated [...] for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (Lewonski) Indeed, the goal of modern "science" is to "free the science from Moses" (Lyell). These claims are not about finding the truth, but about rejecting God and rejecting the history of Scripture.

Scripture clearly tells us why men do this, what we ought to think of them, and even specifically predicts such denials. "They deliberately overlook this fact, that [...] the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, ⁶and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished." (2 Peter 3:5-6)

Answer 3

Positing that the complexity in nature points to "a designer God" is a metaphysical cosmology¹ assertion, not a natural science assertion. Scientist's work methodology is in the details (looks down to data in nature), not in metaphysical cosmology¹ (looks up to God). So the work in itself doesn't promote religious reflection.

^{1 Cosmology here refers to either Religious / Metaphysical cosmology or the non-scientific propositions part of Physical cosmology. In this more inclusive sense (than strictly scientific cosmology) it makes use of creation myths, eschatology, etc. It also proposes the imprint of God's mind in the design of the universe, the role of God to sustain and govern its direction, miracles as singularity events with God as the ultimate cause/origin (not as suspensions of the laws of nature as Hume defined them), etc. Thus, this sense is categorically different than the cosmology that is part of Physics / Astronomy or the cosmology that only uses observable and not-yet-observable physical dimensions.}

Now the question becomes: why do those scientists in their "off duty" moments, on a Sunday, for instance, not moved in their heart while reflecting on their scientific works to wonder "Who makes all these beautifully complex things?" and then launch them in the path to become a believer, which should NOT compromise their work at all? After all we have Einstein, Newton, etc. who would occupy the light green bar ("% Who believe in God").

Without digging into the specifics of the study, the (important) question that comes to mind is this: what's the comparison with the general population of similar level of education and socio-economic background?

• If that turns out to be about the same, then it's not because they are scientists but because of some other factors, such as the predominant "spirit of the age" or the materialistic culture we are immersed in, that provide the bias on why those scientists are predisposed to reject God just as their non-scientist peers.

• If there is a statistically meaningful difference, then yes, we can plausibly theorize that being a scientist in today's high technology age is hazardous to one's faith.

Answer 4

The idea that there are "so few" of them might better be put as "Are there really so few of them?", but given the list below - which is merely those in Britain! - one has to wonder what the significance of the tabled statistics are.

• Prof. Frank Russell Stannard - BSc in Special Physics, PhD in Cosmic Ray Physics, University College London, President of Science & Religion Forum - Physicist

• Michael Poole – BSc in Physics & MPhil in science and religion Kings’ College London, Lecturer in Science Education King’s College London, Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts - Physicist

• Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne - PhD in quantum field theory, DSc for research on theoretical elementary particle physics, Fellow of the Royal Society & KBE - Physicist

• Rev. Prof. Alister McGrath – BA in Chemistry, DPhil in Biophysics, BA & BD & DD in Theology OBE, Oxford, Prof. of Science & Religion Oxford Uni, Fellow of Manchester College, Oxford (see 4th book below) Biophysicist

• Dr. John C Lennox – MA & PhD in Maths, Cambridge, MA in Bioethics University of Surrey, Reader in pure mathematics at Cardiff University, Fellow in mathematics and philosophy of Science at Green College, Oxford, expert in group theory – Mathematician. Wrote ‘Can Science Explain Everything?’ in 2019, good for beginners.

• Dr. Francis S Collins – BS in Chemistry University of Virginia, PhD in Physical Chemistry Yale, Medical Doctor University of North Carolina, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute in America 1993 - Gene pioneer

• Prof. Norman C Nevin – BSc in Anatomy & MB, BCh, BAO in Medicine & MD in Pathology Queen’s University Belfast, Prof. Emeritus of Medical Genetics at QUB, Prof. of medical genetics therefor 25 years, 1993-2006 member and chair of the UK Gene Therapy Advisory Committee, OBE - Medical geneticist

• Prof. John Bryant – BA Natural Sciences & PhD in biochemistry Cambridge, Prof. Emeritus of cell and molecular biology at Exeter University - Molecular biologist

• Dr. Denis Alexander – BA in Biochemistry Oxford, PhD in Neurochemistry Inst. of Psychiatry London, Assoc. Prof. of biochemistry at the American University in Beirut, supervisor research groups at the Babraham Inst., Cambridge, 2006 Director of the Faraday Inst. for science and religion, St Edmund’s College, Cambridge - Immunologist

• Dr. Christopher Southgate – BSc in Natural Sciences & PhD in Biochemistry Cambridge - Biochemist

• Prof. Sir John Houghton - MA in Physics & DPhil in Atmospheric Physics Oxford, Prof. of Atmospheric Physics at Oxford, work in NASA space programme, 1983 Director General of the Meterological Office - CBE - Physicist

• Prof. Sir Ghillean Prance – BA in Botany & DPhil in Forest Botany Oxford, Fellow of the Royal Society, Knight of the Realm, World traveller to discover and save plants (all named ‘prancei’ are named after him) - Botanist

• Prof. Bob White – BA in Natural Sciences Cambridge, PhD in Geophysics Cambridge, Prof. of Geophysics at Cambridge University - Geophysicist

• Prof. Colin Humphreys – BSc in Physics, Imperial College London, PhD in Physics, Cambridge, MA in Metallurgy Oxford - CBE - Materials scientist

• Rev. Dr. Rodney Holder – MA in Maths Cambridge, DPhil Astrophysics Oxford, BA in Theology Oxford -Astrophysicist

The above all contributed a chapter each to the book below, they all believe God created the heavens and the earth. Oh, and they are just a tiny few of the ones in Britain. We'd be here till the middle of next month if I tried to list theistic scientists from all over the world!

Another British theoretical physicist to add to that list, Prof. Edgar Andrews, expert in large molecules, BSc, PhD, DSc, FinstP, FIMMM, CEng, CPhys. He wrote the second book detailed below.

Also, Prof. Tom McLeish, Prof. of Physics at Durham University, applications of physics to biology, wrote the third book below. He is also Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research at Durham University, Fellow of the Institute of Physics, Royal Society of Chemistry, the American Physical Soc. and the Royal Soc.

---

Sources:

• God, The Big Bang & Bunsen Burning Issues Ed. by Nigel Bovey (Authentic Media 2008)
• Who Made God? Searching for a theory of everything by Edgar Andrews (EP Books 2009)
• Faith & Wisdom in Science by Tom McLeish (Oxford University Press 2014)
• Inventing the Universe by Alister McGrath (H&S 2015)

These books will greatly help answer the question, "as published Christian explanations of why so many scientists are not theists". Not all of them have that as their main theme, but they tackle objections of non-theistic scientists, acknowledging what those impediments to understanding the reality of God are - in a scientific way.