Argument from admired religious scientists
The argument from admired religious scientists exists in several forms:
- "Isaac Newton, Galileo, Louis Pasteur, and other great scientists were religious, therefore it is possible to be both a believer and a scientist."
- "Isaac Newton, Galileo, Louis Pasteur, and other great scientists were religious, therefore there is no conflict between religion and science."
- "Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, and other esteemed scientists believe in God. Are you saying you're smarter than they are?" (By implication, you should believe in God as well.)
- "Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, and others were creationists. Therefore creationism is scientific."
Religion and science
Only the first form of the argument is valid. The existence of scientists who believe in God does prove that it is possible to believe in God and still be a good practicing scientist.
The difference between the first and second forms of the argument is subtle but important: a scientist may, for instance, believe that God intervenes in the world by performing miracles. However, she is expected to set aside her belief in miracles while working as a scientist: there is no objective evidence for the existence of miracles. They are therefore, at best, a highly-speculative hypothesis.
The third form is an combination of the argument from authority and of the argument by intimidation. "X is true because Y says so" is a fallacy. The truth of a statement about the world does not depend on who believes it, but why they believe it. And smart people can still believe things that aren't true. Newton, for instance, was a believer in astrology and numerology.
The fact that a person is an expert in one field does not grant expertise in unrelated fields. The fact that a man is a brilliant auto mechanic does not mean that he is also an expert at baseball or cooking. Likewise, Newton's or Einstein's knowledge of physics do not give them special insight in theology.
Dead scientists and evolution
Creationists are fond of circulating lists of scientists who believe in divine creation. However, invariably most of the scientists on the list died before Charles Darwin presented his ideas. It is unfair to imply that these notable scientists would reject the theory of evolution, when they never had a chance to become acquainted with it.
Organizations like the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and the Discovery Institute also make this argument by touting the academic degrees of members of their staff. However, these scientists rarely do creationist research in their field of expertise.