Religious scientists

I admit I'm surprised whenever I encounter a religious scientist. How can a bench-hazed Ph.D, who might in an afternoon deftly puree a colleague's PowerPoint presentation on the nematode genome into so much fish chow, then go home, read in a two-thousand-year-old chronicle, riddled with internal contradictions, of a meta-Nobel discovery like "Resurrection from the Dead," and say, gee, that sounds convincing? Doesn't the good doctor wonder what the control group looked like?

Proponents of the idea that religion produces scientifically-meaningful claims about the nature of reality&mdash;meaning, in practical terms, creationists&mdash;will sometimes claim that the existence of religious scientists is evidence for the validity of their religious beliefs. They argue that because men like Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Galileo and Albert Einstein believed in God, belief in God has scientific underpinning. The argument is an informal fallacy.

Forms
The fallacy, in different forms, asserts different things:
 * That religion and science are compatible
 * That religion motivates science
 * That religion created science

Problems
The fallacy is part guilt by association (where science and religion, due to proximity, are seen as similar) and part argument from authority (because scientists are seen positively).

The argument also often fails on the grounds that the religious scientists in question don't actually follow the religion they're set up as supporting. Newton, a favorite because of his renown, for example, was an Arian and rejected views that many Christians find central (such as the trinity & divinity of Christ). Einstein, another oft-used scientist, was more of a pantheist or deist than a theist and certainly not a Christian, describing his God as nearly synonymous with the wonder of the universe and no more.

And perhaps most damning is the rarity of such scientists in modern times. While in Newton's day, effectively everyone was Christian (and being otherwise might mean social exile), modern scientists are more atheistic than modern citizens. Pew Research (2009) reports:

And more experienced scientists only get less religious. For example, according to Larson et al (1998), among the members of the National Academy of Sciences, an honorary organization that selects only the most accomplished scientists in the USA, 93% are atheist/agnostic while 7% believe in a personal god. The two authors replicated the methodology of two surveys conducted by US psychologist James H. Leuba, who found that among around 400 “greater” scientists in 1914, 70% of them were atheist/agnostic. He replicated the survey in 1933, and this figure had increased to 85%. Leuba attributed the higher level of disbelief and doubt among greater scientists to their “superior knowledge, understanding, and experience.” Similarly, Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins commented on Larson and Witham’s 1996 survey, “You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge.” Leuba’s greater scientists were those listed in the standard reference work, American Men of Science (AMS). The AMS had a designation titled “greater scientists,” and this is what Leuba used to find his greater scientists. Because they don’t have this distinction anymore, Larson and Witham used the NAS. They say: “Our method surely generated a more elite sample than Leuba's method, which (if the quoted comments by Leuba and Atkins are correct) may explain the extremely low level of belief among our respondents.”

And if the existence of religious scientists is evidence for religion, then the existence of atheist scientists is surely evidence for atheism.

Furthermore, it's important to consider just how 'truly Christian' these scientists are (by the standards of more devout Christians), as around 97% of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.

Economic argument
Some people use a similar variant of this argument to justify economic systems such as socialism. The logic goes: Einstein was a genius, therefore socialism is correct (or if you support capitalism, you're a dumbass). Note that this applies to capitalists cherry picking smart people from history who support capitalism.

If you're going to rely on scientists for economic information, you might as well rely for economists on information about evolution or quantum mechanics.

This is not to say socialism is necessarily bad; it's a shitty argument to use to justify an economic system.

Examples

 * A bunch of creationist scientists
 * Another list of religious (and creationist) scientists.
 * The persistent myth of the student debunking the "atheist professor".