I have a better question. Why do so many life science Ph.D.s have such a materialist/reductionist chip on their shoulders? Is it remnantial “physics envy” (dating back to the 19th century, when physics was the model of successful science, and was more reductionist/materialist than it is today)? Do they think that the more reductionist and materialist one is, the more scientific one is?
The scientists I most respect are people like Fred Hoyle, who, though himself not a believer in God, admitted that evidence and common sense would incline a rational person to think that someone had monkeyed with the laws and constants of the universe. That conclusion went against what he wanted to believe as an atheist/agnostic, but he was intellectually honest enough to state it. I haven’t seen very many atheist biologists or biochemists making similar admissions, during past 12 years or so reading their statements on the internet. They seem to stick monolithically to the reductionist/materialist party line. Where Hoyle saw surprise and reason to be perplexed, our atheist life scientists seem to think everything is under control and there is no need to reflect on anything, or suppose that maybe their fundamental assumptions might need revisiting. Must be nice to be in possession of such sure and certain knowledge that removes all doubt, and all habits of intellectual self-criticism.