The only one I can think of was Father LeMaitre, first to conceive of the Big Bang Theory. Interestingly, he was always quick to point out that his theory supported his theology.

” Nor does he detail any of the significant ways in which a Christian worldview differs from a secular, scientific worldview. ”

Difficult to do, even for Vox. For example, Christians today are quick to cite the scientific accomplishments of Dr Francis Collins, head of the human genome project. But they always seem to ignore the fact that Dr Collins is an ardent evolutionist.

“The Christian worldview, you see, is based first and foremost on the assumption that we already know all the right answers to all the important questions. Theologians don’t make new discoveries, they merely reinterpret the “discoveries” (or rather, “revelations”) of the past. ”

Excellent point. No where is this more obvious than on the application forms for admittance into the Institute for Creation Research. In addition to having the usual boiler-plate scientific credentials, prospective members are required to sign a pledge affirming, among other things, that God created the universe and the Bible is the true, inerrant word of God. So much for not being blinded by pre-conceived notions!

“. . . “Vox doesn’t dare ask: Why is science becoming such a godless field? ”

One reason may be that Vox is aware that the number of reported miracles and supernatural events has steadily declined since the time of Jesus, indirectly proportional to the progress made by humans in achieving scientific awareness and progress.

In the real world, occasional setbacks aside, things get better over time; we stand on the shoulders of our parents, and raise up our children to stand on ours. We may be grateful to our ancestors, even revere them — but we know our world is better than theirs.

It took over a thousand years from Jesus to Galileo. The Christian worldview took a long time to come to the realisation that they should be doing science.

Galileo had argued that the Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go; Vox Day would likely think that that is theological liberalism, and he would likely agree with the Pope instead, that the Bible has to be right about how the heavens go, otherwise it is not completely right.

Furthermore, modern science got started as a result of being interested in the rediscovered works of a lot of ancient philosophers and proto-scientists, and those gentlemen had been at least nominal Greco-Roman pagans. So should we believe in the Greek gods?

Richard Carrier also points out the unscientific epistemology of Christian theology, in “Was Christianity Too Improbable to be False?” http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/improbable/ in section 13, “Would the Facts Be Checked?” and section 17, “Did the Earliest Christians Encourage Critical Inquiry?”.

It reminded me of a book I read many years ago, a biography of Johannes Kepler (The Watershed: A Biography of Johannes Kepler, by A. Koestler).

The impetus for Kepler to get involved in astronomy in the first place was his strong Christian faith. He really believed that studying the creation led to new truths about the creator. And he really believed that the creator was perfect, so the creation would reflect that perfection.

The problem that confronted him was the shape of planetary orbits. If the creation is perfect, then orbits have to be perfectly circular. Unfortunately, planetary motion, represented by observational data from Tycho Brahe, didn’t fit. He wrestled with the problem, even developing epicycles (smaller circular orbits that the planets would travel while on their way around the larger orbits). It got to the point where he was nesting epicycles; smaller and smaller circles each on their own orbital path. It was a mathematical nightmare, but the data still wouldn’t fit.

I remember one passage in the book describing Kepler’s struggle. At one point, he even realized that elliptical orbits would make everything fall into place! But, no, God is perfect, His creation reflects that perfection, circles are perfect, therefore planetary orbits are circular. So back he went to the epicycles.

At some point, he abandoned this perspective. Planetary orbits are elliptical. End of story.

So Kepler got into the game as a result of his religious faith, but eventually the same religious faith became an obstacle. His contributions to scientific advancement are a result of overcoming that obstacle.

Or, did Jesus do that, too? Man, that guy gets ALL the credit!