While a subset of scientists, and certainly atheists, think any evidence of religion is grounds for dismissal from the ranks of science, most scientists disagree.
In actuality, religious belief among scientists hasn't changed much at all in the last 70 years. Ross Pomeroy writing at Real Clear Science, notes that the last time the Pew Research Center polled members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 51% percent reported a belief in a higher power and even more are likely tolerant enough to not hold religion against someone, any more than they would hold listening to Indigo Girls against a fellow scientist.
Pomeroy invokes Carl Sagan and his quote
An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.
and neuroscientist David Eagleman's idea of "possibilianism", where we don't know enough to go hardline atheism but we know too much to go crazy over a particular religion.
"Scientists, if you're not an atheist, you're not doing science right," he quotes Prof. P.Z. Myers, head religion- and Republican-hater at Scienceblogs.com. But PZ ia preaching to the faithful, he can't really believe that. If you ask most biologists who has contributed more to biology, Richard Dawkins or Francis Collins, no one is going with Dawkins regardless of his atheism. And the religious beliefs of Collins don't hurt his science at all.
Why Strict Atheism Is Unscientific By Ross Pomeroy, Real Clear Science
