Many of the brightest minds in the world came from universities that were often founded by those of faith.

My nephew was Christian, but after taking philosophy at Otago university, he proudly says he's atheist.

He even gently chided me for believe in a creator. When I asked what brought about this change, he admitted some of his professors/teachers showed him the error of his ways.

Sadly, I've seen a number of stories where universities mock students of faith, which is kinda ironic, as I thought the definition of a university was a bringing together of people with different beliefs in a community, to work and study together.

Why is it that mention of God or belief in creator makes one a subject of mockery in a place of learning.

Many of the brightest minds in the world came from universities that were often founded by those of faith.

In fact many leading scientists believe there is evidence that points to God, to a creator of the universe. Scientists in biology and physics are finding reasons to believe there is an ultimate intelligence behind the universe, and even Dawkins admits the universe does look like it is designed, and then goes on to say it is just coincidence, while other famous scientists, like Crick and Collins, went from atheism to belief in a creator, because of the what they discovered about DNA.

So many scientists believe there is evidence for a creator, but it's staggering that many people believe there is no evidence, and readily mock those who believe in God. What's even more scary is the lie being pushed that you can't be a scientist and believe in God at the same time.

From a cosmological perspective, when Edwin Hubble discovered the universe is expanding, and eventually went on to prove the universe had a beginning, many scientists reacted negatively. Not for scientific reasons, but because they worried that proving the universe had a beginning gave credence to those of a religious orientation.

Even Einstein adjusted his equations because he chose to disagree with Mr Hubble's findings, and later went on to call his mistake 'the biggest blunder of my life.'

By the early 90's the COBE satellite experiments proved the universe really had a beginning in a flash of light and energy, although cosmologists who specialise in the study of the universe and its origins, soon realised that a chance cosmic explosion could never bring about life any more than a nuclear bomb would - unless it was precisely engineered to do so.

That meant a designer, and they began to use words like 'super-intellect,' 'creator' and even 'supreme being.'

Physicists calculated that for life to exist, gravity and many forces of nature needed to be just right, or we wouldn't be here.

To get some idea of how exact, Stephen Hawking writes, 'If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.'

If it was a fraction greater, the stars and planets could never have formed.

READ MORE:

* US Christian group warns of Judgment Day on October 7

* Christian group raises $30m to 'rebuild' full-scale Noah's Ark

Then there's all the other things that need to be just right. The size, temperature, chemical makeup of our planet - there are dozens of other conditions that needed to be exquisitely fine-tuned or we wouldn't be here to think about it.

Scientists who believe in God expected such fine-tuning, but atheists and agnostics were unable to explain these incredible coincidences.

Stephen Hawking, an agnostic, says 'The remarkable fact is that the value of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.'

But if you still think it's down to chance, one astronomer calculated the odds at less than 1 chance in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.

Although Hawking continues to explore purely scientific reasons for our origins, other scientists, including many agnostics have acknowledged what appears to be overwhelming evidence of a creator.

Fred Hoyle wrote 'A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.'

Even Einstein, who wasn't religious, and didn't believe in a personal God, called the genius behind the universe 'an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.'

When the world's brightest minds choose to be, at the least, agnostic, why do people in positions of influence over young minds not only turn people away from faith, but enforce the myth that science and religion are incompatible.

Maybe it's age, but I see right through my nephew's cockiness. It was the typical assuredness of a freshman who has come into a little bit of knowledge. He'll come around eventually, I'm sure.

Do you have an opinion to share with our readers? Click the green button, or email stuffnation@stuff.co.nz.