First of all, I would like you to know that I am a christian.  Second, that english is not my first language, so please forgive any mistakes I make while writing.

I do realize the problem you're trying to communicate but I would not point to hypocrisy directly, I would blame ignorance.  Many christian families raise their children thinking that science is an enemy of faith.  Because of that, children grow up rejecting many scientific theories, most notably the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang.  And they do this without realizing that by denying science, they deny nearly everything that surrounds them.  Therefore, in the end, they contradict themselves not out of hypocrisy, but of ignorance. Often arguing against something they do not understand of even know what actually is.

In a personal note, I think that if the proposed evidence for a scientific theory does not convince you (after carefully studying it), you should reject the theory itself and not science as a whole. I do not hold an position about evolution because I realize that I do not have the required knowledge and depth in biology (I am a computer engineering student) to make a valid case for myself. Still, if natural selection were true I do not see any problem with it.  Regarding the Big Bang, I actually believe it and see it more as proof in favor of a God (not necessarily the Chrisitan God in this case) than the other way around. We christians believe in an all-knowing god, since science can be seen as a systematic approach to knowlege I believe that christians should have no problems with science at all.  Rather look at it like a tool to help and make a better world.

I hope that this is of some help and that you find the answers you seek.

God Bless You All

That's a pretty good post and my view too - interestingly from the atheist angle.

I don't think it's deliberately hypocritical, but I do think it shows lack of awareness and knowledge.

So many people, sadly, pump oil into their cars, sit on chairs, speak into phones, switch on lights, watch TV, use GPS and so on and so forth and have no real idea of how and most importantly what all these confirm about our understanding of the Universe itself.

I personally don’t think you can claim that it is "Ignorant" to take these positions on certain scientific beliefs while still enjoying the benefits of modern living.

Scientific research can be classified fairly well on a spectrum where you have "Observable Science" on one end of the spectrum and "Theoretical Science" on the other end of the spectrum. "Observable Science" generally deals with determining a cause and effect relationship, and these relationships are often used in practical ways; and tend to be the foundations of the products people use in daily life. "Theoretical Science" generally tries to explain why one of these cause and effect relationships exist.

The results of "Observable Science" are rarely questioned because they’re reproducible, and while the observations may be incomplete they’re rarely incorrect. In contrast "Theoritical Science" is constantly questioned from both within the science and from external groups (for example religious groups) in a large part because the theory can not be proven, theories are often replaced or falsified, and the consequences of the theories may be undesirable. 

Now I don’t deny that Natural Selection is a more reasonable theory than Creationism, but that doesn’t (necessarily) disprove creationism; and neither theory has anything to do with the observation that there are chemicals that interact with the physiology of the human body and can be leveraged to treat disease.

Are you just renaming inductive and deductive reasoning?

We induce some foundational knowledge. Then we use that knowledge to deduce things (example, we observe the force of gravity, let's say by reproducing one of the high school experiments of dropping objects and timing them or something. With an equation, we begin to try some scenarios on the black board).

I wouldn’t say so, because deductive reasoning can result in conclusions which can be demonstrated while what I would call "Theoretical Science" rarely can.

Edit: With your example of gravity, the "Theoretical Science" would be physicists sitting in a room trying to think of how string theory explains why to objects with mass are attracted to eachother.

But like I wrote in my first post, one of the major axioms we have to have is:

The universe is constant.

We believe that the rules don't just change chaoticly, but they are consistent. WE believe almost like our universe is a program, a formula, a function. If you do something twice, under the same exact conditions, the same thing will happen.

so true...

I'll just throw this in here. The pope on Evolution and Creationism:

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

I'm sorry for the confusion.  The reason for me to look at it that way is becaused I've witnessed children being raised believing that science as a whole is wrong and evil just based in their parents' disbelief for natural selection.  What I consider ignorant (lack of knowledge) is that someone calls science evil while holding an ipod or taking their kids to the hospital.  I my original post I acknowledge that you can deny a specific scientific theory or belief without discrediting science completely.

I hope this can shed some light on what I meant.

God Bless You

Denouncing 'science' wholesale is a very sketchy thing to do.

In order to do that, you have to become Amish, which are the only group of people that have rejected scientific advancement for the most part.

Having said that, I think there is a schism between what you can 'science' and what science really is.

Some, such as myself, can reject certain parts of scientific ideologies because of disagreements, while thinking that, for the vast majority, science is a very beneficial thing. I don't doubt that Sir Issac Newton felt much differently.

You do a disservice to science if you argue that one must accept every part wholesale in order to not be hypocritical. It was only 70 years ago that science argued for eugenics...Did that make it right and acceptable? No. I don't think so. Science is an ever-changing thing with new theories and hypothesis being produced all the time. Some things may become very ingrained in our understanding of the universe, some of it may not.

Just because you reject evolution doesn't mean you can't enjoy the other 99% of science or scientific advancements...I'm a huge space fan, as anyone here knows. I research and study as much of it as I can...My faith in God and belief in intelligent design really don't constrict my understanding of any concepts expoused by any scientific community. I may have disagreements with certain aspects, but it doesn't really cause any sort of issues, I don't believe.