How Do Scientists Believe in God and Evolution?

The hallmark of any valid scientific theory is prediction."If a theory is true then X, Y and Z will also be true. Therefore I will examine X, Y and Z and determine whether or not the theory is true"Validation by prediction eliminates the need for interpretation. Thus prediction is the basis of scientific validity and reliability. Prediction and verification is (in admittedly summarised and simplified form) the scientific method.The theory of evolution has made predictions. Predictions regarding evidence that was at the time unknown. Evidence that we now have, because the predictions of evolution have been validated and the predicted evidence found.Do not be fooled into thinking that science is the interpretation of existing evidence and that any feasible explanation is thus valid. A theory that is not verified by prediction is subject to interpretation and philosophical bias in a way that falsifiable truly scientific theories are not.Ask a creationist to make a physical prediction that will falsify their theory and see the bemused look on their faces.
Ask a scientist the same question and witness the history, basis and potential future of the subject at hand unfold before your ears.

There are a huge number of predictions.Start at the beginning.
The most fundamental logical consequence of natural selection and common descent as described by Darwin is a mechanism for inheritance that allows beneficial traits to be passed on but which also allows new traits to arise.The mechanism of inheritance was unknown to Darwin but without such a mechanism evolutionary theory would be in real trouble. If the mechanism for inheritance did not have the characteristsics that allow natural selection to occur the theory would have been falsified.We now know that the mechanism for inheritance is absolutely in line with Darwin's theory of evolution. I.e. genetic inheritance with random mutation.
Not only does genetic inheritance with random mutation fit the bill perfectly it also allows us to examine the history of common ancestry through DNA.When you combine the findings of genetics (common ancestry via DNA) with the predictions made by the theory of evolution the picture revealed is enequivocal. Throw in the corroborating fossil evidence and frankly the picture, for most people is all but complete.Note: Whilst creationists will tell you how each piece of evidence that comes to light can be explained by whatever theory it is they are proposing only a scientific theory will require that something be true before it is known in order for the theory in question to be validated.More specific predictions relate to exactly which transitional forms should be found in which geological eras. Based on these predictions digs have been undertaken and fossils matching the predicted forms have been unearthed exactly in the locations predicted.The following (very detailed and very long) article details various evidences for evolution, the predictions made and the evidence that could potentially falsify each case.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html.There is a lot there so maybe skim a few of the evidences that interest you most and pay particular attention to the prediction and potential falsification sections of each evidence.

As I understand it exact solutions to the equations of 3 (or more) bodies cannot be obtained but approximation methods involving expanded series will give solutions to an extremely high degree of accuracy in any practical sense.The sorts of predictions available to physics are of the type -
IF X, Y, Z THEN A will necessarily happen.
It can then be repeatedly shown that A does indeed happen in such conditions.The predictions of evolutionary theory are more of the form
IF X happened then we should see A as a necessary consequence.
If A is indeed observed/discovered then our hypothesis X has been validated.Both are valid forms of prediction but there is a difference in terms of repeatability.
Evolution relies much more on an accumulated body of knowledge that is consistent both with the evidence available and the predicted findings of new evidence.There is a difference of approach but the main aim of achieving objectivity by testing our theories against the ultimate realities of nature is met in either case.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In some ways yes and in other ways no. The more we discover the more it becomes apparent that the seemingly endless array of complexity found in nature is actually the result of a few basic principles and interrelated phenomenon that are actually comprehensible to us. In this way at least things are very much simpler than they seemed to humanity from times gone by where all the seemingly dispirate phenomenon of nature each required their own disconnected explanation.
The ultimate goal of physics is a 'theory of everything'. a single equation that describes all matter, energy and force within the universe. Who would have thought until relatively recently that nature might even be so simple as for this to even be a possibility? It depends what the odds are and what the alternatives are. Ignoring the deep scientific questions of life the universe and everything for one moment lets consider you. What is the probability of you being here? What were the odds of the exact sperm, of the millions available at the time of your conception, required to create you meeting that egg on that occasion? What were the chance events in the lives of your parents that led to them being together at that exact moment to produce you? Each of your parents was themselves the result of a single sperm of the multitude produced by their father meeting a single egg at a certain time with any number of chance events in the lifetimes of your grandparents that could or could not have led to that event. And likewise with the existence of your grandparents and all your other ancestors as far back as you are willing to go. Each deeply improbable. Each a necessity to ensure your eventual existence. The chances of you being here are slim to say the least. You are incredibly improbableThe chances of you existing as you are astronomically small. Yet here you are.
The chances of me existing as me are equally miniscule. So the chances of us both being here writing to each other are infitesimally small. Yet here we are.Given the severe unlikelihood of us both being here should we take this as a sign that God intended us to be here writing posts to each other? Maybe I suppose.
But then the existence of everyone else alive is equally improbable and the chance of us all being here together is so small as to be impossible by any sensible measure. Yet here we are. Each and every one of us.More likely than God intending us all to inhabit the Earth together by some sort of planned design is the possibility that whilst any exact combination of people on Earth today is equally improbable the probability of a combination of people is very likely.The point is that the seemingly impossible can become reality via natural means. The illusion of intention comes as a result of finding ourselves at the end of a long chain of events that just seem too improbable to contemplate as anything other than planned. Yet we are just the result of a combination of events equally as improbable as any other. The superficially obvious conclusion that we are the result of the intended combination of events is an illusion. Maybe or maybe not. Time will tell. Our perception is indeed limited. The vastness of the cosmos is incomprehensible. As is the scale of the atom. Travelling at speeds close to that of light are also unimaginable and the concept of billions of years in time makes no real sense to us outside the abstract.
In fact we have exactly the perceptive limitations that you would expect of a brainy ape who spent it's formative years roaming the surface of the Earth.
Why would God's ultimate creation be so limited and set in stage so ridiculously large and incomprehensible to it? The more I study these things the less likely it seems that we are the result of an even more improbable being and the more likely it seems that we are just here.
The result of one improbable set of circumstances equally as improbable as any other that there might have been.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No. It is not as simple a that. The particles discovered have always relatated to the forces observed and help explain those observations. The more we discover the less we seem to know in many ways but the less we seem to need to know in certain other ways. Various seemingly disparate physical phenomenon have been unified such that the principles that found our knowledge have become ever more powerful whilst ever less numerous. You seem to have ignored the specific example I detailed. Are you saying each and every one of us is individually and intentionally designed? Does God manage the dynamic of every sperm? Is God directly responsible for every genetic defect, every mutation, every deformity of every individual? Are you saying that the exact combination of people inhabiting this planet today, as you read this, was planned and intended by God? That each of our parents had no choice in their actions regarding the set of events that led to each one of us? That we ourselves have no choice regarding the ones we will love and the people we will produce as a result?That is quite a claim. Do you really believe that? Actually it is broadly the conclusion of science. Why would you expect mans perception to have exceeded that which is required of it if limited to life on this planet? The God answer is a lazy answer. It is a primitive answer. The God answer is an answer to every problem. The God explanation is an explanation for everything that requires understanding of nothing.Why are bad things bad? Because God punishes us.
Why are complex things incomprehensible? Because God wishes it so in order to ensure that we do not get too full of ourselves.
Why are good things good? Because God is benevolent and loving of his creation.Wumpini you are obviously not a fool. Surely you can see that an explanation for everything is an explanation of nothing at all? An answer that answers all questions actually answers no questions at all.
An omnipotent omniscient creator who is supposedly benevolent but who is justified in inflicting untold suffering on his creations for doing that which he designed them to do and knew that they would do in order to teach them that which they should do.........This mass of contradictions can be applied to justify any argument, any position and any circumstance.Believe this if you will. Believe this if it makes you happy and adds meaning to your life somehow.
However in the field of science at least the progress of humanity will depned on those who do not accept the answer that 'God did it'. Our progres will depend on those willing to search for alternative answers to the phenomenon and questions you choose to attribute to God.
So it has ben throughout the history of science and so it will continue to be.

I don't think I agree. At the risk of going well off topic (in which case a new thread might be appropriate) - What is the aim of science in your view if not to describe and understand the "truths" of reality and nature?

Fair enough. When put like that I have no disagreement with you anyway.
However I do think there is an objective reality (a "truth" if you will) that science seeks to discover to the best of our limited and subjective ability. But I agree that science is not about finding truths in the way that religion purports to be.

Are you a scientologist of some sort?I have see that you have tried to initiate discussion regarding your rather unusual ideas a few times in various threads. So far without much reaction.Why don't you start a new topic in the 'Proposed New Topics' forum and see if anyone is intertested in discussing these ideas with you in more depth?

Like I said before - Yes and no. In some ways the more we know the more we find that there is to know and in other ways the more we know the more we realise that seemingly disparate phenomenon are actually different aspects of things of which we already have some understanding. You seemed to be arguing the theistic position based on probability in some way. No?
My point was that the probability of the exact set of individuals that inhabit this Earth as you read this is so astronomically minute as to be impossible. Yet here we are. We could therefore conclude, based on the improbability of this occurrence, that this situation must have been intelligently planned by God.
The fact is that any given set of individuals would be equally improbable.
The fact is that nature gives rise to improbable things because all of the alternatives are similarly improbable. Our assumptions of intention are taken from the vantage point of being the improbable thing that actually came to be. That is all. You could indeed. But what leads you to such a conclusion? Incredulity? That is no argument? I suspect that I am equally incredulous of your God. So what? Who knows. At a guess I would say several factors played a part. We were too embroiled in sheer survival to dwell on such abstractions. Populations were not large enough to make written language particularly useful on a day to day basis. A nomadic lifestyle was not conducive to such things and the advent of agriculture required certain environmental conditions to be in place. Etc. etc. etc. We can speculate and through historical and scientific investigation we may one day have more definite answers. I perceive that the history of science is full of examples of things that God "must" have been responsible for. Things which we now not only understand but which we can, in many cases, now manipulate. I perceive that the answer "God did it" is a barrier to progress, advancement and understanding. Science and humanity are driven by the desire to understand. The "God hypothesis" explains everything and nothing and leaves us with only ignorance.
Of the near infinite number of natural phenomenon that have been attributed to God in the past the only answers that are now regularly attributed to God are "How did life begin?", "How did the universe begin?" and "What is consciousness?". These are the only major answers that science has thus far failed to prise from the grip of religion. Would you really bet against science delivering substantial progress on at least one of these marvellous questions in the next few decades? The God of the gaps is a shrinking god. Can we comprehend God if it exists? Is incomprehension an argument for any position?
If ever we do comprehend the seemingly incomprehensible it will be because we did not accept the God hypothesis. Because we did not accept that non-answer and we researched and we investigated and we pushed ever forward the boundaries of human ingenuity in order to discover nature’s secrets. Quite possibly.
If we were actually here by "chance" in the ways that you describe do you think it likely that we would consider the great impossibility of it all and invent reasons and meaning for our being here that were false and untrue?
Is this any different really to the impossibility of the exact combination of inhabitants of the Earth discussed earlier? Yes it will have consequences. Lets say that the investigation into abiogenesis leads to an understanding of the nature of life that leads to a cure for cancer. Lets say that the search into the origins of the universe leads to future technologies that one day in the dim and distant future take man to the stars. Overly optimistic? Maybe. But one thing is certain. If we accept that God created life and God started the universe we have no reason to look for the natural phenomenon relating to these areas and no reason to ever progress beyond that simplistic answer that actually tells us nothing about anything other than our own delusions of grandeur. Yes yes yes. It also tells us that "blessed are those who believe but do not see" etc.
If there is one thing religion, and Christianity in particular, is very good at it is delusional self justification.

Dude I did not mean that you should leave the whole EvC forum. I meant start your own discussion thread in the new topics section of the Evc forum.So you are the new Darwin huh.....?Hmmmm time will tell.Start your own topic and people will either challenge your ideas or ignore them.

When are you talking about exactly and what other evidence is there for human existence at that time? Nah. People will continue to believe irrational and evidentially unsupported things because they need to even if for no other reason. But I do think the physical role attributed to God will continue to shrink as science progresses. Really? If life can come from non-life whre is the need for God in this process? Really? If, for example, it is shown that the Big Bang and our universe were all but inevitable by natural means where does that leave room for God?It all depends what role someone believes God plays in the physical universe.
To the biblical literalist all such reearch is presumably folly at best and a huge anti-God conspiracy at worst. If we "know" the answer - God did it - The incentive to search for natural answers that actually add to our understanding disappears.
This is something that has happened in the past. Questions regarding unexplained phenomenon attributed to God were left to stagnate until someone unwilling to accept that thinking was willing to rise to the challenge.