How Do Scientists Believe in God and Evolution?

This theory includes all of the evidence that exists in the world because it embraces the work of science as its own. This theory wants everything accomplished by science EXCEPT the belittling and denial of the value of religion.By using this theory, we can embrace both sides of the debates and create a patient understanding of the two points of view. Science shows what? That forms progress. That was known long before Darwin. Science shows a method from which to accumulate information. So does religion. The information that we received from religious people such as THE SECRET DOCTRINE by H.P. Blavatsky is instrumental in advancing the goals of both sides of the debate.

You are using the term "theory" incorrectly. It does not mean an idea. In science when that term is used it refers to an explanation that covers all known facts, has withstood numerous tests, and which has successfully made predictions.Here are some definitions I have put together:

Source
​
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

As for Blavatsky -- not interested.

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.

I am hoping that you will understand, Straggler, that I have been doing what I am doing now for many years. Over these 13 or so years, I have had many experiences, including the invitation to "go start my own." I have complied and it has not been a success. No one wants to talk about something they are unfamiliar with.We all like to talk from the basis of our education. The only difference with me is that I had to "nearly" provide my own education. You see, neither of the groups that I participated with taught the theory - that you can actually read, if you are interested in. When I discovered the ideas and could produce them coherently, neither of the organizations were interested in helping me to publicize my findings.The only solution is for me to break in where I am not wanted and to attempt to drum up interest there. I'm sorry.

Oddly enough, the known facts that successfully predict a certain result associated with this theory, are the world's religions. I am hoping that we can attempt to find explanations associated with known facts when we more thoroughly understand the implications after careful study and thought.The theory as presented in THE SECRET DOCTRINE shows a progression from religion to religion and race to race. We have one definition of race and a new definition for race would have to be added since the one used by the theory doesn't currently exist.This new definition of race can be illustrated by the progression of religion, one to the next. I suggest to you that there are subtle hints that help to association the Egyptian religion with the 1st race, the Hindu religion with the 2nd, the Greek/Roman myths with the 3rd, the Buddhist, Zen, or Taoist religion with the 4th race, the Christian with the 5th race, ????? unknown for 6th race, and the curious nature of the 7th race (a family race as indicated by THE SECRET DOCTRINE) suggests Judaism with beginnings in Chaldea as a 7th, which is challenged by the Muslim religion also appearing as characteristically 7th race.The clue here is that the 7th begins at the same time as the 1st and 2nd races, however the 7th is only a small, small percentage of the population that remains small over time while continuing alongside the people in the population as they more typically progress through the different races, one after another. Because we have no sixth race, I can only guess that we have what will someday become the foundation of the sixth race with the two organizations that I have studied: The Theosophical Society and The Saint Germain Foundation and that this sixth race will grow in a slightly different manner than a seventh race will grow.If you read the available books on the subject, you will understand more thoroughly, but I can suggest that the 6th race itself will not begin for another 400,000 years. We may have a 6th subrace (as are each of the religions enumerated above subraces) whereas the entire population on earth today is characterized as the 5th root race. The 4th root race went extinct (I believe the book records the last remnant sinking - a white island - 11,000 years ago.)A race slowly grows and slowly declines in numbers, subraces however may repeat themselves numerous times in the period of a race. The cycle is somehow instructive to people, although there is little evidence of how this helps us to keep repeating the same lesson - descent through animals for the purpose of acquiring the necessary form followed by ascent through girasas for the purpose of increasing our spiritual awareness of ourselves and life in general.As we repeat these, the religions unfold from each other in accordance with this numbering of our stage - whether on the descent three-fold side or the ascent three-fold side or on the vortex.This is how the theory holds up when studied. The most puzzling aspects are 1) the illusion that we exist currently with plants and animals that are evolving when the theory suggests these living things have moved on to live as kingdoms on their own globes, and 2) that involutional life waves exist that occupy the forms we associate with evolving lives just for the period of time that we occupy the globe - the angels act as our virtual worlds and ecological habitat.

Hi Bluejay, Here Jesus is quoting from the book of Genesis, so it has to be when God created man and woman. We cannot try to twist everything in the Bible to fit into a mold that agrees to present scientific theories. It will not work. Somewhere along the line you have to give up something that matters. I do not guess I have ever thought of creation as an instantaneous “big poof” event. I guess that is one way to describe what could have happened. Let us look at this closely for one moment because I feel this is about as close as you can get to the topic of this thread. You go on to say: You see that is what I am trying to figure out. How can you make that statement? I have not gone back and looked at any old threads on this subject. My computer link is too slow.Explain to me how you deal with Genesis and make this statement?Let us surmise that you say the creation story is not literal. If there was nothing else in the Bible related to this situation, then I do not think this website would exist. But, there is! What about the genealogies? Living in Salt Lake City, I know you know a lot about genealogies. My mother goes there to go through your library so she can figure out our family tree. Those genealogies give specific names and ages. They go all the way from Adam to Jesus with Noah along the way. These genealogies were very important to the Jews. The Bible explicitly says that Adam was the first man. How can we have men on this earth for hundreds of thousands of years when Adam was the first man and we have his genealogy all the way through to Jesus? The problems keep piling up. As I said above, you can only twist the Scriptures so much and then you have to give up something that really matters. I agree completely. I do. With us that is true. With the mechanic that is true. With God that is not true. The mechanism is a supernatural unexplainable power called God. You cannot separate the power of God from God. However, we are not talking about natural selection when we are talking of creation. We are talking about that instantaneous “poof event” that you mentioned above. Why would a spontaneous miracle cause God to be a God of chaos? Aren’t there miracles in the Bible that are instantaneous? This is true. This is somewhat true. He does not follow rules. He is who He is. God does not lie! Why? Because God does not lie! It is that simple. There is no rule book. This is not true. Are you saying that God has a God? His power is limited by who He is, not by some outside force. This statement does not even fit into your argument. You will have to explain your logic. Okay. I will try to do better. I assure you I was not trying to confuse you. I may confuse myself. I think you have confused me. I do not see faith as belief without evidence. However, it is obvious that I cannot use the word consistently so maybe I should quit using it altogether. From now on, in our discussions I will try to describe what I mean instead of use the word faith. I will probably forget, but maybe you can remind me. I said that I would not use the word. I told you my reasons. If you want to use the word then it is fine with me. I do not compare my feelings to others to determine what they mean. I have not been rejecting anything about the natural world. I have been studying about evolution, the cosmos, meteorology, geology, chemistry, biology, and even some physics, for starters. I believe that there is a lot of good that can come from science. I have no problem with science. I only have a problem with some of their theories and conclusions. Most of science is fine with me. You can try to read a little into what I say. Obviously, I mean that science cannot give us all of the answers. Why I did not word my sentence that way originally, I do not know. Sometimes, I think that I may confuse science with this forum. They do a lot of commenting about God on this forum. You know that there are a lot of posts that try to make people feel foolish for believing in God. Are you sure you know the truth? I do not know what you should do. I would be careful though. If God does exist, the scientifically correct answer may not be the truth. If you believe in the miracles of the Bible (and I do not know if you do) then you know there are events that cannot be explained by science. Think about that.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

except that anyone can see that you substitute evidence with faith.Furthermore you're still using the dishonest argument that only one god exists.

I guess not since I have no idea what the position may be. Possibly there were not any humans here to write anything down. It sounds like you are predicting the end of theism as we know it in the world today. Why would a belief in God keep us from researching abiogenesis? It does not change anything if it is possible for life to come from non-life. Why would a belief in God keep scientists from probing further back towards T=0. A better understanding of physical principles cannot change whether God created the universe. This sounds like something that was invented by those who are involved in this argument. I would not think anyone is saying that we should not research in these areas. Am I misunderstanding something here?

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

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.

It would no doubt advance the discussion if you were to explain what you mean by "by chance", since you are the one who introduced it (my emphasis): One reason why we need for you to explain what you mean is that creationists have for decades used "by chance" to describe naturalistic explanations, particularly evolution. A favorite analogy of theirs is to say that it is more improbable than for a tornado to tear through a junkyard and create a fully functional 747 jet. So their use of "by chance" means having things just fall right into place on their own. And when we hear a creationist (or one leaning in that direction) say "by chance", then we immediately interpret their usage as being the standard creationist one.But what they describe is not how nature works. Not even close. Which is why I responded that it's not by chance, but rather through natural processes. If you follow the creationist model and toss the parts of a mechanical assembly into a coffee can, seal it, and shake it vigorously for any appreciably long period of time, all you will get is deaf. But if you pour the right chemicals into a jar you will get a reaction, often without even needing to stir it. Natural processes. The first creationist example demands the system to behave in a manner inconsistent with natural processes and so will be virtually impossible to succeed, whereas the second example is completely consistent with natural processes and so will work every single time.That is the difference between something happening "by chance" and it happening through natural processes. If you mix certain chemicals together and induce a reaction, they will form amino acids. If you heat amino acids they will form protein-like chains. If you heat them in water, they will form microspheres where are very much like fossils found in pre-Cambrian rock. That is not by chance, but rather through natural processes.When the specific outcome of the process, such as the order of the amino acids or the combinations of genes, is random or non-deterministic, then the words "by chance" may and is often used to describe the non-deterministic nature of the outcome, but that is not the same as the creationist meaning of "by chance". Even though the outcome is random, [i]that random outcome was produced by natural processes[/b], not "by chance" in the creationist sense (which also tends to be the common everyday sense).Everybody tends to use simplifications in their speech. For example, most people accept heliocentrism and yet they still talk about the sun rising and setting in the sky. Just because they talk like that does not mean that they are geocentrists, and yet one could use their use of those terms to "prove" that they're geocentrists, just as you are trying to use scientists use of the term "by chance" to prove your point.BTW, do you understand genetic drift? In those quotes, the term "by chance" is used to indicate that there those are cases where natural selection is not operating on those genes and that the survival and propagation of those genes are due to other "random" factors. "Random" factors that are themselves natural processes and which can even be very deterministic; it's just that we don't know what they might happen to be in any particular case.Does that make things any clearer?

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR

I have not researched this at all. I am basing these statements on someone else’s comment that humans had been here for hundreds of thousands of years. Doing a quick Google, it looks as if science may think this number may be a little smaller. Am I wrong that scientists think humans have been here for a long time? The question is not whether God is needed. Many of the miracles in the Bible could be reproduced naturally through other means. That does not change the fact of the miracle. Does the fact that men can grow wheat and catch fish mean that God did not need to perform the miracle where Jesus fed thousands of people with a few fish and loaves of bread? If science does solve the mystery of abiogenesis that does not eliminate the possibility that God was involved in the process. Same reasoning as above. I see no problem with the research in any area of science. I do not understand this reasoning. Whatever happened supernaturally in the past does not change what is happening naturally in the present. It also does not negate man’s ability to project these processes backwards and forwards. The only thing that supernatural intervention at some time in the past would change is the conclusions that scientists reach about events that happened in the past. The truths about the natural world would not change.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

My introduction of "by chance:" Your response: Since that time you seem to have been trying to convince me that there is no such thing as chance when natural processes are involved. I am beginning to see your reasoning with your illustration. Maybe I can help us to begin talking about the same thing. Don't worry. I am not trying to pull you into some creationist trap.A suitable definition:

quote:

---

The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause.

---

However, let us not argue the definition. I think from reading your post I can see where we are not understanding each other. I am not talking about a tornado putting together the parts of an airplane.Let me give an example using natural processes, and then try to apply it to our discussion. Let us say that you dropped me in a strange part of the world, blindfolded me, and then sent me on my way. What would be the probability that I would reach any destination? Well there is no chance element in that case. The probability is certain. It is a natural process with an assured outcome. I believe this is what you are trying to assert with the processes of evolution.However what is the probability that I will reach any specific destination? Since I do not know where I am, and I do not know where I am going then it would be “seemingly impossible” for me to reach a particular destination by chance. The probability would be close to zero, and it would become more unlikely as the distance from my starting point increased. Now let us compare that to the question at hand.Remember my original comment: Is abiogenesis (for example) so improbable through natural processes by chance that it would be logical and rational to infer something other than a natural explanation? That was my original usage of the expression "by chance."I have read only a little on the process of abiogenesis. However, it does not seem as simple as a few chemical reactions taking place in the proper order if my understanding is correct. You have left hand and right amino acids and whatever else to deal with that would seem to make it difficult for natural processes to have resulted in sustainable life. I think I discussed this above. Yes, natural processes will work every single time. However, it is very unlikely that these natural processes will result in any specific outcome. I am not sure whether we understand each other or not. I see certain events as being very improbable. Whether they could theoretically happen through natural processes does not change the fact that they are very unlikely to occur. You seem to be saying that because things exist today then that proves that they have come about through natural processes. I believe there is a flaw in this line of reasoning. I agree from a scientific standpoint that you must have this viewpoint. However, it is a completely naturalistic view that does not accept that it is possible that something can come into existence through some process that was not natural. I am coming to an understanding of some of these concepts. I would think that genetic drift would fall under my definition of chance. Some unknown and unpredictable event comes along and eliminates all (or many) members of a population that have a specific gene. Therefore, the population drifts “by chance.” I think so. Do you think so?

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Hi, Wumpini. Allright, well there’s a conflict then: Matthew 19:4 said man and woman were created in the beginning, when Genesis said they weren’t made until six days after the beginning. This leads me to believe that either “the beginning” in Matthew refers to the beginning of the human species or of human civilization, etc., but probably to a different beginning than the one mentioned in Genesis. Or, alternatively, you could give up a bunch of semantics that don’t matter, and you don’t lose anything that does matter. But, that’s all you’ve been arguing for all along: that God said it, and, “Poof!” there it was.You find it hard to understand how I can believe in God and in evolution, and keep saying that the mechanism that brought us into life was supernatural. Supernatural origins = unexplanable-by-science origins = magical origins = “Big Poof.” What about them? I met people in Taiwan who claim to have their genealogies back to a thousand years before Adam, and they have it all recorded on little wooden plaques that they stack in their family shrines. You can only twist the results of a scientific experiment so much and then you have to give up something that you used to think mattered. I disagree. Where does the Bible say this? Because spontaneity is, by definition, not orderly. Essentially, if He can do whatever He likes, despite the laws of nature, and on a simple whim, with nobody or nothing to restrict what He does but His own will and power, He is not orderly. This is the very definition of chaos. What? You just said “God does not lie”: how is this not a rule? If God is the only thing restricting Himself, is there something that forces Him to restrict Himself, or is He just doing it by choice? If He’s doing it by choice, He also has the choice to do things differently. If He’s not doing it by choice, it is being enforced on Him, whether by some outside entity or by the office that He fills, it doesn’t matter. But, the point is, if there are no checks and balances except Himself, He is chaotic. But, you should. If your only source for confirmation of your feelings is your feelings, you are also chaotic and unreliable. You cannot make pull yourself up by your own shoelaces. No. But I'm sure the materialistic explanation is closer to the truth than the "Big Poof" explanation. In fact, I'm sure the materialistic explanation is the best one that humans have ever come up with (Straggler's "God-hypothesis" included) and I will support it, work on it myself, and improve upon it until I die, and then, in the next life (I hope there is a next life), God (I hope there is one of these, too) can fill in the gaps that will inevitably remain.

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi Bluejay. Oh come on Bluejay. I am sure that you can see the entire creation week as the beginning. If that is the case, then what has the God that you believe in ever done that cannot be explained by science? So you are saying that the genealogies in the book of Genesis are fabricated, and Jesus’ genealogy in the book of Luke is worthless also. Why do you disagree? Can you tell me your logic? Does this not seem a little contradictory? You rely upon materialistic explanations in this life, and look forward to a “next life” provided by a God that in no way can be explained by a materialistic explanation.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce