How Do Scientists Believe in God and Evolution?

I mostly agree with you here, except for the last part. You imply that any moral law we use can only come from an outside source, more specifically God. But if one asks Bible-believers whether they believe an adulteress should be stoned to death, nowadays they most likely deny this. They will say that some things in the Bible must be seen in context and not taken literally, indeed interpreted in a more modern sense, whereas other things, like turning the other cheek, are quite readily taken as absolute morals which can easily be incorporated in the ways of modern life.But if that's the case, then we must face a problem: which parts of the Bible have to be taken literally and which are eligible for interpretation? A choice will have to be made. What moral, though, could lie at the basis of such choices? They are, after all, moral choices themselves. The Bible does not tell us which parts to take literally and which to interpret. So the moral basis for these choices must come from somewhere else.One can differ in opinion about the source of this moral, but one thing must now be clear: if the Bible would be proven untrue, even though it might imply - or at least hint at - the non-existence of God, it would certainly not imply that we would have lost our only source of morality.I think that the real source of our morality is much older than any written book in any culture. I think it is innate in our society to have certain rules about what to do and what not to do, for the simple reason that a society of social beings such as ourselves would most probably not survive, let alone thrive, to the extent that we in fact have up to now, without such rules.And any society that invents writing is almost certainly going to write down its moral code. Enter the Bible, the Koran, Buddhist scripture, and so on, and so forth.