How Do Scientists Believe in God and Evolution?

In a 1991 poll which has been discussed at length in another thread, 40% of scientists made a statement that they believed in God and also in evolution.As a result of this statement, I became confused as to what some scientists believed about evolution. I have been told by others on this forum that the scientists that believe in God and evolution completely accept the same theory of evolution as those who do not believe in God. This did not agree with the models of Theistic Evolution that I have heard in the past. That makes me wonder what these scientists consider God’s role to be in the formation of the physical universe, and the origin of life on earth.As I consider the evidence that is presented on this forum, I believe it would be of significant help to understand how these scientists have reconciled their scientific objectiveness to their beliefs regarding the existence of a supernatural deity. I would like to put together a model of the present beliefs of scientists who believe in God in relation to origins and evolution. I think that this would help me and others in our attempt to reconcile the existence of God with science. As a result, I would like to begin by determining how these scientists that believe in God would answer the following questions ("their" always refers to the 40% of scientists who believe in evolution and also believe in God):_____________________________________________________________________Is it their belief that God existed before the origin of the universe?What part does God play in their theory regarding the origin of the universe?What part does God play in their theory regarding the origin of our solar system, and the planet earth?What part does God play in their theory regarding the origin of life on the planet earth?What part does God play in their theory regarding the origin of man on the planet earth?Is it their belief that God has intervened in the evolutionary process at any time (dramatic changes, complex organs, etc.)?Is it their belief that God has intervened in the development of man to introduce an eternal spiritual presence that does not exist in other organisms?Is it their belief that the miracles recorded in the Bible that contradict the physical laws of nature are true including the resurrection of Jesus Christ?_____________________________________________________________________I think if we could find answers to these questions then it would give us a better idea of how those people who have been educated in the scientific field have reconciled their religious beliefs to science.The question is how to proceed with this thread. Obviously the best evidence would be the personal beliefs of those scientists who fall in this category of believing in God and evolution. I think it would be impossible for someone who does not believe in God to answer these questions for those scientists.Therefore, I think the starting point would be for someone who believes in evolution and God to come forward and answer the questions. Then we can move on from there and see if other scientists who believe in God agree or disagree with the model that is formed from those answers. Hopefully, we can form a model that the majority of these scientists agree upon.Please be patient with my responses. My internet connection is on and off at its own discretion.

---

"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

Double post. Sorry.Edited by Wumpini, : Double Post

---

"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

I don't know that I have ever thought of creation in this manner. God wills everything into existence both past, present, and future. Would this mean that they think we really do not have free will? Our destiny has already been previously determined. In other words, this conversation that we are having right now was willed into existence some time in the past? Maybe, I am not unerstanding what you mean by willing the future into existence. If I am understanding this correctly, then no direct tinkering is needed with any origins or evolution because God did all of the tinkering in the beginning. In other words, all of nature appearing random is actually an illusion. God previously determined the exact course that everything would take, including the evolution of man, and we are only observing that course.I appreciate your input. However, I am not sure that I am understanding the theory correctly.

---

"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

No, I have not heard of the book. It sounds as though it would be a good book for me to read though.Thanks for you input.

---

"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

I am curious how you would have answered the survey. Which of the following statements would you have selected?Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.Thanks

---

"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

I have never said that a scientist cannot believe in God. It is obvious from research that I have done that at least 45% of scientists believe in God, and most of these also believe in the evolution of man. My questions were an attempt to determine how scientists have reconciled these seemingly contradictory beliefs of God as the Creator and evolution.It is obvious to me that a person cannot take a literal interpretation of the Bible and believe in macroevolution as defined by science; that all living things derived from a common ancestor. It also appears to be the case that many of these scientists believe in abiogenesis and a naturalistic origin of the universe. This also conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible.I am familiar with different theories regarding the Genesis account of creation that attempt to reconcile a literal interpretation of the Bible to science (i.e. Gap theory; Day Age theory). I was curious whether these scientists who believed in theistic evolution attempted to utilize these theories to reconcile evolution as their Creator. I have not had that indication from the responses I have received. It seems more likely that most scientists who believe in the God of the Bible have allowed science to change their belief in the Biblical accounts of creation, and the flood.What must be recognized is that there seems to be a line that cannot be crossed. It is not as easy as saying that a few chapters in the book of Genesis should not be taken literally. The New Testament does not treat creation, the fall of man, and the flood as mythical stories. Adam and Noah are included in the genealogy of Jesus (Luk 3:36-38). Jesus refers to both Adam and Noah in His ministry (Mat 24:37; Mat 19:4). Other New Testament writers such as Paul, Peter, Jude, and the Hebrew writer also mention Adam and Noah in their New Testament writings.You cannot tear apart the Bible and throw out all those portions that include events that could only be explained from a supernatural viewpoint. If you believe in God, you must include the power of God when you consider the history and origins of the universe. It seems that many scientists who believe in God have been tricked into believing that they can accept a completely naturalistic viewpoint of the universe and the world. I think we know who would be responsible for this deception. Someone else found at the beginning of the Bible in the book of Genesis called "Satan."Edited by Wumpini, : No reason given.Edited by Wumpini, : No reason given.

---

"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

That is true. It would be interesting to know the beliefs of scientists from different parts of the world. I am sure the percentage that believe in God in Africa would be much higher. That thought did not actually cross my mind. I was not trying to imply that Satan had planted false evidence. I was thinking more along the line that Satan was affecting the way scientists interpret the evidence.The more I study and learn about evolution and the more of this overwhelming evidence that I see, the more convinced I become that the theory, as it is being applied to the past, is false. Now I wonder why that is the case?

---

"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 Bluejay, Satan can lead a person to deception without planting or altering physical evidence. Satan deceived Eve by changing the words that God had spoken. He did not change the evidence. Satan knows the Bible, he knows the world, and he knows human nature. Satan can play upon the desires and lusts of human beings. He can lead people to the wrong conclusions based upon the evidence that is there. He can encourage a "naturalistic" viewpoint that omits God. Satan is a "liar."

---

"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

I do not know what the evidence supports or does not support. I have never had any reason to look at the evidence for Creation or the Flood until now. I am here and the world is here so I see that as pretty good evidence for Creation. At least that is my theory. And from what I have been studying, the theory that I believe to be true (which is also held by the majority of people on this planet) seems to be better than any theory that scientists have invented.I have been reading this college textbook called "The Essential Cosmic Perspective" and it tells me a lot about what scientists think about the origin of the universe. To be quite honest, they do not know what they are talking about. That is not meant to be mean. It is the truth.Look at the Planck Era. I have never heard of this before. What does this book tell me? It is beyond the limit of science to understand the physical conditions during this era. Okay. The universe was incomprehensibly young. Okay. Current theories cannot adequately describe the extreme conditions that must have existed during the Planck Era. Okay.Well, immediately after this, they spend a whole lot of time telling me everything that happened in the next one thousandth of a second at the beginning of the universe. They go from having no idea about anything, to acting like they know everything about everything. I don't believe it. I think they go from knowing nothing, to knowing very little about anything as it relates to the Creation of the universe.And then somewhere else in this book they say they have reason to believe that most of the universe is not even made up of atoms but it is made up of dark matter, and dark energy. They don't know what it is, and they can not see it. They say they do not know the actual nature of this dark matter. And then they go on to say they know the precise percentages of the universe that are made up of dark matter, dark energy, and atoms. I don't believe it.It seems like it takes more faith to believe in these theories that scientists are treating as facts then it does to believe that God created the heavens and the earth. Maybe some day scientists will figure out how God did it. However, I kind of doubt it. It is going to be very difficult to get down to T=0. When they get real close to T=0, they may realize they are getting real close to God.

---

"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

I am sure that you have read a lot of posts on this website. Take a look at what you are reading. The sole purpose of this website is not to argue the scientific implications of different theories related to the origins of the universe and mankind. Many of the posts, even in the science forums, have a theological slant. They are intended to influence the way people view God. It seems that someone wants people to believe that God does not exist, and has never played a role in the world. We all have faith; it is simply what you believe to be true. You can have faith that there is a God, and He was involved in the Creation of the world. Or, you can have faith that there is no God, and He was not involved in the Creation of the world. Or, your faith can lie somewhere in between. No matter what your position, your position rests upon faith. Because as this forum has stated over and over again, you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God or the part that He has played in any event since the beginning of time. Everyone has faith in what they believe to be true. My theory is that God was involved in the Creation of the universe, and in the Creation of man. This theory is held by most of the people on this earth. Look at the statistics. Most of the people on this planet believe in God, and the existence of the supernatural realm. There may be differences in the details, but their general theory of the origin of the universe and man includes the supernatural. Most scientists do not seem to believe that God was involved in the Creation of the world or in the Creation of man. Once again there may be differences in the details, but their general theory does not include the supernatural. Where do you stand? Is your faith in God, or in "naturalistic" science? Do you allow for the possibility of supernatural explanations? It sounds like a good theory to me. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I am sure that most of your friends and family in Utah would agree with this theory. What makes you think that I or most of the world needs to know all of the details about anything? As a matter of fact, they don’t! They turn on their lights with little or no understanding of electricity. They drive their automobiles with little or no understanding of mechanical engineering. They use their computers with little or no understanding of structured programming. Most of the people on earth have little understanding about a lot of what surrounds them. Do you understand all about the electronics in your television set? Does that affect your ability to function as a normal American, and sit down and watch the thing? Most of the people on this planet do not need scientific explanations about the origin of the universe, and the evolution of mankind to function in this world. I have had the same experience on this forum. People have demeaned my God, they have used His name in vain, and they have implied that I am a fool for my faith. For some that may weaken their faith. It has the opposite effect for me. My faith becomes stronger. What does that have to do with the origin of the universe? It is not my personal disbelief that is at stake. I do believe in God. It appears that you may be the one who has placed your faith in something or someone other than the Creator.

---

"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 Bluejay,I went back and noticed that you never answered the questions that were posed at the beginning of this thread.What role do you attribute to God in the Creation of the universe and man?Here are the questions that were orginally asked to scientists who believe in God and evolution: Thanks

---

"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

I apologize for not responding to your posts. Maybe I have not replied because that Coyote looks like he is giving me the "evil eye" or something. I am only kidding!I have not had the opportunity to study the geological implications of a global flood as of yet. My time is limited. I have already read a textbook on Biology, and Cosmology in the past few weeks. I have also done a lot of research to reply to specific posts. I have not even found a good Geology textbook. Fortunately, Geology was one of the basic science courses that I took in college a number of years ago. So, I am not totally clueless. When I do have the opportunity to study your research, I will reply. Maybe I should take your word for it, and that would save me a lot of study. What do you think?

---

"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

I am sorry that I have not replied to this post earlier. Sometimes I get a lot of posts and it is difficult to reply to all of them. I really do not even know how to keep up with the ones that need replies. I do appreciate your earnest and sincere manner. It gets kind of old when some people feel they must constantly make flippant and unnecesary remarks. So, it is refreshing to read your posts. Actually, I have looked at the statistics and the percentage of atheists and agnostics is much higher in Europe than in the U.S. God did not create misleading evidence. Although, it appears to me that it is possible that wrong conclusions are being reached. This could be due to many factors. Misinterpretation of the evidence is one of those factors. I believe that it is possible that Satan could have an influence on how a person interprets the evidence. It is not our ability that is the problem. Satan has different tools that he can use to affect our judgment. All of these tools are directed toward our desires. Pride is a very important problem. The desire to be seen as acceptable by your peers in the scientific community could affect how someone interprets evidence. We have even seen scientists alter evidence. This could have been due to pride. What other ways could Satan cause a person to make the wrong conclusion? Could it be lust? I want this woman to look at me in a different way. Could it be money? If I interpret the evidence in this way then I will get a government grant. Satan does not have to change the evidence. Mankind’s own desires of pride, lust of the eye, and lust of the flesh can allow Satan to affect the objectivity of that person. I don’t believe Satan has hidden any fossils.I have not learned enough about the Geological Column, the presence or lack of fossil evidence, and the Theory of Evolution to answer this question. If someone is reaching an incorrect conclusion, and Satan has played a part in this deception, then I believe it would be due to one of the reasons listed above.If a person could be totally objective, and this may not be possible, then they may ask some questions of them self. An example of some of these questions may be as follows:If God did exist, and He had played a part in this process, then would I interpret this evidence differently?If the interpretation of this evidence would have an effect upon my prestige as a scientist, or my acceptance by my peers, then would I interpret this evidence differently?If the interpretation of this evidence would have an effect on my ability to obtain a job, or to obtain a government grant, or to obtain any financial benefit, then would I interpret this evidence differently?If the interpretation of this evidence would have an effect upon my personal relationships, then would I interpret this evidence differently?I think you can see where this is going. There are many ways that a person’s judgment can be compromised without outright forgery of the evidence. He has not warped your mind. He may have introduced temptation into your life that could affect your judgment. We all have the ability to resist temptation. It is easy in life to make bad judgments due to pride, or money, or lust, or many other desires that we have. However, when we look back at those events in our lives, we can usually see why our judgment was flawed, and what caused the bad judgment. Once again, I must plead ignorance. I do not know enough about the theories and the evidence at this time to answer this question. Hopefully, I will be able to answer the question in the future.

---

"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

I really do not know what my problem is Brenda, but I am having a difficult time following whatever you are trying to say. My goal in this thread was to get an idea of how scientists who believe in evolution reconcile that to their belief in God. I really cannot figure out what you believe about either evolution or God. I am sure it is my lack of intellect that is the problem. Therefore, please excuse me if I am not able to answer your posts.

---

"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

I would be interested in where I would need to look to find out what these predictions were, when they were made, and why they were expected. I would also like to see the fulfillment of these predictions. Maybe there is a table or something that lists all of the predictions and their fulfillments. This may go a long ways towards helping me understand why so many of you believe so strongly in this theory.I would also like to know about any predictions that were made that were not fulfilled. Hopefully this would be included with an explanation of why this did not falsify the theory. What are the physical predictions that have been made that would falsify the Theory of Evolution? Is there a list of these predictions?

---

"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