Christianity Today reports that 42% of scientists ages 18-34 believe in God.
However, only 28% of them 65 and older do, compared to the 83% of all Americans that believe in God.
Why do you think younger scientists are becoming more faith based? Could the awe of creation exposed by more powerful telescopes and microscopes be influencing perceptions?
How do you feel about that?
A good starting point may be to ask each of those groups their definition of “God”. A second point to consider is the difference between a spiritual leaning and a hard core belief in an actual God. A third point may be to explore heart-held vs intellectual assent.
Still, as we make progress in quantum mechanics things get stranger and stranger, taking on a metaphysical aura.
There are a couple developments that come to mind. The whole Intelligent Design (ID) movement (Michael Behe is one of the main proponents) has had an effect on the way people view science. Anthony Flew, long-time philosopher and champion of atheism, recently came out stating he now believes there must be a God, and ID helped persuade him (Flew is still a deist, however, which points to the importance of Bob’s questions above). Of course the whole ID movement is a huge problematic bag of worms, but if anything, it has certainly been influential. Books like Francis Collins’s “The Language of God” (head of the human genome project) have also provided examples of highly intelligent scientists who, after studying the intricate complexity of human life have concluded there is a God, have shown that it is possible to be an intellectual and a Christian.
Second, I would mention a philosophical development that has created space for belief in God. Contrary to popular belief, postmodern thought, although often branded as nihilistic and anti-God, is far more amicable to religious belief than Modern thought. Modernity, equipped with its confidence in progress and human reason (two central features of science), held that God was irrelevant, a psychological byproduct of the superstitions of a pre-scientific age. Modernity replaced God with Reason, as man was elevated to supreme dominator of Nature and was confident in its ability to reach absolute truth and certainty.
Then, the Holocaust occurred and dashed the hopes of many who had placed so much trust in Reason and progress and science, ushering in what is now called “postmodernism.” Postmodern thought calls in to question man’s claim to infallibility and science’s belief in the glory of progress (that is also devoid of ethics). Postmodern thought renews a sense of man’s finitude, and as a result, has opened space for talk about God. Again, this talk of God may be different from the typical notion of God derived by everyday Christians from the Bible (and may be more pluralistic than most Christians are comfortable with), but nevertheless, this philosophical development has been integral in reopening the dialogue about religious matters.
Great question and great responses.
From a scientific point, geology/fossils, genomics, and molecular biology/cell have jumped onto the scene..among others…
Fossils are confusing and while they tend to show increases in complexity from deep to shallow they do not show the transition forms you would expect to see. We keep digging, now over one-hundred years, but don’t see the transition forms you’d expect.
Genomics: one question: How did the DNA molecule evolve? Evolution depends on this.
Cells: The more we study the cell the more complex it becomes. Millions of tiny machines all timed perfectly, controlled perfectly, engineered perfectly…
I think it takes more faith to believe in evolution than to not. Tons of assumptions all rolled up into one obnoxious liberal academic institution that tells us to STOP thinking STOP asking questions and believe that we are not better than any insect or animal around us.
People are starting to get sick of liberal academics telling us what to believe when their evidence is not as forthcoming as they first said.
I get most confused when people say they believe in both…? whaaat..? I hear it a lot too…meaning like 10 times in my life I would guess. I’ll be talking to a really intelligent person who is often in school currently and who was also raised in a church going family and they say something like “oh, evolution could never have just happened without God making it work…” Why in the world would you mix all that together and call it good. Why wouldn’t God have mentioned a dog eat dog…messy… mutating … ugly … gills half way to lungs … process of creation in Gen? Maybe a bit of artistic dignity is coming out of me at this point, but the God I know is far too perfect for that process…and too beautiful. His creation is good. Enough said.
An
I don’t think evolution and creation theories need to be mutually exclusive, and millions of Christians throughout Church history have held to evolution to some degree. Case in point, one need not believe that God originally created mules or every breed of dogs or cats that now exist. Such genetic changes can be easily observed in the world. Of course, here I am speaking of what some people call “little e” evolution, as these are mutations only within species. But it is still a form of evolution.
Furthermore, the theory of Evolution presupposes order and existence. It does not explain why something is here rather than nothing (the Big Bang theory came after Darwin). Scientists are still trying to come up with theories of the origin of life, and one (obvious) alternative is Creation.
This leads to your point, Ann, about the creation narrative. I think its important to remember that the “young earth creationist” view of Genesis 1 is a rather recent theological imperative, resulting largely as a response to Darwinian evolution. There have been a number of Christian theologians throughout history that did not hold to a literal 6-day creation. The general interpretive approach to the Bible among the early church fathers was allegorical or metaphorical in nature. As a result, Augustine, for example, believed that God created everything instantaneously and that the breakdown into six days is simply a way of explaining it to finite minds.
Others wonder if the days represent large spans of “time” (does God work within time?), and not 24-hour periods (considering the sun and moon were not created until day 4, one wonders how “days” 1-3 were measured). Still others who study Hebrew, point out that Day 1 starts in v. 3 and that the “formless and empty” earth mentioned in v. 2 existed previously to the six days of creation (Thus, the point of the Gen 1 narrative, then, is that God took what was chaotic and disorderly and made it peaceful and beautiful, which would have stood in stark contrast to the prevailing creation narratives at the time that depict creation occurring while the gods were at war with each other).
We might, then, reserve a little “artistic dignity,” as you suggest, for the text itself. Genesis 1 is clearly written like a Hebrew poem, and poems aren’t meant to be taken word-for-word but leave space for metaphor and simile (does anyone literally think God rides on clouds [Ps. 68:4] or that the morning has wings [Ps. 139:9]?). The “days” are more like stanzas, and may not tell us anything about how God really created.
What does all this mean? My conclusion is that since none of us were there, none of us can know for sure. Every belief about the origin of life requires faith. The important point is that we believe that God created, and after that we can humbly allow for a variety of finite interpretations.
Brock,
Thank you for pointing out the “hebrew poem” aspect of the narration. We’ve been spoiled into thinking in a cold, factual, ration manner, forgetting that events can be accurately told in other fashions.
A Challenge;
Read the “Charge of the Light Brigade”, then read that brigade’s company historical log of that charge…which best conveys the days events???
It’s no accident the earthrise scene in “2001 a Space Oddesey” has “Thus spake Zarathustra” as the score played in the background.
The theory of Evolution is an effort to prove that we are alone on this planet. No God. No purpose. It is the atheist’s bible.
What do you think of that statement? I think it’s mostly true.
The Evolution and Creation theories are mutually exclusive by definition. Evolution as a theory claims to be within the realm of scientific naturalism (based on the premise that what we see/touch/feel/study is all we have). Naturalism requires that any hypothesis be explained by natural causes or events that can be studies and measured.
Remember when Dr. Sternberg (Smithsonian Museum) tried to publish an article authored by an intelligent design proponent? The scientific community kicked him out of his position sending a warning to anyone who tried to include God in the origins account. Evolutionists hold the theories exclusive.
It seems contradictory to me that Christians would try include evolution into their theological framework.
6 literal days? Well Genesis does go to the pains of saying and the “evening and the morning were the first day.”
Then God wrote the ten commandments in stone. He put the 6 days of creation on the tablets or at least Exodus reads that way.
“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.”
(Exodus 20)
But maybe God made the earth in an instant (Augustine). While we know Psalms/Proverbs were the musings of a king inspired by God often in the form of poetry.. Maybe Genesis is an allegory too.
Even so, you still have to travel millions of miles to bridge the gap between the Genesis creation account (good) and Evolution (millions of mistakes (mutations), millions of years, millions of deaths).
***
). No-one is questioning passing genes on to your offspring. By the way, this need not have anything to do with mutations at all, but diversity within the genetic code. Meaning, God created us with diversity of genetic traits. I would not give mutations credit for all the different breeds within a specie. Remember, mutations give us cancer, birth defects, and generally death.
As an aside: Who doesn’t believe in dogs being able to breed (natural selection, small e evolution). I married a tall girl b/c I’m not tall (partly
What people do question.. and what Evolution proposes is .. What is the title of Darwin’s book?
“The origin of species by means of natural selection, or The preservation of favored races in the struggle for life.”
Clint, I don’t disagree that most naturalistic scientists would ascribe to the points you have made. There are, no doubt, many evolutionary biologists who hold that the two views are mutually exclusive.
What people on both sides often forget is that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God and his activity in the world. On it’s own basis as a field of study of the PHYSICAL world, it simply cannot do so. It may persuade some but most people approach science from a specific presupposition (atheist, Christian, etc) that does not change.
Really, that’s the rub about much of the debate. If there is an “exclusivity” between the two, its that they stem from different fields of study. Evolution is a scientific question. Creation is a theological one. Many people get upset when the two are mixed, and there is some warrant for this. For centuries, the “God of the gaps” was the answer for many questions that have since been answered by science, and it wasn’t long ago that the Church persecuted scientists for disagreeing with long-held (and wrong) views about the world. The naturalistic tendency in science is a good thing so long as it understands it is not answering theological questions. Science has provided natural answers for all sorts of issues (from wind currents to hurricanes to diseases) that were once attributed to supernatural powers.
But just because they stem from different departments of human inquiry doesn’t make them exclusive any more than music theory and English literature are exclusive from one another. Because they answer different types of questions, Christians of many stripes have had no problem believing in both. The Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches, for instance, have taught this for decades. And the National Council of Churches (USA) has a resource for those “who experience no conflict between science and their faith.” And the majority of Jewish groups have no problem with holding to evolution either.
As a result, there are scientists who endorse evolution who are committed Christians like Francis Collins, Sjoerd L. Bonting, and Kenneth R. Miller; and there are Christian theologians who ascribe to evolution like Alister McGrath, John Haught, and Pope John Paul II. You may find this as a contradiction, but many others who hold to theistic evolution do not.
As for the “gap” between the goodness of Genesis and the mutations of Evolution, not all theologians believed death was completely nonexistent prior to the fall. Augustine, for instance, believed there was death in the Garden, just not human death. And for some theologians the “chaos” of the “formless and void” earth in Gen 1:2 is not far from mistakes and mutations.
There are many questions that these issues raise that we could go round about over. Should the notion of God, then, be allowed into the scientific arena? There are some Christians even that say “No,” because they are two different disciplines. But it seems hard to compartmentalize one’s life in such a way. In that regard, I think its absurd for Richard Dawkins to say that all of Francis Collins’s work is skewed just because he’s a Christian (as if Dawkins has no bias!).
The theory of Evolution is an effort to prove that we are alone on this planet. No God. No purpose. It is the atheist's bible.
What do you think of that statement? I think it's mostly true.
The Evolution and Creation theories are mutually exclusive by definition. Evolution as a theory claims to be within the realm of scientific naturalism (based on the premise that what we see/touch/feel/study is all we have). Naturalism requires that any hypothesis be explained by natural causes or events that can be studies and measured.
Remember when Dr. Sternberg (Smithsonian Museum) tried to publish an article authored by an intelligent design proponent? The scientific community kicked him out of his position sending a warning to anyone who tried to include God in the origins account. Evolutionists hold the theories exclusive.
It seems contradictory to me that Christians would try include evolution into their theological framework.
6 literal days? Well Genesis does go to the pains of saying and the "evening and the morning were the first day."
Then God wrote the ten commandments in stone. He put the 6 days of creation on the tablets or at least Exodus reads that way.
"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day."
(Exodus 20)
But maybe God made the earth in an instant (Augustine). While we know Psalms/Proverbs were the musings of a king inspired by God often in the form of poetry.. Maybe Genesis is an allegory too.
Even so, you still have to travel millions of miles to bridge the gap between the Genesis creation account (good) and Evolution (millions of mistakes (mutations), millions of years, millions of deaths).
***
). No-one is questioning passing genes on to your offspring. By the way, this need not have anything to do with mutations at all, but diversity within the genetic code. Meaning, God created us with diversity of genetic traits. I would not give mutations credit for all the different breeds within a specie. Remember, mutations give us cancer, birth defects, and generally death.
As an aside: Who doesn't believe in dogs being able to breed (natural selection, small e evolution). I married a tall girl b/c I'm not tall (partly
What people do question.. and what Evolution proposes is .. What is the title of Darwin's book?
"The origin of species by means of natural selection, or The preservation of favored races in the struggle for life."…
Brock,
I appreciate the respect you give others and your ability to discuss ideas without making others feel small. It’s a gift you have. =)
After reading the most recent comments, the main emotion I have is still confusion on why we NEED to mix the belief in God with evolutionary theory. I think it’s a bit more of a theological issue than whether the world is flat or not…
I grant that science has discovered a lot of new information about the world…but the information was always there, just undiscovered (we haven’t created any really new anything). Just because we can look into a microscope doesn’t mean that the bedrock truths of God are outdated…if God is the absolute truth, than every new piece of information should support his greatness not diminish it. I think evolutionary theory is in some ways very weak, but what is worse is that it takes away from the grandeur of what God is. He is the I AM…not a facilitator of OUR ideas. I realize there is always a bias, but I think science in the last 100 years has screamed that we were created and there are a lot of people turning their heads and stopping their ears. It really reminds me of my little boys when they try to jam a puzzle piece into a spot that is close, but not correct…the thing is the pattern is all wrong when they do this; they should be able to just chill for a second and look at the picture and stop obsessing about getting the little cutout force fitted into the miss-matched spot. I think we as a society get really distracted by all the details.
God is mind bending huge. The details we try wade through are merely distracting. If we as Christians would stop watering ourselves down and started acting like living creations of the living God with no compromise (myself included)…I can’t even hope to imagine what would happen.
An
An (sorry this is so long!),
You make very good points. I agree evolutionary theory has some very weak points, and it can’t answer all the questions posed to it (nor can 6-day literal Creationism, however). I also agree there is much in this world that points us to the reality of God. But I also do not think that gives us the right to use the “God is the absolute truth” phrase like a police stick!
But consider this: Some of the arguments you just made are used by the other position. Brian McLaren, in his “New Kind of Christian” series suggests that evolution expresses the grandeur of God, that it reveals rather than diminishes his beauty. You may disagree, but now its simply one side arguing against another based on subjective views of beauty regarding a transcendent, unknowable God.
You suggest two categories for human inquiry: (a) “undiscovered” truths about God’s world and (b) “OUR”, human ideas. Along the line of thinking above, evolution is simply another bit of information God hid in the world for man to discover. But this raises an incredibly difficult question: How do we discern between God’s ideas we discover and our own human inventions? Obviously “Scripture” and “the guidance of the Holy Spirit” will rightfully come up as answers. But Scripture is incredibly unclear on many matters (even silent), and claims to the Spirit have been made throughout Church History to the conclusion of arriving at totally opposite stances on the same issue (e.g, Arminianism vs. Calvinism). As for Scripture, in the issue at hand, scholars have found ways to show that evolution may be compatible with Gen 1-2. But what about systematic theology, euclidean geometry, plastic, ventilators that keep people alive, economics, or the internet – are they (a) or (b)? It is incredibly hard to say, for all of these can be shown to be extremely beneficial but also questionable, and the Bible makes no mention about any of them.
Finally, you make reference to evolution being more theological than whether the world is flat. I agree that determining what is a theological question and what is simply a scientific question can be hazy. Just ask Galileo. When he insisted in a heliocentric universe rather than the long held (and extremely problematic) geocentric one the Church was still teaching, he was excommunicated. That the earth was the center of the universe – therefore making mankind the center of God’s plan – was an extremely theological issue, and to change that view had huge implications. Proponents of theistic evolution say that the evolution vs 6-day literal creation debate is our day’s version of the debate Galileo had with the Church. Science has made suggestions that the 6-day literal creation is problematic, and that we need to shift to a new paradigm of thinking (now, is evolution the “right” paradigm? Who knows. Perhaps, in another 500 years, after so many holes have been poked through evolution that it finally caves in, we’ll finally switch to a new paradigm. The same could be said of most of our current human knowledge).
So why does evolutionary theory “need” to be mixed with God? Well, those who do so believe (a) man, made in the image of God, will discover truths about the world (evolutionary scientists are made in the image of God too!), (b) faith is not irrational, but reasonable, and therefore it must reasonably fit within the current paradigm of human knowledge, (c) this mixing is a way to appropriate the Bible into our modern world and make it amicable for those who cannot accept the “mythical” and “irrational” (i.e., supernatural) aspects of the Bible due to modern science. You may object to this third point, but all of us assent to some modernization of the Bible because the Bible was written in an ancient culture that condoned slavery (Lev. 25:44), practiced genocide (Deut. 3:3-6; 1 Sam 15:3), made raped women marry their rapists (Deut 22:28-29), forbade the eating of shrimp (Lev. 11:10; Deut 14:10), and banned the use of mixed fabrics in clothing (Deut 22:11)- all of which we rightfully condemn or disregard today. Your question could be also asked about these issues – why do our modern notions of these topics NEED to be mixed with our interpretation of Scripture?
Brock,
Interesting…and definitely not too long. =) Evolutionary scientists are made in the image of God. I want to say here, that when I think of evolutionary theory taught by a professor, I don’t get hot and start shaking thinking that they are doomed forever, I care about them too. I’m thankfully not the judge of their heart. I do continue to be saddened by the negative affects this theory has had on our culture though. As you mentioned, the theory may be considered a masterful way of creating the world and not trouble a scientist with this mindset; but I think for the regular Joe walking down the street, knowing he was created by the hand of God and then giving a spirit by the very breath of Him in a moment of time is more gripping than seeing a cage of apes at the zoo and thinking that this may have been our past. Humans are different than animals. The Bible states that and we know it in our hearts. Saying we came from a line of mutating animals makes this truth very messy. I say this as a person that thinks animals are magnificent too and should be treated with care, they just don’t have the same essence as humans do. You also mention things that men have created that have proven useful to mankind but are not mentioned in the Bible. This was an interesting train of thought. Just because the Bible mentions tents, pots and plows doesn’t mean that God nods his head at these things and questions the things made in our time. I think the computer I’m typing on is pretty impressive…but the brain that created it is more so…and the God that created the thinking mind is to be praised beyond that. The computer itself enters the spiritual realm when I use it to either nurture or damage my/others spiritual health, nothing more.
Modernizing scripture. The Bible is not totally rational. Explain how an ax head can float under any circumstance to a practical mind. Or, how a human body can raise from the dead. Believing God is a very bizarre experience that makes all those who put their faith in him release the death grip on demanding that everything make perfect sense. But…being alive and breathing with a thinking mind is a bizarre experience in itself…having an answer to what we are all doing here has driven people mad for all time. Living in a post-modern culture where media and ideas in books point to simply swallowing our existence and not thinking about anything beyond us has influenced out Christian culture to an extent. We need to find truth. It is the desire of the soul God placed in us; it’s what makes us human. The list of rather controversial laws listed from the Old Testament isn’t very troubling to me. The law was given as a school master so that we would know why Christ came. God’s chosen people were given extensive laws and ordinances to demonstrate purity and uprightness. Circumcision was given as the mark of the covenant between God and His chosen people; now we as Christians are commanded to have a circumcised heart as a mark of being His people. They were and are an example…a priesthood on earth. God didn’t say in scripture through Paul that everyone coming to faith must be circumcised…it was a new covenant and the old was given for our good to. A women being raped and then being made to marry the man sounds terrible, but it’s an extreme way of God proclaiming through the jews that sexual relation to a women makes you one with her in His eyes, whether you like it or not. It actually gave women more dignity, not less. I think there is a thirst for such truth in our culture today when sexual conduct is totally casual. I think the famine for truth has already begun and it is vital that we NOT modernize the scripture to a point that it no longer speaks truth to those who are lost.
Thanks for the conversation. It’s good for me to think through these things in a different light. Just because I answer back with all of my own conviction, doesn’t mean I skim through your responses without taking to heart what you are saying.
I’ve enjoyed all the commentary on this relevant issue.
An
Everyone,
Thanks for the “iron sharpening iron” conversation here. I’ve been quiet in an effort to digest it all. In addition, its been a very hectic 10 days!
I am grateful for the dialogue which has gone far beyond my pondering at the outset. That’s the value of learning spirits coming together and stretching each other.
I pray it has been a blessing and hope to comment in the near future.
Ed
So am I right to assume that we’re agreeing to say that evolution makes good science (as Clint said: “natural selection, small e evolution”) but bad theology?
Also, I saw this related conversation that seemed rather interesting:
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/liturgical-gangstas-15-that-evolution-question