Why Do Most Evolutionist Not Want Science and Religion to Work Hand-In-Hand?

Question

How could all these scientist be wrong about a God/Creator of the universe: Francis Bacon (founder of modern science), and so many mathemeticians - Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Blaise Pascal, Bernhard Reimann, Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes, Gregor Mendel (laid mathematical foundation for genetics!) and Max Planck (quantum physics). One would think that such exacting minds would not have followed religious beliefs without scientific or logical evidence as that was their mindset. And yet they still believed in a God/Creator...

So - why couldn't evolution and creation be compatible in some way?

Answer 1

There is nothing in evolution that is incompatible with God. My guess is that you have been deceived by "Discovery Institute" propagandists who are attempting to paint evolution as atheism so that they can turn the evolution controversy in to existence of God vs. the non-existence of God (look up the "wedge strategy" on wikipedia).

Science has nothing to say about Religion, any religion. Matters of God are outside of Science by definition. And many scientists are religious. It is perfectly ok for religions to say that God created us through evolution.

Answer 2

Creationism IS NOT SCIENCE. There is nothing wrong with being a scientific person who has religious beliefs, but when it comes to the nuts-and-bolts part of science, there is no place for religion. Religious beliefs cannot be tested scientifically and cannot be seriously used to validate science. It's not that we don't want science and religion to work hand-in-hand. It's just that the two things are mutually exclusive. Teaching creationism (which is religion, or at the very least, philosophy) in a science class is much akin to teaching auto mechanics in an art class.

Answer 3

The study of evolution is based on facts and evidence. All science is. Anything not based on facts or evidence is, by definition, not science. And don't tell me about any of that "intelligent design" stuff...it has all been refuted by proper scientists.

Therefore: no evidence => not science.

Oh, and keep in mind that a list of reputable scientists that do not believe in god would be approximately 1000 times as long as the most comprehensive list possible of reputable scientists that believe in god.



Edit:
@azar: no way! Darwin wasn't an atheist. Nobody was trying to disprove religion due to atheistic backgrounds. It is a neccessary conclusion when you study evolution. The reason people study evolution is the same reason people study...say...quantum mechanics. To understand the way nature works! Not to be atheistic.

Answer 4

First of all, all those people you mentioned lived in a time before it was socially acceptable to disbelieve in gods.

Newton for example, had secret writings in which he denied the Trinity, even though he would never publicly admit it for fear of the social damage or possible physical harm it would bring upon him. I suspect that at least some of those did not believe in a deity, but could never publicly admit it.

Also, most of those you mentioned lived before Darwin's theory was popularized.

I do think creation and evolution could be compatible..if it weren't for the plain wording of the religious texts.

I disbelieve in deities because there is no evidence for anything that exists independent of nature. You could take away all of science and I still wouldn't believe in deities. It is a philosophical position. I am against religion for a plethora of reasons..only a few of which have to do with the retardation of science.

Answer 5

If by "creation" you mean the Biblical account, it's really quite simple:

The Bible says the Earth was created first, then the Sun, the firmament (all the other stars).

Cosmic evolution puts that idea to nonsense: It's basic physics and chemistry. No element more complex than helium could have formed in first generation stars. All heavier elements were formed billions of years later in 2nd and 3rd generation stars from the nuclear debris of those first stars.

Simple, the stars came first. Our star came second and the Earth came third.

The exact opposite of the Biblical account.

And, there's no question in science about this order. As I said, there's absolutely NO WAY it could have been otherwise.

Answer 6

cuz then their theories would be disproved. did you know that evolution is religion. i quote from creation magazine "evolutionism is not merely an endorsement of the scientifiv theory of evolution. it consists of "the whole metaphysical and ideological picture built aroung or on evolution including a belief in progress and attempts to reduce cultural and ethical values to evolutionary bilogy" as such, it constitutes a secular religion"
so we cannot consider evolution to be a science. besides the big bang theory and other have flaws in them and some evolutionary evidence are forged.
evolution and creation can't be compatible because its not a science-religion battle, its a religion-religion battle. real science has nothing to do with evolution.

Answer 7

Science doesn't need any sort of religion to function. Are you sure all of those scientists believed in a god? You should list your sources for that info. If your source was a christian website then it's biased to say the least.

Answer 8

i've got worked in a laboratory that replicated the dissimilar Rice and Salt experiments, and that i've got individually bred small birds and witnessed the exchange interior the relative frequency of alleles interior the inhabitants of my flock over the years... So, sure, i've got had a lot of journey in witnessing evolution, alongside with issues as mundane because of the fact the certainty that powdery mould has led to my field of mixed monarda now in simple terms having one rigidity... i'm no longer an atheist, yet i think of once you're saying "evolution" you do no longer advise what we scientists advise- the exchange in relative frequency of alleles in a inhabitants over the years. tell me, the place did you get your definition, from examining or because of the fact somebody "pronounced this" and somebody "pronounced that." Edit: You pronounced ". For evolution to be actual they could could desire to be fullyyt different from their mum and dad." this could be a lie. Evolution says no such factor. Why are you making up definitions of evolution? are not your factors of view good sufficient to stand on their advantages without mendacity approximately what your alleged combatants declare? Edit: Kiddo, in the experience that your textbook does not say that evolution is the exchange in relative frequency of alleles in a inhabitants over the years, or a definition meaning precisely THAT, then sure, your textbook is incorrect, sorry. perchance you ought to grant the call and ISBN# of your textbook, and a internet site could help, too, so we are able to evaluate your claims? and additionally you be attentive to what? once you have been in simple terms a pair of cells you have been rather a lot indistinguishable from a fish, and it took 1000's of divisions beforehand absolutely everyone using a microscope ought to've informed the variation. i will wait on that e book identify and internet site variety, yet i'm hoping you will understand if i do no longer carry my breath?

Answer 9

I would have thought the beleivers would have in corporated some evolution into their bibles by now,it would give religion a thread of credability.
science and fiction= science fiction.

Answer 10

It can be , the only thing getting in the way is all this Jesus stuff and the bible , abolish that and then you could look at the whole thing again in modern terms,