Darwin believed in God. St. Thomas Aquanis worked with science. Gregor Mendel (father of genetics) was a monk. I find studying science complements my belief in God. Why is this such a hard viewpoint for people to understand?
215952
You can, this a false dicotomy that is wreaking havok on our nation and it's views of religion and science.  there is nothing to suggest that God did not use the laws of physics that he created and science later discovered to creat the universe and world we live in now.  This means God used the Big bang to make the universe, and used evolution (through devine intervention) to make life on earth, even humanity.\n    The creation story put forth in Genesis is not meant to be taken literally and anyone who does so is ignorant, and does the cause of Christianity more harm than good.  It seems likely that this story of creation is a myth ment to teach the primitive Hebrews who first recieved it, the proper relationship between Man and his God.  Remember, these people knew nothing of science so a creation story going on about expanding space-time and gene flow would mean nothing to them.\n   In fact, while science is a wonderful example of God's power and glory, the creation story is really one of the most insignificant things in the bible.  What is important is the message of love conveyed by Jesus, to 'Love your fellow human as yourself."  As long as you do this and devolop your personal relationship with God, you are doing God's will.  That is what Christianiy is about, not makeing people believe the world was created in 7 days.
10898
Because people don't want to believe in a God. I have yet to find a single person who can answer the question of why science can't have God. But other than that, people don't like to be wrong, evolution is a religion, and it is the popular opinion (which many people will follow, although this does not determine the truth of it). There is tons of evidence against evolution, and not too much for it. If you want some sources, www.trueorigin.org is a good one. There is also the Institute for Creation Research, which I can't remember the website of right now. If want lots of sources, email me. I have a huge list of them right now from the paper I just wrote on this topic. It's spiderlover128@yahoo.com.
181361
ignorance and closed-mindedness but also having been brainwashed by religious leaders. \nYour comment about science is right, in the future use the example of gailileo. How the catholic church sent him to jail for stating the earth revolved around the sun and that after 500 years they catholic church admitted to be wrong.\n\nEdit:\nTO rayna: get a clue dollface the constitution does not say we must practice religion as you are trying to imply\n\nEdit2:\nJust watch you'll have people use circular reasoning to support the idea of a god
650599
God and evolution can go hand in hand. If you believe that God created all life, then you must believe that same God created the bacteria from which all life has been scientifically suggested to have evolved from. So when you say "Life" I assume you are specifically referring to human life. Genesis tells us that God created Adam and Eve. It also says that they gave birth to 2 sons, Cain and Abel. Therefore, if you indeed believe every word in the new testament, you have to believe that incest is okay, because no other children they had are documented yet here we are today. Eve was only one female that God created. If they had more undocumented kids, which they must have under the circumstances, then a crucial part of the story was left out, but incest was still involved in order to populate the planet. I prefer to believe that I evolved from bacteria than from incestuous biblical characters, but that's just me. Many creatures in this world survive without any organs at all. They are called single cell organisms and it has been scientifically proven that they indeed have evolved over millions of years to create higher forms of life. If your religion requires you to follow every documented word blindly, then do so, but not if it means sacrificing common sense or intelligence in the process of believing what you have been programmed to believe.
104539
Well, I've never heard of Leonard Begy before, but he certainly has a point.  God and Science, or religion and science, are two different viewpoints on much of the same phenomena.  Science is necessarily materialistic in approach; God and religion are primarily non-materialistic.  Therefore, while they may be describing similar or even the same phenomena, they do so in different ways.  One is not more or less true than the other; they are not comparable.
364069
I've read and studied to limited degree some of the standard textbooks on evolution and it has not shaken my faith, but i don't claim to be an expert, but you might want to take a look at the fact that some of the writers of standard text supporting evolution have since begun to question its ability to explain the world around us... see Dean Kenyon, he didn't read the standard graduate level text "Biochemical Evolution", he wrote it, but he has since changed his view to intelligent design.  see also Stanley Salthe he wrote the widely used text "Evolutionary Biology" (1972) as far as I know he's not a christian but he recently signed a list of over 600 scientist expressing their doubts about evolution.Even among staunch evolutionist there is widespread disagreement as to how or if current theories can adequately explain the complexity and diversity of life. Don't let an oversimplified pop culture understanding of evolution mislead you into thinking the universe is understood and God has been somehow disproved/discredited or made irrelevant. Evolutionary theory has in no way proven we are here by chance. see www.wasdarwinwrong   its a good survey of pro-darwin, neo-darwin, alternative and intelligent design literature.  see also  discovery.org and reasonstobelieve.org  don't fail to examine the claims of Christ because a theory of biological origins
256740
Where most religious people think to see "proof" of God, an objective person will only see something that usually can be explained by smthg else. The point is that the average human is not much aware of modern science (like cutting edge cosmology, quantum physics, abiogenesis, and the like) and just ignore the many possibilities for other explanations alternative to "God". \n\nThere is no such thing as "scientific proof" of the existence of God. No matter what religious people say.\nWe don´t really need the "God theory" to explain things in this universe. They can be explained by more conventional means. \n\nThe problem is that science is just too young compared to culture and tradition. \nMankind, my friend, is still at its childhood, and it still loves fairytales when going to bed.
278999
I had resolved this for myself in a debate with an atheist who said he "believed" in coincidence.  I asked him where coincidence COMES FROM.  No good answer but he is looking.\nI found that science is how we go about study of how Gods' handiwork is put together and that we will only get to learn so much but not any more than is allowed.  Also, there is growing scientific evidence that events in scripture have actually occured....
280526
Wow:  Thanks for the info about the DNA.  For those readers that wondered how the world comes into being without God creating what He alone is able and willing, such info as the DNA, let alone the rest of the whole complex of Created mass and masterpieces, it rests on this issue.  You see, you think, and you understand.  OR you see, and refuse to see, you think and you refuse to think, and you refuse to understand.  Part of that matter of Free choice.  The simple fact is, what you choose to believe is also part of the gift you were given in Creation.  You believe or not, and amazing, it gives you a part in the rest of the community.  There are adequate numbers of unbelievers, that will all affirm your faithlessness, just as there are adequate numbers of believers who will affirm your believe in pagan cult, just as there are adequate numbers of believers in Islam, or Christianity or any other form religion.  Numbers however, doesnt affirm factuallity.  Flat world theorists believe it.  Round world hanging in space believe it.  Sun circling the earth believers affirm it, as do earth circling the sun believers affirm their bit of observation.  \n   Did Noach go searching for the animals?  No, the Text says, according to Moses, affirming that GOd instructed him to write, that God caused the animals to come to the ark.  Noachs job was to build it and stock it with grain and grass, as all the animals would eat vegetarian while aboard, including Noach and family.  Is that possible?  Depends on how you view and believe.  Impossible for those who refuse to believe that GOD was involved.  Possible for those that choose to believe in such miracle process or natural process.   It is all amazing, no matter what you believe.  If you believe God created, thats amazing.  From my point of view thats acceptable.  What would be more amazing is to try to figure out how all this world in all its complexity came into being without a Creator God, since it is obviously more complex than any human can contrive.  Heck,,,we cant even create a blade of grass from nothing, let alone a human eye..or the rest of a human being.\n   The story of the group of scientists who were all working on a grand assignment, to duplicate life...and one day they all agreed, they had done it.  Accomplished the grand impossible,  they had developed a life form in a petri dish.   Eureka they shouted...we did it.  We dont need GOD any more.   THEN GOD SAID :  Now, try it without anything:  No dirt, no fire, no water, no air and no petri dish.
306212
because most people see it as either an attack on god or as an attack on science. there are however a few of us who believe that the theory of god and the theory of evolution can coexist. i try to keep an open mind about things that are not yet proven or unproven to be true.
672641
Hi, EyeLoveJesus!  I like your question!  :-)   Evolution is still a theory---it is not proven 100% yet.  Science is also not stoic and unchanging---it is always flexing and changing over time and by different discoveries.  I don't agree that scientists are "desperate to disprove "god"".   Science isn't focusing on "god".  It is focusing on studying the world and universe.  :-)  Anyway....\n\nScientists tend to form different theories (not facts) from the same discovery.   It is fascinating to learn about the different theories and to decide which one likes better.   Scientists don't think alike at all.  They tend to see different things in the same objects.  :-)   There are usually heated debates and discussions among them!  ;-)\n\nFor me, I know of two different theories of how evolution might have processed:  macro evolution ("giant leaps") or micro-evolution.   I tend to take more stock in micro-evolution.  That means each generation is born with very tiny mutations that will eventually create or de-create whatever trait or physical attribute of the organism.   Macro-evolution happens when one generation is born with a completely different physical attribute that none of the species has.\n\nI hope I clarified.  I will keep an eye on this Q as I find this fascinating!  Thanks for sharing the link.  :-)
592635
Darwin didn't even know of Mendel when he first considered the origin of species, although they lived around the same time and could have compared notes if they ever met.  But thing is that they didn't meet so Darwin didn't consider evolution in terms of genetics, only in terms of natural selection and survival of the fittest.\n\nSince Mendel was the first one to study heredity in terms of genetics, then he's the sole father of genetics as a science.
525800
Darwin did just about everything, much more than just evolution. He also discovered how an atolls were formed. Gregor Mendel for genetics, Watsin and Crick for DNA, Coriolis, for the coriolis effect. If you really need to know this now, why not look it up yourself?
8345
They only briefly touched on intelligent design in my classes. mostly the focus was on evolution. \n\nPersonally i believe in a mix between the two. a hybrid if you will. i absolutely believe that God created all living creatures and specific species. i also believe that He gave all species the ability to adapt slightly to accommodate differences to their specific environment. this is what Darwin believed in as well. never did he state that he believed that man came from ape, or dinosaurs originated as fish. he believed in a hybrid, and others distorted his theories!
612407
i dunno i've ran into some people on here like that but that's true how could you explain anything. science, no science is something people use i think to jump away from the fact that god does exsist whether they like it or not. i've tried to make people beleive in god but some don't. so all you can do is beleive pray for those people. HE IS OUR SAVIOR SO WORSHIP HIM! GOD BLESS.
185522
As it seems this question has raised yet another debate, I'd like to add my 2cents. As the father of paleoboy, and a Christian, I believe I have raised my son well. Because I have not fallen into the ignorance, as I will call it, of pre-empting God. Evolution is merely a theory, man should  not be assumed to be included in this factor. In fact, there exists more questions  of man's progress than proof of any evolution. \nThe animals however, and lower life, could have been designed by God in many numerous ways. Who are we to question the means, or claim to know as to how God works? He works, as we know, in mysterious ways! Could he not have in fact, by design, created species that could evolve and adapt to earth changes, if for no other reason, to allow clues behind for the event of man to discover, to weed out those that would choose to use this information, to disprove His existence?\nTo claim we have all the answers to the mysteries of God is to fall into ignorance as Christians. I back up my son's answer, as an open, unquestioning mind as to the works of God. Paleontology is a science, based on evidence, and a great deal of theory, which is always subject to change with newly discovered evidence.
246610
An interesting point you make, and it is, indeed, true. During the scientific revolution, most of the scientists that participated in it were Christians. Isaac Newton, for example, had believed that his discoveries concerning light and universal gravitation had to do with God. Many scientists were Christians, and did not perceive science as simply an endeavour in which one attempts to legitimately answer a question. Many of these scientists were those who had viewed science as a way of understanding the mind of God. It was thought by many of these prominent scientists (Isaac Newton, Lord Kelvin, and many others) that, if one were to better understand the universe through science, they could see God in all creations and discoveries. In fact, during the scientific revolution, one scientist said that "Science is thinking God's thought's after him." This quote really embodies the basic reason for scientists' devotion to science during the revolution. God was the driving force for many of the scientists, along with interest and the spirit of inquiry.