Replies

Einstein did believe that an intellect was at the root of the order that he found in the universe.

There are many scientists who think the same way, including some I have spoken to personally. I don't see why a backing away from an ultimate creator is so necessary when men debate science. Things evolve and that could be because God created them that way.

The albino rat we used to have at university was a mutant, but ultimately a creation of God even with the mutation.

"Einstein did believe that an intellect was at the root of the order that he found in the universe."

He didn't believe in a theistic God; his *God* was best described as the laws of nature.

"There are many scientists who think the same way, including some I have spoken to personally."

I once spoke to a man who thought that the CIA was developing a new drug that would enslave all the *darkies*, as he put it.

". I don't see why a backing away from an ultimate creator is so necessary when men debate science. "

God is an untestable claim; science doesn't deal in untestable claims.

"Things evolve and that could be because God created them that way."

Absolutely. That's what most people who accept evolution feel.

"The albino rat we used to have at university was a mutant, but ultimately a creation of God even with the mutation."

We are all mutants. Everybody has a mutation.

Einstein did believe that an intellect was at the root of the order that he found in the universe.

No, he didn't. At least not in any sense similar to the way that the "ID" folks (or even the traditional creationists) mean it. See the many quotes by Einstein in this post in which he makes clear his denial of any such belief -- and his impatience with those who would misrepresent his beliefs in an attempt to claim that Einstein believed in any kind of "personal God".

There are many scientists who think the same way, including some I have spoken to personally.

Although Einstein himself is not a good example, there are indeed countless scientists -- and millions of science-literate laymen -- who feel the same way. And there's nothign wrong with that. In fact, the *majority* of American "evolutionists" are also themselves Christians.

Even Kenneth R. Miller, the biologist who was the primary witness for the plaintiffs in the "Kitzmiller v Dover" court case which (correctly) concluded that "ID" is not science and is instead a Trojan Horse for religion, is not an atheist, as many anti-evolutionists presumed, but a devout Christian who has even written a good book on reconciling religion and science.

The vast majority of people who vigorously argue that science and belief in God are necessarily at odds are the *anti-evolution creationists*, not the evolutionists.

I don't see why a backing away from an ultimate creator is so necessary when men debate science.

It isn't necessary. Nor do they.

Unfortunately, however, far too many people insist on "backing away from science" when they ponder their religion.

Things evolve and that could be because God created them that way.

Yes, of course.

"Things evolve and that could be because God created them that way."
Absolutely. That's what most people who accept evolution feel.

Many evolutionists, feel there is a natural explanation for the universe without the need for any kind of intelligent force initiating it.

I once met a man who thought that the universe just happened. Maybe he was the same guy you met who thought "the CIA was developing a new drug that would enslave all the *darkies*, as he put it."