• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Scientists Who Believe in a Creator, and Why.

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I have to disagree here. "By chance" is a statement referring to something occurring without design; something occurs that was not planned.

I strongly disagree here. When the temperature drops and water freezes, that is not 'by chance', even if nobody intended it to happen. It happens by the laws of nature, which are not random.

Saying that something happens 'by chance' implies a random component that is very often NOT present in the real world.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
I strongly disagree here. When the temperature drops and water freezes, that is not 'by chance', even if nobody intended it to happen. It happens by the laws of nature, which are not random.

Saying that something happens 'by chance' implies a random component that is very often NOT present in the real world.

Which suggests that within the ordered structure of the universe, the concept of "chance" itself only fits within the context in which it is being used. In this case, something not planned or designed.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Which suggests that within the ordered structure of the universe, the concept of "chance" itself only fits within the context in which it is being used. In this case, something not planned or designed.
Chance is part of the 'design'. It's the part that generates possibility, while limitation culls the possible down to the probable, and actuality does the rest.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Chance is part of the 'design'. It's the part that generates possibility, while limitation culls the possible down to the probable, and actuality does the rest.
Quite.

As I have probably mentioned before in other contexts, I was powerfully struck at university by statistical thermodynamics, by which random behaviour at the atomic scale leads, via the constraints of the laws of nature, to many of the well-defined macro properties of bulk matter.

Order thus arises, naturally, out of apparent chaos, due the constraints of these "laws", which order the behaviour into statistically non-random patterns.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Which suggests that within the ordered structure of the universe, the concept of "chance" itself only fits within the context in which it is being used. In this case, something not planned or designed.

But then, saying something can't happen 'by chance' is making a claim that it can't happen through the laws of the universe except by the intervention of some intelligence. Which means that those making this argument are simply begging the question.

Is it possible for the ordered structures of the universe to occur via the orderly application of the orderly laws of nature without some external intelligent guidance? That is the question, right?
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I thought this was informative. It just doesn’t give their names, but each one explains why they believe in a Creator.
None are YEC’s....I felt it necessary to point that out.
Its a positive post, recognizing the age of the Earth. The JW's on RF are able to avoid at least one of the problems that some other groups have, because they aren't as preacher centric. They seem aware that Science is not the enemy. Maybe they aren't as worried they will lose constituents over the date of the Earth, and they seem to have a conscience about the environment, too. Earth is old, and it does have to be cared for. Young people should not feel torn between studying Science and studying religion. I think its mainly short sighted preachers who feel threatened by the old earth discovery and pass this concern on to their lay people. The subject is often treated like a hot potato, like its a threat; like the preacher can't deal with the new information and is backed into a corner. They also don't want to tell people that there has been a misunderstanding about Genesis. We've got presenters invited by preachers to speak in churches to talk about how scary the scientists are and claiming that their science exists as a tool of Satan to undermine Genesis. Science is basically treated as witchcraft. I have seen that more than once, and I think it is despicable.

I don't think that we are going to find that there is a lot of physical intervention of God into the Earth's natural process, so I disagree with the opinions in the OP on that. I think that we will always wonder about the supernatural and the mysterious. I think anything is possible; but I think evolutionary processes are fairly discovered and not an invention. As for abiogenesis nobody can yet show how the first cell appears, and I doubt we will ever know this in our lifetimes, possibly never. Someday people may simulate possible abiogenesis events and observe some in laboratories, but there will never be a telescope that can go back to see the beginnings of cellular life on Earth. The process of evolution will continue to be obvious, however. The nature of life and questions about the soul will also continue. We'll continue to wonder about supernatural events. To anyone who studies Science there will continue to be overwhelming agreement that macroevolution has occurred and is a process to be reckoned with.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Quite.

As I have probably mentioned before in other contexts, I was powerfully struck at university by statistical thermodynamics, by which random behaviour at the atomic scale leads, via the constraints of the laws of nature, to many of the well-defined macro properties of bulk matter.

Order thus arises, naturally, out of apparent chaos, due the constraints of these "laws", which order the behaviour into statistically non-random patterns.

I think this idea of 'order out of chaos' is one that many people find counter-intuitive.

But, if we imagine flipping a coin a million times, the fact that the number of heads is close to half a million is a *prediction from the randomness*. And, as the number of flips increases, the accuracy of the 50/50 prediction increases also.

Order, at least in some varieties, *does* come from 'chaos', in the sense of randomness with a fixed distribution.

When, in addition, we fix the ways that the basic atoms can interact, and realize that even very small samples have huge numbers of atoms interacting, the order from chaos aspect is to be *expected*. And *that* is what statistical mechanics is all about.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
But then, saying something can't happen 'by chance' is making a claim that it can't happen through the laws of the universe except by the intervention of some intelligence. Which means that those making this argument are simply begging the question.

Is it possible for the ordered structures of the universe to occur via the orderly application of the orderly laws of nature without some external intelligent guidance? That is the question, right?

For the most part, I agree with you. Our best evidence states that we have physical laws that occurred due to the conditions brought about by the Big Bang. But as much as I agree that we don't need an Intelligence behind this design (according to our best evidence), I also don't see it as unreasonable to believe so--and certainly not unintelligent or lacking sanity.

I completely understand the danger in scientists voicing these beliefs, as it gives ammunition to Creationists who can point and say "Look! Scientists say so!" and create confusion around the scientific validity of evolution and physical laws.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Scientists are human. And those critters are all individuals, with
predispositions for belief & non-belief. Emotional needs, some
perspectives, & other traits endure no matter how much science
edumacation one has.
By analogy, think of economists. Even some highly trained ones
still look at socialism, & think to themselves....
"Hey, great idea...how could it possibly go wrong!"
So I don't see religious scientists as somehow failing. They
just see existence as they do...& they're not even wrong.

Btw, I credit the radio show, Hidden Brain, with really bringing
home the complexities of how our brains behave misbehave.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
For the most part, I agree with you. Our best evidence states that we have physical laws that occurred due to the conditions brought about by the Big Bang. But as much as I agree that we don't need an Intelligence behind this design (according to our best evidence), I also don't see it as unreasonable to believe so--and certainly not unintelligent or lacking sanity.

I completely understand the danger in scientists voicing these beliefs, as it gives ammunition to Creationists who can point and say "Look! Scientists say so!" and create confusion around the scientific validity of evolution and physical laws.


And, in practice, there are a great number of active scientists that believe in a deity or deities.

When I was doing graduate work in physics, the man who was going to be my PhD advisor was a strong theist and an excellent physicist. That said, he understood and acknowledged that the universe is billions of years old, that
biological evolution occurred, and that the 'deity assumption' has no place in the discussion of the science (except, perhaps, over drinks after work).

When he was on his death bed, he said that one of the things he was looking forward to is asking God a bunch of questions.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
And, in practice, there are a great number of active scientists that believe in a deity or deities.

When I was doing graduate work in physics, the man who was going to be my PhD advisor was a strong theist and an excellent physicist. That said, he understood and acknowledged that the universe is billions of years old, that
biological evolution occurred, and that the 'deity assumption' has no place in the discussion of the science (except, perhaps, over drinks after work).

When he was on his death bed, he said that one of the things he was looking forward to is asking God a bunch of questions.

My college biology professor (an entomologist) was Mormon, but flawlessly taught evolution without bias.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I think this idea of 'order out of chaos' is one that many people find counter-intuitive.

But, if we imagine flipping a coin a million times, the fact that the number of heads is close to half a million is a *prediction from the randomness*. And, as the number of flips increases, the accuracy of the 50/50 prediction increases also.

Order, at least in some varieties, *does* come from 'chaos', in the sense of randomness with a fixed distribution.

When, in addition, we fix the ways that the basic atoms can interact, and realize that even very small samples have huge numbers of atoms interacting, the order from chaos aspect is to be *expected*. And *that* is what statistical mechanics is all about.
Indeed.

I have found myself using the example of Stat TD with creationists on various occasions. There is a natural assumption, among those who have not thought hard about it, that "order cannot come from disorder". I have even seen it stated as baldly as that, quite confidently. But it's wrong. Order does come from chaos - or at lead from randomness ("chaos" is perhaps a loaded word, meaning different things to different people).
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
I thought this was informative. It just doesn’t give their names, but each one explains why they believe in a Creator.
None are YEC’s....I felt it necessary to point that out.

“Many experts in various scientific fields perceive intelligent design in nature. They find it illogical to think that the intricate complexity of life on earth came about by chance. Hence, a number of scientists and researchers believe in a Creator.

Some of these have become Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are convinced that the God of the Bible is the Designer and Builder of the material universe. Why have they arrived at that conclusion? Awake! asked some of them. You may find their comments interesting.*

“Unfathomable Complexities of Life”

▪ WOLF-EKKEHARD LÖNNIG

PROFILE: Over the past 28 years, I have done scientific work dealing with genetic mutation in plants. For 21 of those years, I have been employed by the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, in Cologne, Germany. For almost three decades, I have also served as an elder in a Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

My empirical research in genetics and my studies of biological subjects such as physiology and morphology bring me face-to-face with the enormous and often unfathomable complexities of life. My study of these topics has reinforced my conviction that life, even the most basic forms of life, must have an intelligent origin.

The scientific community is well aware of the complexity found in life. But these fascinating facts are generally presented in a strong evolutionary context. In my mind, however, the arguments against the Bible account of creation fall apart when subjected to scientific scrutiny. I have examined such arguments over decades. After much careful study of living things and consideration of the way the laws governing the universe seem perfectly adjusted so that life on earth can exist, I am compelled to believe in a Creator.

“Everything I Observe Has a Cause”

▪ BYRON LEON MEADOWS

PROFILE: I live in the United States and work at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the field of laser physics. Presently I am involved in the development of technology to improve the ability to monitor global climate, weather, and other planetary phenomena. I am an elder in a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Kilmarnock, Virginia, area.

In my research I often work with the principles of physics. I seek to understand how and why certain things happen. In my field of study, I find clear evidence that everything I observe has a cause. I believe that it is scientifically reasonable to accept that God is the original cause of all things in nature. The laws of nature are too stable for me not to believe that they were put in place by an Organizer, a Creator.

If this conclusion is that obvious, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Might it be that evolutionists look at their evidence with presupposed conclusions? This is not unheard of among scientists. But observation, no matter how convincing, does not presuppose conclusion. For example, a person researching laser physics could insist that light is a wave, similar to a sound wave, because light often behaves like a wave. However, his conclusion would be incomplete because the evidence also indicates that light behaves as a group of particles, known as photons. Similarly, those who insist that evolution is a fact base their conclusions on only part of the evidence, and they allow their own presupposed conclusions to influence the way that they view the evidence.

I find it amazing that anyone accepts the theory of evolution as fact when evolutionary “experts” themselves argue over how it is supposed to have happened. For example, would you accept arithmetic as a proved fact if some experts said that 2 plus 2 equals 4, while other experts said it was believed to total 3 or possibly 6? If the role of science is to accept only what can be proved, tested, and reproduced, then the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor is not a scientific fact.

“Something Cannot Come From Nothing”

▪ KENNETH LLOYD TANAKA

PROFILE: I am a geologist presently employed by the U.S. Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona. For almost three decades, I have participated in scientific research in various fields of geology, including planetary geology. Dozens of my research articles and geologic maps of Mars have been published in accredited scientific journals. As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I spend about 70 hours every month promoting Bible reading.

I was taught to believe in evolution, but I could not accept that the immense energy required to form the universe could have originated without a powerful Creator. Something cannot come from nothing. I also find a strong argument in favor of a Creator in the Bible itself. This book gives numerous examples of scientific facts in my field of expertise, such as that the earth is spherical in shape and hangs “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7; Isaiah 40:22) These realities were written in the Bible long before they were proved by human investigation.

Think of the way we are made. We possess sensory perception, self-awareness, intelligent thought, communication abilities, and feelings. In particular, we can experience, appreciate, and express love. Evolution cannot explain how these wonderful human qualities came to be.

Ask yourself, ‘How reliable and credible are the sources of information used to support evolution?’ The geologic record is incomplete, complex, and confusing. Evolutionists have failed to demonstrate proposed evolutionary processes in the laboratory with the use of scientific methodologies. And while scientists generally employ good research techniques to acquire data, they are often influenced by selfish motives when interpreting their findings. Scientists have been known to promote their own thinking when the data are inconclusive or contradictory. Their careers and their own feelings of self-worth play important roles.

Both as a scientist and as a Bible student, I search for the whole truth, which reconciles all known facts and observations to reach the most accurate understanding. To me, belief in the Creator makes the most sense.

“The Obvious Design Evident in the Cell”

▪ PAULA KINCHELOE

PROFILE: I have several years of experience as a researcher in the fields of cell and molecular biology and microbiology. I am presently employed by Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. I also work as a volunteer Bible teacher in the Russian-speaking community.

As part of my education in biology, I spent four years focusing on just the cell and its components. The more I learned about DNA, RNA, proteins, and metabolic pathways, the more amazed I became with the complexity, organization, and precision involved. And while I was impressed with how much man has learned about the cell, I was even more amazed at how much there is yet to learn. The obvious design evident in the cell is one reason I believe in God.

My study of the Bible has revealed who the Creator is—namely, Jehovah God. I am convinced that he is not only an intelligent Designer but also a kind and loving Father who cares for me. The Bible explains the purpose of life and provides the hope of a happy future.

Young ones in school who are being taught evolution may be unsure of what to believe. This can be a confusing time for them. If they believe in God, this is a test of faith. But they can meet that test by examining the many amazing things in nature that surround us and by continuing to grow in knowledge of the Creator and his qualities. I have personally done this and have concluded that the Bible’s account of creation is accurate and does not conflict with true science.

“The Elegant Simplicity of the Laws”

▪ ENRIQUE HERNÁNDEZ-LEMUS

PROFILE: I am a full-time minister of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I am also a theoretical physicist working at the National University of Mexico. My current work involves finding a thermodynamically feasible explanation for the phenomenon known as the gravothermal catastrophe, which is a mechanism of star growth. I have also worked with complexity in DNA sequences.

Life is simply too complicated to have arisen by chance. For example, consider the vast amount of information contained in the DNA molecule. The mathematical probability of the random generation of a single chromosome is less than 1 in 9 trillion, an event so unlikely that it can be considered impossible. I think it is nonsense to believe that unintelligent forces could create not just a single chromosome but all the amazing complexity present in living beings.

In addition, when I study the highly complex behavior of matter, from the microscopic level to the movement of giant stellar clouds through space, I am impressed by the elegant simplicity of the laws governing their motion. To me, these laws imply more than the work of a Master Mathematician—they are like the signature of a Master Artist.

People are often surprised when I tell them that I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Sometimes they ask me how I can believe in God. Their reaction is understandable, since most religions do not encourage their believers to ask for proof of what they are taught or to research their beliefs. However, the Bible encourages us to use our “thinking ability.” (Proverbs 3:21) All the evidence of intelligent design in nature, together with evidence from the Bible, convinces me that God not only exists but is also interested in our prayers.

............................

The views presented by the experts in this article do not necessarily reflect those of their employers.

Source: Why We Believe in a Creator — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

(Article is from 2006; it changes the stats a little. For example, Dr. Lönnig now has over 40 years of plant mutagenic experience.)


Have any of them published a scientific paper which demonstrates that a god exists?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I thought this was informative. It just doesn’t give their names, but each one explains why they believe in a Creator.
None are YEC’s....I felt it necessary to point that out.

“Many experts in various scientific fields perceive intelligent design in nature. They find it illogical to think that the intricate complexity of life on earth came about by chance. Hence, a number of scientists and researchers believe in a Creator.

First, again, again, and again . . . 99% of scientists, regardless of what they believe concerning God do not believe the complexity of life came about by chance nor randomly.

Second, I lake many scientists believe in God, and consider the natural history of abiogenesis and evolution described by science is Creation by God that occurs naturally.

Your post goes down hill from here in the fundamentalist rabbit hole.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
First, again, again, and again . . . 99% of scientists, regardless of what they believe concerning God do not believe the complexity of life came about by chance nor randomly.

Second, I lake many scientists believe in God, and consider the natural history of abiogenesis and evolution described by science is Creation by God that occurs naturally.

Your post goes down hill from here in the fundamentalist rabbit hole.


"99% of scientists, regardless of what they believe concerning God do not believe the complexity of life came about by chance nor randomly."

If I may ask, if not by chance and randomly, how do 99% of scientists, regardless of what they believe concerning god, believe/accept the complexity of life came to be?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Quite.

As I have probably mentioned before in other contexts, I was powerfully struck at university by statistical thermodynamics, by which random behaviour at the atomic scale leads, via the constraints of the laws of nature, to many of the well-defined macro properties of bulk matter.

Order thus arises, naturally, out of apparent chaos, due the constraints of these "laws", which order the behaviour into statistically non-random patterns.
And so the really big question remains: what is the origin of those constraints within the chaos (chance), that create that order (predictable repetition)? Because whatever the answer to that question is, it is responsible not only for the phenomena of existence, but for the way existence, exists. ... For all that is, and for all that isn't.

I can fully understand that any scientist facing this realization would choose to call that great mystery source that is responsible for 'being', "God". Why not? That is the commonly used word for it.

But when they move from that to a religious depiction of that great mystery, they are switching to a very different line of reasoning. That's a line of reasoning that's more personal, subjective, and functionally based. It's very different from that which brought them to the acceptance of "God" as an ineffable, unknowable, mystery.
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
And so the really big question remains: what is the origin of those constraints within the chaos (chance), that create that order (predictable repetition)? Because whatever the answer to that question is, it is responsible not only for the phenomena of existence, but for the way existence, exists. ... For all that is, and for all that isn't.

I can fully understand what any scientist, facing this realization would choose to call that great mystery source that is responsible for 'being', "God". Why not? That is the commonly used word for it.

But when they move from that to a religious depiction of that great mystery, they are switching to a very different line of reasoning. That's a line of reasoning that's more personal, subjective, and functionally based. It's very different from that which brought them to the acceptance of "God" as an ineffable, unknowable, mystery.
Indeed and such types of reasoning - or feeling - are personal, subjective, aesthetic etc......and not within the terms of reference of science.
 
Top