Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have been thinking a lot about creation lately, and I am just curious as to whether most scientists believe the literal account or if they believe in some form of theistic evolution.

share|improve this question
Welcome to C.SE! When you get the chance, please check out how we are different than other sites and our tour page. As it stands this is an okay question, I guess. It is answerable if there's a survey or something. That said, its only vaguely about Christianity. (There are lots of Creationists who aren't Christian and lots of Christians who aren't Creationists.) That said, this is your question, so, Bravo! –  Affable Geek Sep 24 '13 at 11:45
I found this well written article. It dosen't answer the question but it does provide some well though out information. answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/… –  Jared Sep 24 '13 at 15:22

3 Answers 3

As with Eastern Orthodox Christians (which I am one of), I can tell you there are people actively promoting the idea that the Earth is actually flat (but they are few and far between). This happens especially within the Old-Style Orthodox Churches.

Others, including me, believe that God created the world no matter what, and the scientific explanation is just plausible, not necessarily true, and that's all. I believe I should focus on things that concern my salvation, rather than ponder over unessential things.

share|improve this answer

I can't find any more specific polling, but from this ongoing Gallop Poll:

Only 40% of all Americans believe in a strict Young Earth Creation model (be that Genesis or otherwise) - the majority support some form of theistic evolution or natural evolution.

When you look at those with post-graduate education, nearly 50% hold a theistic evolution view, with 25% supporting a naturalistic evolution view and only 22% supporting a young earth model.

If we take "scientists" to mean those with a post-graduate degree involved in the active study of some natural science, then it would a reasonable (though quite unscientific) assumption to say that the majority of scientists their post-graduate peers and support the evolutionary model, either from a theistic standpoint or a naturalistic one.

This obviously isn't firm evidence either way - there is some evidence that those in the natural sciences have higher rates of religious belief than those in more social sciences, but not to any extreme degree, and it would be a stretch to claim that scientists reject evolution at a higher rate than the general populace.

It's also only looking at American data, but outside of Islamic countries, you're only going to see more support for evolution.

share|improve this answer

Most believe in evolution. They believe that, yes, God literally created the Universe- via the Big Bang. For many years, atheists maintained that the Universe had NO beginning. The Big Bang theory more or less disproved this. HOW ON EARTH such groundbreaking support became a banner for atheists to rally under as 'their thing' (along with evolution)- I have no idea!

I should add that I ASSUME most Christian scientist don't take the 'seven days thing' literally as Creationists are a very small minority. I don't actually have the figures in front of me but I would be astounded beyond belief if it turned out otherwise...

share|improve this answer
So, are you going to search for the figures? :) –  Anonymous Sep 24 '13 at 11:03
Completely unsourced. By the way, Francis Collins, director of the NIH is in your very small minority. Grant you, not YEC, but he is a creationist. –  Affable Geek Sep 24 '13 at 11:52
"the sane ones" - is highly combative, please consider revising as it doesn't help your argument. Even though I share a similar viewpoint. Secondly, you should consider adding references. –  The Freemason Sep 24 '13 at 12:48
@jlaverde General Relativity isn't necessarily wrong; it's possibly incomplete. And it's not in the Bible anyway. –  Andrew Leach Sep 24 '13 at 13:20
@jlaverde: You're conflating two different ideas of truth. Science doesn't have the ability to make a metaphysical statement of the Truth of reality. Science gives us models that explain observations and predict how things will work in the future. The flat earth model explains enough for me to navigate a city. The spherical model is better, the oblate spheroid even better. None of them are "wrong", just incomplete - the only complete model of the Earth is the Earth itself. What is wrong, is assuming that a scientific model can claim to be complete. –  Eclipse Sep 25 '13 at 16:10

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.