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
Please define what you mean by "literal". I assume you mean young earth creationism, but allegorical interpretations have just as much right to be called literal. –  curiousdannii Dec 28 '14 at 1:12
This question is interesting, but of little consequence. There are great scientists on all sides of this debate, because a person's beliefs about the distant past have almost zero impact on how they do science in the laboratory. Furthermore, most scientists get their scientific "evidence" on this topic from other fields of science, not their own (because actual science has little to say about the topic.) –  Jas 3.1 Dec 28 '14 at 1:44

4 Answers 4

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

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 don't have any percentages or numbers, but there is a large number that believe in a literal historic interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative, and the number is growing all the time as more and more scientists are examining the facts for themselves and not just accepting the idea that someone in some other field of study has proven evolution and a billions-of-years timeframe to be true. As they discover that evolution is a philosophically and factually bankrupt theory, they are realizing that creation is not just a viable alternative, but actually a model that best fits the facts.

An excellent book on the subject is, "In Six Days," subtitled, "Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation." Edited by John F. Ashton - Master Books, Green Forest, AR 2005. It is the testimony of 50 scientists, with at least a PhD in a wide range of scientific fields, from several countries, who believe in a literal six creation. So, whatever the number is, it is growing.

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? :) –  Double U Sep 24 '13 at 11:03
As a Christian, you are pretty much confronted with the question "are you going to believe the Bible or the learned men of the Earth?" I would much rather believe in the Bible as it has never been wrong and when it supposedly has, it has been completely vindicated. As time passes, the Bible is proven right time and time again, but as time passes the great men of the earth are proven wrong; as was the case of Einstein and his theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity, for example. –  jlaverde Sep 24 '13 at 12:29
"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.