Many scientists openly profess belief in a Creator. Granted, they may not believe in a personal God or in the Bible. Yet, they are convinced that the design evident in nature requires an intelligent Designer.

Can such scientists be dismissed as naive? Reporting on scientists who believe that intelligent design is responsible for our cosmos and life in it, a book review in The New York Times comments: “They have Ph.D.’s and occupy positions at some of the better universities. The case they make against Darwinism does not rest on the authority of Scripture; rather, it proceeds from premises that are scientific.”

The same article also notes that proponents of intelligent design “do not stake any obviously foolish claims. . . . What they deny is that the standard Darwinian theory, or any other ‘naturalistic’ theory that confines itself to mindless, mechanical causes operating gradually over time, suffices to explain the whole of life. The biological world, they contend, is rife with evidence of intelligent design​—evidence that points with near certainty to the intervention of an Intelligent Designer.”a

Such conclusions are surprisingly common among scientists. For example, a study released in 1997 revealed that 4 in 10 U.S. scientists believed in a personal God. That ratio had remained virtually unchanged since 1914, when a similar survey was made.

Understandably, in countries where a more secular spirit prevails, such as those in Europe, the ratio is lower. Yet, the British newspaper The Guardian reported that “the level of belief is highest among practitioners of the hard sciences, such as physics and geology, lower for the soft sciences, such as anthropology.” It added: “The UK has organisations such as Christians in Science.” The paper also noted that in Great Britain “church attendance among science students is proportionally much higher than for the arts.”

Still, it does seem that the majority of scientists scoff at the idea of a Creator. Such disdain exerts powerful peer pressure. Astronomer Allan Sandage observes that “there is a reluctance to reveal yourself as a believer.” Why? “The opprobrium,” he says​—the disapproval and censure from colleagues—​“is so severe.”

As a result, the scientists who dare to suggest that science is not necessarily at odds with belief in a Creator find that their voices are drowned out by more skeptical views.

To many reasoning minds, the explanation simply has to be something more than mere coincidence. John Polkinghorne, formerly a physicist at Cambridge University, concluded: “When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.”

Australian physicist Paul Davies made a similar point: “There is no doubt that many scientists are . . . scornful of the notion that there might exist a God, or even an impersonal creative principle.” He added: “Personally I do not share their scorn. . . . I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, . . . an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama.”

For example, mathematician William A. Dembski wrote that the “intelligent design” evident in “observable features of the natural world . . . can be adequately explained only by recourse to intelligent causes.” Molecular biochemist Michael Behe sums up the evidence this way: “You can be a good Catholic and believe in Darwinism. Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and believe in it.”

Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments: “A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”

Thus, after a lifetime of fruitful scientific research and work, astronomer Allan Sandage said: “It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science. It is only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence.”

[Box/Pictures on page 9]

In their own words

Many scientists unhesitatingly declare their belief in a Creator. Although some have broad and vague ideas about who God is, they still agree that the evidence points to an intelligent Designer. Note the following comments:

“As a scientist, I look at the world around me, and observe engineering mechanisms of such remarkable complexity that I am drawn to the conclusion of intelligent design being behind such complex order.”​—ANDREW MCINTOSH, MATHEMATICIAN, WALES, UNITED KINGDOM

“The complexity of nature clearly points to a Creator. Every biological and physical system, once understood, shows incredible complexity.”​—JOHN K. G. KRAMER, BIOCHEMIST, CANADA

“The order of the living world is plainly evident. It was set up by a superior Power that I personally call God. It is here that faith agrees with scientific truth. Far from contradicting it, it completes it, providing a simpler understanding of our universe.”​—JEAN DORST, BIOLOGIST, FRANCE

“I cannot imagine the universe and human life without an intelligent beginning, without a source of spiritual ‘warmth’ that lies beyond matter and its laws.”​—ANDREY DMITRIYEVICH SAKHAROV, NUCLEAR PHYSICIST, RUSSIA

“Each animal is in some way uniquely designed to suit its particular environment, and I cannot help but attribute the complexity of the design to a Creator, rather than to random evolutionary forces.”​—BOB HOSKEN, BIOCHEMIST, AUSTRALIA