Is it possible to believe in God and Darwin?

[Soph0571]

For some their beliefs are hardcore and the juxtaposition between faith and evolution is one that will never be considered. For young earth Creationists the theory of evolution is in and of itself an attack on God, they believe it is the pagan religion for the modern day, they deny that evolutionary theory is even a possibility. For others Darwin is seen as one of our great thinkers. That it can be said with certainty that the world was not created in 6 days. For many treating creationism as fact is to perpetuate superstition and fundamentally it is in no way compatible with the proven science of evolution.
Others argue that the natural world shows elements of design. That being the case, Darwinism cannot be the whole story. That too much emphasis has been placed on a theory that cannot explain the complexities of the world.
Is it true that any logical scientist would find it difficult to believe in God at the same time as Darwin? Some Christian scientists do believe in both. They believe that God created slowly through the big bang and through a long-sustained process.
So, is it possible to believe in God and Darwin?
Does it matter if a Christian chooses the teachings of the Bible over a scientific theory?
Can a hybrid accounting of the two theories help people rationalise their faith with science?

[Blues Heron]

1. No prob - god just gets pushed back "before" the science in question

They've located Him somewhere out beyond the big bang at this point - zillions of light-years away and eons ago. apparently he farted out the universe at some point and the rest is history.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Darwin's views on religion changed over the course of his life;

he eventually described himself as (more or less) agnostic.

We know that Darwin had not a shred of doubt about the power of natural selection to modify and transmute species. The questions were in the details of how it operated. Darwin’s correspondence shows that his religious beliefs changed substantially over the course of this life, and that they never reached a fixed position. His agnosticism should be understood as a state of genuine uncertainty regarding the existence and nature of God. Darwin’s unwillingness to pronounce on religious matters stemmed from his strongly held view that science and religion rest on different foundations and forms of evidence, and that his scientific expertise, no matter how extensive, did not make him a religious authority. Running right through his early discussions on religion and science with Emma, to his publications on evolution, and later correspondence with clergymen and enquiring readers, is an agreed commitment to the practice of conscientious doubt and critical inquiry in both science and religion.

https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/commentary/religion/what-did-darwin-believe

[MineralMan]

3. Well, the Roman Catholic Church finally accepted evolution

as the way species emerged over time. I assume they think it's God's work, too.

It's possible to believe both, no doubt. Many do, in one way or another. Many do not, too.

It's impossible for me to believe in deities, given science, though. Science is evidence-based. Religion, for the most part, is based on faith, rather than evidence. Since there is no physical evidence of deities, there's no other way to believe they exist, except through faith. It's not a convincing argument for me, though, at all.

So, I believe what evidence shows to be real, and disbelieve in anything that has no evidence. Seems reasonable to me.

[Igel]

4. Yeah.

Some groups have a worked out (okay, marginally, preliminarily sketched out) version called "Intelligent design."

Mostly the two sets of constraints on thinking and attitudes engage in parallel play.

[trotsky]

10. It is interesting you are calling the theory of evolution a "constraint on thinking."

Evidently you don't understand how science works. Or you just want to do some "both sidesism."

[MineralMan]

5. My Bronze Age Documents Refute Your Research, Sir.

I reject your evidence, your so-called evidence and facts, along with your audacity in challenging my Bronze Age Scripture!

So there!

[edhopper]

6. One does not "believe" in Darwin and evolution

One accepts it a settled science.

They is overwhelming evidence for it and to deny it is foolish and ignorant.

God on the other hand...

[Pope George Ringo II]

7. I do see one particular problem with some theological arguments, though

Evolution means no Original Sin (TM). There are some plot holes which develop very quickly without Original Sin (TM) as a source of some actions...

[Voltaire2]

9. It all gets pushed into the metaphor allegory canal.

Seriously the Big Book of Gibberish is fully malleable, there is no problem reworking interpretations to fit with uncomfortable realities like Darwin’s theory.

[Iggo]

8. Evolution works whether or not there's a god.

So...knock yourself out.