How do TEists reconcile Einsteins response to the question of science and God

The letter currently on sale from the great scientist in my view supports the YEC claim that one cannot support the biblical view using an evolutionary secular interpretation of science…they are at odds with each other.

The letter was written in 1950, in reply to a religious teacher in the US, Martha Munk, who asked “whether you think that it is possible for a modern scientist to reconcile the idea of the creation of the world by God, a higher power, with his scientific knowledge”.

Einstein wrote: "I think, however, that the person who is more or less trained in scientific thinking is alien to the religious creation (in the original sense) of the cosmos, because he applies the standard of causal conditionality to everything.

  • In your zeal to prop up your “biblical view”, you have left the world of reason and, IMO, discouraged civil discussion.
  • If you think Einstein’s opinion of the Biblical account of creation is going to make a dent in Theological Evolutionist theology, you’re dreaming. And if you know of any theological evolutionist who is as disappointed by Einstein’s opinion as you are, you’re both dreaming.
  • First, I consider myself goofy for bothering to do this, but here’s a translation and context for the letter you refer to, but what the heck, your post caught me with time on my hands.
  • Daily article: July 23, 2023: Einstein’s letter translated.
    • Letter was sent to a religious studies teacher based in Brooklyn, New York
    • She had asked him if it was possible for a scientist to reconcile science and faith
    • "In the letter, penned in German to religious studies teacher Mrs Munk, the father of modern physics also effectively debunked the Biblical creation story and implied that God could not have created the universe.
      • 'As long as the stories in the Bible had been taken literally, it was obvious what kind of faith was expected from the readers. If you are however to interpret the Bible symbolically (metaphorically), it is not clear anymore whether God is in fact to be thought of as a person [and therefore not a monotheistic deity], which is somehow analogous to humans. In that case it is difficult to assess what remains of the faith in its original sense.
      • I think, however, that the person who is more or less trained in scientific thinking is alien to the religious creation (in the original sense) of the cosmos, because he applies the standard of causal conditionality to everything. This does not refute the religious attitude but, in a certain sense, replaces and supersedes it.’
  • For the record, I believe in the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and I think Albert Einstein’s special and general theories are balderdash, and that anybody who believes in the Biblical account of creation is misguided.
  • Here’s a Youtube with Tweedledum and Tweedledee: Bart Ehrman: Revelations about Revelation. I bet they believe in the theory of evolution, too. So, if I believe in the theory of evolution, I must be an atheist like these two knuckleheads.
1 Like

Shame you had to include YEC.

YEC is not a necessary view of the Bible.

Everything else is valid (IMO)

If you ignore YEC then the discussion is valid.

Most of the promotion of evolution on this site is secular, despite the BioLogos stance. It shunts God into the sidelines at best or removes Him altogether (His inclusion is vague to say the least)

@adamjedgar is claiming that a nontheistic evolution is incompatible with the Bible. That applies. It does not endorse a specific YEC alternative.


  • If I ignore YEC? Your ignorance is showing. Adam is a Seventh Day Adventist. SDAs don’t ignore YEC.Moreover, there is no discussion wiith or without YEC.

Ad hominem?

That is what is the contention, not the beliefs of a SDA.

God-oriented creation theory is not scientific. The contra to that is that if you are promoting a nontheistic (scientific) evolution you are denying God (and His inclusion)


You’re asking me? No more so than calling you a “Non-conformist”.

I am, and he is a SDA. Does that mean that either of our arguments are invalid? Or that agreeing at any point ratifies the underpinned belief system?

An argument has no alegience. It stands or falls on its merit.


Can any good come out of Nazareth?
Can any truth come out of YEC or SDA?

  • It means that you can’t ignore his view on YEC. But you did anyway. And I say “Foul!” Ever met an SDA who didn’t affirm YEC?

[content edited by moderator] People are not generally SDA because they affirm YEC and disapprove of Biologos and TE, they affirm YEC and disapprove of Biologos and TE because they are SDAs. I think his reference to Einstein is a red-herring. If Einstein never existed, he would probably still be an SDA, affirm YEC, and disapprove of Biologos and TE.

1 Like

But this is not about SDA or YEC. It is about whether science can accommodate God (which it can’t) and conversely whether a Christian can accomodate scientific evolution (as opposed to theistic evolution) Einstein said no.

But all you can do is rant against SDA and/or YEC.


1 Like
  • Rant? LOL! You’re funny when you’re being obtuse. One would think a Nonconformist Ranter would be more niggardly when handing out a rose and calling an eclectic Christian kettle black.

But you still refuse to address the point in question.

Apparently it is Ok to be prejudiced against a belief system and therefore refuse to even engage in discussion with them. (that is what you are saying)


Whose point? What question?

Of course it is. My Ignore list is filled with names of people whom I know that no amount of discussion will reconcile the differences between any of them and me. If no amount of discussion will change either person’s mind, what else is there to say? Compare weather in two different places? or compare the price of kumquats in Brazil and Cairo?
Unlike you seem to, not everybody enjoys repetitive contention over the same issues.

1 Like

Even if the point in question does not impinge on the differences?

That you cannot reconcile a purely scientific view of evolution with Christianity (God)

Once you insert God you leave the taught evolution.

Which brings up the rather thorny question of

Why do Christians who are scientists refuse to critcise or question scientific evolution?
(and criticise other Christians for doing so)


  • That question is so ambiguous, there are not enough hours in a day to address every possible point in question and every possible difference. Got a specific point in question and a specific difference between two specific people in mind? If so, spit it out; if not, find a more amicable curmudgeon to brow-beat.
  • I suppose, if my welfare or the welfare of my wife or dog depended on it, I might venture a guess. But since I’m not a Christian scientist, I pick my “thorny questions” differently than you.
  • My criticism of Adam’s opening question focused on his 'red-herring" attempt to create “a thorny problem” based on Einstein’s quasi-theology and Adam’s view of God. Those are two irreconcilable things. By distant analogy, suppose I showed up in your church and challenged any Nonconformist to reconcile Deepak Chopra’s response to the question of science and God.
  • My criticism of you is that you seem to believe that one’s view of how we humans got to where we are has to be reconcilable with what one believes as a Christian theist and and how one communicates in this forum.

You really would make a good YEC. Secular science, secular evolution, secular meteorology, secular cosmology, secular plumbing, secular cosmetology…

Why are they and you unable to make the distinction between science and faith, methodological naturalism vs. philosophical naturalism? Actually, we know why they can’t – they think they are being faithful to the ‘plain reading’ of Genesis, their eisegesis that ignores the ancient meanings entailed in preference for their superficial understanding, not to mention that they have to ignore the facts of physical reality. You, on the other hand, don’t have that excuse.

Exactly. Just like we remove his influence from the science of meteorology. (Do you?) It is too bad you do not know how to include God’s providence in your thinking, speaking of inclusion. It is very real and understandable to faith (think of Maggie’s wonderful sequence) as is his M.O. to anyone willing to admit the facts, but it is undetectable to science (way more than vague, to say the least ; - )!

1 Like

It would appear that you do not subscribe to either

philosophical naturalism, which claims that only natural things exist

Philosophical naturalism asserts that the natural world, as perceived by the five senses of mankind, is all there is

You are claiming that the supernatural controls nature (completely) although it is not visible (to anyone including science)

Your Divine Providence is the most extreme version of it to include control over every natural thing. And, no i do not subscribe to it. it is tantermount to Calvinistic predestination which I abhor.

I do not see God as havint the need to do what you claim. neither do I see it necessary for His providence. He has provoded a world He does not need to control its minutia.

Your friend was subject to special providence (individual attention).which, by definition is not “normal”

So, yes I understand your theology and I reject it.



I don’t understand… Why do Theistic evolutionists need to reconcile Einstein’s opinions with with anything? Since when has theistic evolution attributed any authority to Einstein over its beliefs?

One of the great things about science is that your beliefs do not matter. So there are great scientists who are Muslim, Hindu, Shinto, Taoist, and atheist as well as Christian. Why would that mean we need to reconcile the beliefs of these scientists with theistic evolution? It makes no sense at all.


Methodological naturalism does not require subscribing. It’s about methods, not philosophies, unless you have to ‘subscribe’ to following instructions. The words themselves should give you a clue. It’s about what words mean.

I’m sorry you do not believe in the God of providence – his M.O. is very cool, sometimes fun and good always results. It’s also too bad you don’t believe Proverbs 16:33.

Who says that I do not? I only reject your brand of it.

Quoting Scripture is irrelevant. We all know that Judaism supports your views and Proverbs is Jewish wisdom.

Your problem is that reality does not support your view. I have shown you that chance exists complete with scientific support. (Sceince ws enough to convince you of evolution).

Your view is only providential for the favoured few. Shame about the people dying because there is never enough rain, or in tsunamii, or hurricane or any other “natural” disaster.

If you actually read up on your view it would confirm that God has “allowed” Satan to reign and therefore relinquished the hold you claim. Now if you want to believe that Satan controls the weather, that would make more sense.

Scripture confirms Satan’s reign. Do I need to cite it?