Each researcher accepts that there is no God. I will accept that to some extent.
Do as you please in regard to their beliefs. They are not relevant. What is relevant is the evidence, their interpretation of the evidence and the provisional conclusions they form based on the evidence.
Each researcher accepts that there is no God. I will accept that to some extent. Actually many of them had doubts long before and many more are having doubts now. Many of them like me are converting from Atheism. We don't know what to do. We don't necessarily want to go to religion we don't even like the idea of God but we know the science and we are not afraid and will not back down. So now what? Well that is something different.
This reads like waffle. When I make a determined effort to extract meaning I get this from you:
"
I don't know. Things are all mixed up. Science is trying to tell us something. Yeah, maybe there is a God. I know lots of scientists feel this way."
It that is not approximately what you are trying to say then you need to work on your writing skills.
Meanwhile, your references to the thoughts of other scientists looks like projection to me.
But as far as the claim you made that everyone accepts evolution its a bit more complex then you think when it comes down to the people that are actually doing the work.
They do not all accept what you think of as evolution. They have many debates about this or publish peer reviewed papers where they will call into question different problems. Like the Molecular clock connecting to the Deep Divergence or the probability of the math behind a new protein fold. And then they begin to question the entire theory itself. They begin to question something key like common descent.
What if I told you that some scientists are now questioning that?
Do ... wait ... just stop for a second ... process that.... this is big.
If we do not have common descent or universal decent its over in my mind and in others. But at the very least without common decent we have a serious problem with the fundamentals of the operating system in the first place.
Darwin would have said the same.
Really. I believe I have a reasonable idea of what the scientists doing evolution research are doing. I did a quick check of my library data base and I see I have in excess of one hundred books related to evolution and a further 300+research papers on one or other aspect. In none of these do I see what you see.
Of course, there is debate that is the nature of science. Of course theories get modified. That is the nature of science. But evolutionary theory is being strengthed by the debate and the modificaitons. Tomorrow, some researcher may come up with rabbits in the Cambrian and we shall have a true Khunian paradigm shift, but not today. Not on the current evidence.
As to common descent, some researchers have looked to see if they could find evidence that life arose multiple times. The last time I looked the conclusion, based on gene analysis, was it had not, or if it had only one strain had survived. Around a decade ago another team concluded, I think using Bayesian analysis, that almost certainly life arose multiple times, but that only one strain survived. [I'd love to give you citations, but neither paper interested me enough to take a copy.]
I share the view that we may well find, in some obscure environment, a lifeform that arose independently from all other life on Earth. That would have fascinating implications for anyone running the Drake equation, but it wouldn't do anything much to evolutionary theory.
The importance of hybridisation is, I think, being given more weight, but again that does nothing to the fundamentals. Oh, look! The Tree of Life is more like an intertwined, self-grafting bush than a tree. Quel suprise!
