Question 52 – Doesn't science reject the existence of God?
"Science is built on philosophy. Indeed, science is a slave to philosophy. Bad philosophy results in bad science, and good science requires good philosophy." [1]
Such mindless-sounding questions are asked by those who are absolutely convinced of the validity of the statement that is contained in the question itself – science contradicts the truth of the Christian message. They think that anyone who would possibly want to believe in God and the Biblical message/gospel, must commit intellectual suicide.
I myself am convinced that the whole furore around science is simply a big misunderstanding. A simple misunderstanding has arisen among the regular (and sometimes even the professionals) public as to what science is and what its limits and restrictions are. Science as such and in its end result has no means of disproving or proving the existence of God. All that it can do is to describe existing reality in the sense of HOW things work. However, it does not have the means to answer the question of WHY something works (in the sense of its deeper origin). Scientists then, may explain how my body works, how specific biological processes originate, but they cannot reliably explain where my body came from, why it exists and why it works. A well-known defender of Christianity, professor of mathematics and philosophy of science at Oxford explains this reality in the illustration of Matilda and her cake:
"Imagine that my Aunt Matilda has baked a cake, and we submit it for analysis to a group of the world's top scientists. The biochemists will inform us about the structure of the proteins, fats, and so on involved in its composition; the chemists, about the elements involved; the physicists will be able to analyse the cake in terms of fundamental particles. Now we know how the cake was made and what it is made of, but suppose we now ask the scientists why the cake was made? The grin on Aunt Matilda's face shows that she knows the answer, for she made the cake. But it is surely self-evident that the best scientists in the world will not be able to tell us from their investigations why she made it. Unless she reveals the answer, they will never know. The natural sciences can cope with questions about the nature and structure of the cake, but they cannot answer the "why" question of purpose. Science has its limitations."
Science as such does not exclude God and many scientists openly confess this. For example, Dr. James Tour, a world-renowned and eminent chemist, stated the following:
"I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. My faith has been increased through my research. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." [3]
Allan Sandage, maybe the most eminent observer of the universe and cosmologist in the world stated:
"Because of this, many scientists are now driven to faith by their very work." [4]
Empirical Science versus the theory of evolution
God gave mankind the possibility to know and understand his work through science, which has brought forth rich fruit in the form of modern medicine, electricity, computers, aircraft, a greater understanding of DNA, and so on. In order to do these things, it was necessary to observe, measure, carry out many repeated experiments, make conclusions from the results, and then test them again. In this way, scientists discover how things work, what their basic characteristics are, and how they behave under certain conditions. The given conclusions are then applied to various areas of our life and through which we gain modern technology and findings that simplify our lives and make them more efficient. We can call this area of science empirical (it can also be called experimental or operational).
Neither God nor Christianity contradicts science and Christians generally/ordinarily have nothing against it. On the contrary, they accept it as a gift from God in order to know his creation and even use it as a tool to accomplish God's command to "subdue" the earth (Genesis 1:28). The findings of empirical science are even a very strong argument for God's existence for many scientists. One of these believers was even one of the most well-known personalities of science in human history, Isaac Newton. He, among others, said:
"The wonderful arrangement and harmony of the cosmos would only originate in the plan of an almighty omniscient being. This is and remains my greatest comprehension." [5]
Alongside empirical science, however, another kind of scientific research exists. It is historical science or the science of origin. Here, a truly extensive and widespread concept exists that "science" denies the existence of the Christian God. In contrast to empirical science, this type of research is radically restricted because researching past events necessarily brings with it much speculation and supposition. It is especially so with the science of the beginning of life and the world (the theory of evolution) for it is not possible to repeat it and it is necessary to go on the very restricted data that we now have at our disposal. As we will see later, it is possible to interpret the data in various ways. The origin of the universe, plants, or life was never observed by anyone. No one was there when it happened. We cannot even observe the processes or in any way test them experimentally. All conclusions concerning the past are then a form of speculation with various amounts of probability in their factuality and are in no way validated measurements based on natural laws. Disagreement between science and faith arises here on the ground of historical science where the conclusions of scientists are often encumbered by their world view, prejudice, and personal convictions. The problem with all of the confusion and misunderstanding is also because of the fact that empirical science has been exchanged with historical science (in this case history). The theory of evolution is the same as that of creationism (God as Creator), both being historical in character and connected to the empirical findings of science. Proponents of the theory of evolution, however, have managed to create a false picture and that is that the evolutionary viewpoint is based on empirical science and the creation viewpoint on faith. However, this is for many reasons nonsense. Empirical science does not have the means to discover the origin and the reason for the existence of the material world. The theory of evolution then, relies on faith in the same way that creationism does and in the same way, creationism relies on science.
Limits in understanding
Experimental science is specific in this, the results. The same results can be reached no matter where and when the experiment is done. This is the basic requirement (for example, Archimedes' Principle and Ohm's law, or the force of gravity). In the case of historical events, it is not possible to apply such principles. Another key characteristic of empirical science is the ability to observe the action that proceeds specific results. In this way, we can observe a specific process over and over again according to our need. This is not possible in the historical sciences. As I have already indicated, we cannot know the history of something, including its origin, by observing phenomena or things. We can examine a combustion engine in the greatest detail and discover its function and components, but it is impossible to discover the method and procedure of its production from this information – where and how many people were involved, and so on. It is similar to fossils. They are the result of an unrepeatable process that was completed in the past. Consequently, empirical science does not have the possibility to know the origin or reason for the process resulting in the fossil.
We need to realise that alongside the above mentioned weakness of historical science, general scientific research is not all-embracing and it has significant limitations. For example, science cannot explain itself. It does not have an answer as to why scientific laws work; it can only state that they do work (and in what way). Neither can science discern the spiritual overlap beyond our reality. It cannot define exactly and consider, for example, love, feelings, thoughts, mercy and grace, hatred, forgiveness, or the sense of beauty for instance. Science can tell you that your thoughts originated due to chemical processes in your brain, however, it can go no further. We could continue on in a similar vein. As I have already stated in question 9, a person needs faith (even a hardened atheist). This is something no one can live without and science cannot substitute for it. A dentist cannot substitute for a plumber and a dentist will hardly install or fix a tap. Many people have made a god of science without realising that science itself has many serious limits and cannot be applied to many of the serious questions of life.
How is it then?
The Christian faith and empirical science do not exclude each other. On the contrary, they complement each other. It is rather in the thought processes of sceptics and those who reject the existence of God that friction and conflict arise. Their conclusions, hypotheses, and conjectures however, are often based on shaky foundations and do not as such threaten/endanger Christianity. Science is the source of understanding the physical/material world. Faith and the Bible then, are the source of understanding the spiritual world and through which the material world is explained. The dispute between materialism and faith in God does not concern observable facts but concerns their interpretation. Therefore, it is in no way a dispute between science and faith, but between one faith/belief and another faith/belief.
"Science and religion...are friends, not foes, in the common quest for knowledge. Some people may find this surprising, for there's a feeling throughout our society that religious belief is outmoded, or downright impossible, in a scientific age. I don't agree. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if people in this so-called 'scientific age' knew a bit more about science than many of them actually do, they'd find it easier to share my views."- physicist and theologian John Polkinghorne [6]
Summation
Modern science and scientific research are not in contradiction to the existence of the Christian God. Science does not have the means to be able to pronounce with certainty the existence or non-existence of the spiritual world, miracles, or God himself. If someone claims the opposite, then he/she is missing (or ignoring) the basic facts concerning the substance and limitations of science.