Science and God

What you'll learn

Explain why modern science grew out of a theistic worldview, with examples from Kepler, Boyle and Newton
Distinguish a 'God of the gaps' argument from John Lennox's 'God of the whole show' and use the distinction in conversation
State the non-negotiables of creation, including the special creation of Adam and Eve, and discuss the age of the earth charitably as an in-house debate

The myth of perpetual war

Many people assume science and religion have always been at war, with Galileo as the standard example. Historians of science largely reject this 'conflict thesis'. The Galileo affair was real, but it involved church politics, personalities and the scientific establishment of the day as much as theology. The broader story is very different.

Oxford mathematician John Lennox, in God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? and Can Science Explain Everything?, argues that the real conflict is not between science and God but between two worldviews, naturalism and theism, and that science sits more comfortably in the second. That reframing is your starting point in most conversations.

According to John Lennox, where does the real conflict lie, if not between science and God?Show answer

Lennox argues the real conflict is between two worldviews, naturalism and theism, not between science and God. Science sits more comfortably within theism. Historians largely reject the 'conflict thesis', and even the Galileo affair involved church politics, personalities and the scientific establishment as much as theology.

Naturalism vs theism
Science fits theism better
Conflict thesis rejected by historians

Science grew in theistic soil

Why did modern science flourish in Christian Europe? Its pioneers believed the universe was made by a rational Lawgiver, so it would have orderly, discoverable laws. They also believed creation was not divine (so it could be studied, not worshipped) and that the human mind bore God's image (so it could understand creation).

Johannes Kepler, who discovered the laws of planetary motion, is often credited with describing science as thinking God's thoughts after him. Robert Boyle, a founder of modern chemistry, was a devout Christian who left money in his will for lectures defending Christianity (the Boyle Lectures). Isaac Newton wrote in the General Scholium of his Principia that the elegant system of sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. Faraday, Maxwell and Mendel stand in the same line.

This does not prove Christianity true. It does show that the claim 'science has disproved God' gets history backwards. The founders believed science was possible precisely because God exists.

Why did the pioneers of modern science think science was possible? Give the three beliefs the section names.Show answer

They believed the universe was made by a rational Lawgiver, so it would have orderly, discoverable laws. They believed creation was not divine, so it could be studied rather than worshipped. And they believed the human mind bore God's image, so it could understand creation.

Rational Lawgiver means orderly laws
Creation not divine, so studied
Mind in God's image can understand

God of the gaps or God of the whole show?

A God of the gaps argument says: 'We cannot explain X scientifically, so God did it.' The danger is obvious: when science explains X, God appears to shrink. Atheists rightly reject this, and Christians should not rely on it.

Lennox offers a better picture. Explanations come at different levels. Ask why a kettle is boiling: one answer is physics (heat energy agitates water molecules); another is personal ('because I want a cup of tea'). Both are true and do not compete. Lennox's well-known illustration is a car engine: understanding internal combustion does not mean Henry Ford did not exist. God is not a rival mechanism inside the universe; he is the author of the whole show, including the laws science describes. The more we understand those laws, the more reason we have to marvel at the Lawgiver.

This is also why some arguments are not 'gap' arguments at all. Asking why there are laws of nature, why they are mathematically intelligible, and why the universe began are questions science itself cannot answer because science assumes those things in order to work.

A related argument is fine-tuning (you met it in Foundations of Defence, Lesson 3): physical constants, such as the strength of gravity and the cosmological constant, fall within narrow ranges that permit life. Lennox discusses this at length. Atheists often respond with the multiverse hypothesis; note fairly that it is speculative and that it simply moves the fine-tuning question back a level.

What is the difference between a 'God of the gaps' argument and Lennox's 'levels of explanation'?Show answer

A God of the gaps argument says we cannot explain something scientifically, so God did it, and God shrinks when science fills the gap. Lennox instead says explanations work at different levels that do not compete, like physics and personal purpose for a boiling kettle, or engine mechanics and Henry Ford. God is not a rival mechanism inside the universe but the author of the whole show, including the laws science describes.

Gaps: God shrinks as science grows
Different levels don't compete
Kettle or Ford illustration
God authors the laws themselves

How would you present the fine-tuning argument fairly, including the multiverse reply?Show answer

Physical constants such as the strength of gravity and the cosmological constant fall within narrow ranges that permit life. Atheists often respond with the multiverse hypothesis. You should note fairly that it is speculative and simply moves the fine-tuning question back a level.

Constants in narrow life-permitting ranges
Multiverse is the common reply
Speculative, moves question back

Creation: what is in-house and what is not

Christians who hold a high view of Scripture differ on the age of the earth and the length of the days in Genesis 1. Young-earth creationists read the days as six ordinary days, a few thousand years ago. This was the conviction of John MacArthur (1939-2025; The Battle for the Beginning) and is held by Ken Ham and many presuppositionalists, including Jeff Durbin, and it rests on careful reading of the text, not on hostility to science. Old-earth views include the day-age view, the framework view (associated with Meredith Kline) and C. John Collins's 'analogical days'. The Westminster Confession 4.1 and the 1689 Baptist Confession 4.1 say God created 'in the space of six days', and Reformed people debate what that requires. This is an in-house debate: believers on both sides confess the same Creator, the same Bible and the same gospel.

Some things are not open questions. The non-negotiables are: God created everything from nothing; God specially created Adam from the dust of the ground and Eve from Adam (Genesis 2:7, 21-22), in his image, as real historical people, not descended from earlier hominids; and sin and death entered the world through Adam's real, historical fall (Romans 5:12-19). Paul's gospel rests on this: as sin came through one man, so righteousness and life come through one man, Jesus Christ. (You met Adam as the covenant head of the human race in Know Your Faith, Lesson 5.)

Where you discuss evolution, distinguish its senses. (1) Change over time within living populations (variation and adaptation) is uncontroversial. (2) Common descent is the idea that living things share ancestors. Christians differ over how far this goes in the animal world; some older Reformed theologians, notably B.B. Warfield, were open to forms of evolutionary development under God's providence. But human common descent from earlier hominids is not a neutral option. It sits in tension with Genesis 2:7 and Romans 5:12-19, and confessional Reformed churches reject it (for example, the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Synod in 2012 formally denied that Adam and Eve descended from other life forms). This course holds that conviction. (3) Blind, unguided evolution as a complete explanation of everything is a philosophical claim, not a scientific finding, and Christians reject it.

Here is the key skill: do not make your view on the age of the earth the hill your friend has to climb first. You can say honestly: 'Christians disagree about the age of the earth. What we agree on is that the universe had a beginning and a Creator, and that the first humans were made by him, not by chance. Let's talk about that.' Being charitable about the days of Genesis is not the same as being vague about Adam.

Australian Christians often meet this question at school, where evolution is taught as settled science and creation may be treated as a religious myth. Whatever your own view of the days, you can help students and friends see that the real dividing line is not between 'science' and 'faith' but between a world with a Creator and a world without one. Keep returning to that main question, and resist being pulled into a technical argument you are not equipped to settle in a five-minute chat.

Example: A colleague asks about the age of the earth

Colleague: So do you actually think the earth is six thousand years old?

You: Christians who take the Bible seriously differ on that. Some read the days of Genesis as ordinary days and hold a young earth; others read them differently and accept an old earth. I can tell you where I land, but can I tell you what all of us agree on first?

Colleague: Go on.

You: That the universe had a beginning, that God made it from nothing, and that we're not an accident. And that the first humans, Adam and Eve, were real people God made in his image.

Colleague: Hang on. Even the old-earth people believe in a literal Adam?

You: Many do, and the historic Reformed confessions teach it. It matters because the Bible's whole story runs through two men: sin came into the world through Adam, and rescue comes through Jesus. If Adam is a myth, that story falls apart.

Colleague: I've never heard it put that way.

You: Most people think the argument is 'science versus the Bible'. I think the real question is whether there's a Creator who made us and who has come after us in Jesus. That's the one I'd most like to talk about.

Which creation questions does the section treat as in-house, and which as non-negotiable? Why should the age of the earth not be the first hill?Show answer

The age of the earth and the length of the Genesis days are in-house: young-earth believers such as John MacArthur, Ken Ham and Jeff Durbin, and old-earth views (day-age, framework, analogical days), all confess the same Creator and gospel. The non-negotiables are creation from nothing, the special creation of Adam from dust and Eve from Adam as real people in God's image with no descent from earlier hominids, and a historical fall through which sin entered (Romans 5:12-19). Because believers differ on the age of the earth, you should not make your view of it the hill your friend must climb first; focus on the Creator.

Age of earth and days: in-house
Named young- and old-earth views
Creation from nothing; special creation of Adam and Eve; historical fall
Do not make the age of the earth the first hill

Explain the three senses of 'evolution', and why human common descent is not treated as a neutral option.Show answer

Evolution can mean change over time within populations, which is uncontroversial; common descent, where Christians differ over how far it goes in the animal world; or blind, unguided evolution as a complete explanation, a philosophical claim Christians reject. Human common descent from earlier hominids sits in tension with Genesis 2:7, where God forms Adam from dust, and Romans 5:12-19, where sin and righteousness come through one man. Confessional Reformed churches reject it, and the course holds that conviction.

Change over time: uncontroversial
Common descent in animals: Christians differ
Unguided evolution as total explanation: rejected
Human common descent conflicts with Genesis 2:7 and Romans 5:12-19

The origin of life

Even if evolution explained the diversity of life, it cannot explain the origin of life, because natural selection needs self-replicating organisms to work on. The 1950s Miller-Urey experiment produced some amino acids, but the leap from simple chemicals to a living cell with DNA, an information-processing system, remains unexplained. Researchers propose models such as the 'RNA world', and you should represent them fairly, but no consensus explanation exists.

Lennox and Stephen Meyer (Signature in the Cell) stress that DNA carries coded information, and in every case where we know the source of coded information, it comes from a mind. Be careful: this is an inference to the best explanation, not a gap argument. It argues from what we do know about information, not from what we don't know about chemistry.

Why is the argument from DNA's coded information not a 'God of the gaps' argument?Show answer

It argues from what we do know, not from what we don't know about chemistry. DNA carries coded information, and in every case where we know the source of coded information, it comes from a mind. That makes it an inference to the best explanation. Natural selection also cannot explain the origin of life, since it needs self-replicating organisms to work on.

DNA carries coded information
Known sources of code are minds
Inference to best explanation
Selection needs replicators first

In their own words

“Science and religion are fundamentally incompatible: science is based on evidence, religion on faith, which means belief without evidence.” (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (2006); Jerry Coyne, Faith Versus Fact (2015))

“Every time religion has offered an explanation for a natural phenomenon, science has eventually replaced it with a better one. God is just a placeholder for ignorance.” (Common 'God of the gaps' objection; Neil deGrasse Tyson's lectures on the 'receding pocket of scientific ignorance')

“If God designed everything, who designed God? A designer complex enough to make the universe would be even more improbable.” (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, ch. 4 ('The Ultimate Boeing 747'))

“Evolution by natural selection explains the appearance of design without any designer.” (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986))

Key texts

Genesis 1:1: God created all things: the non-negotiable that unites Christians across creation views. Start here, not with the length of the days.
Psalm 19:1-4: The heavens declare God's glory. Nature is a book that speaks; science reads it.
Romans 1:20: God's power and divine nature are clearly seen in creation, so design is not a gap argument but a universal perception.
Colossians 1:16-17: All things were created through Christ and 'in him all things hold together'. God is the sustainer of natural law, not an occasional interrupter of it.
Hebrews 11:3: The universe was made by the word of God, so the visible came from the invisible. Fits a universe with a beginning.
Proverbs 25:2: 'The glory of kings is to search things out.' A biblical warrant for scientific curiosity.
Genesis 2:7; Romans 5:12-19: God formed the man from the dust, and Paul builds the gospel on 'one man' through whom sin came and 'one man' through whom grace comes. The reason a historical Adam, specially created, is non-negotiable.

Objections and answers

Try answering each one yourself before you open the response.

“Who designed the designer? Your explanation just pushes the problem back.”Show a response

That objection assumes an explanation is only valid if we can explain the explanation. Archaeologists who find pottery rightly infer human makers without first explaining where the humans came from. More importantly, Christians do not claim God is a complex physical system that came into being. He is the eternal, uncaused ground of everything that exists. Something must be uncaused, otherwise we face an infinite regress. The only question is what: an eternal mind, or eternal, mindless matter? Given that the universe had a beginning and is finely tuned and intelligible, an eternal mind is the better candidate. Dawkins is asking 'who made God?' as if God were one more object in the universe. The Christian God is not.

“Science has explained everything that religion used to explain. God is just a God of the gaps.”Show a response

I agree that a God of the gaps is a bad idea, and Christians should not argue that way. But the God of the Bible was never a gap-filler. He is the author of the whole system, including the laws science studies. Knowing how a car engine works does not disprove Henry Ford. Science explains how nature behaves; it cannot explain why there is a nature, why it obeys mathematical laws, or why our minds can grasp them. Science assumes those things to get started. The founders of modern science, like Kepler, Boyle and Newton, believed in law because they believed in a Lawgiver. So the more science explains, the more I admire God, not less.

“You Christians can't even agree on whether the earth is six thousand or four billion years old. Why should I trust any of you?”Show a response

That's a fair observation, and honestly it is a sign that Christians actually wrestle with both Scripture and evidence rather than just following a party line. Scientists disagree on major questions too, without anyone concluding that science is worthless. What every historic Christian agrees on is the big claim: the universe had a beginning, it was created by God, and the first humans, Adam and Eve, were specially made in his image. That is the claim that actually matters for your life. Whether the days of Genesis are 24 hours or not, the question I'd love to explore with you is whether the universe has a Creator who made you and wants to know you.

“The origin of life will be explained soon. Saying 'God did it' is a science stopper.”Show a response

Researchers may well discover more about early chemistry, and I'm genuinely interested in that work. But my argument is not 'we don't know, so God did it'. It is 'we do know something': DNA is a coded information system, and in every case where we know the source of coded information, it comes from intelligence. That is reasoning from what we know, which is how science works. Nor is belief in God a science stopper. Newton believed God governed the universe, and it drove him to study it more, not less. If anything, belief that the world is rationally designed is what makes science worth doing.

“Look at Galileo. The church has always fought science. Religion and science are enemies.”Show a response

Galileo is the standard example, and the affair was real. But historians of science largely reject the idea that science and religion have always been at war. The Galileo case involved church politics, clashing personalities and the scientific establishment of the day as much as theology. And Galileo himself was a believer, not an atheist fighting the church. Step back and the bigger story looks very different: Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell and Mendel were Christians who studied nature because they believed a rational God made an orderly world. That conviction is part of why modern science flourished where it did. So the real conflict isn't science against God. It's between two worldviews, naturalism and theism, and science fits more comfortably in the second.

“Fine-tuning is no mystery. If there are countless universes, one like ours was bound to turn up, and of course we find ourselves in it.”Show a response

That's the most common reply, and I take it seriously. But notice a couple of things. First, the multiverse is speculative; it isn't something we have observed, so it's a philosophical proposal rather than an established result. Second, it doesn't remove the question, it moves it back a level. Whatever produces all those universes would itself need laws and conditions to work, and we'd want to know why those exist and are so orderly. Science assumes there are laws, that they're mathematically intelligible and that our minds can grasp them; it can't explain why. So I'm not saying, 'We don't know, therefore God.' I'm saying a rational Creator explains why there is an orderly, life-permitting cosmos at all, at every level.

Written task

A Year 11 student asks you after class: 'My biology teacher says evolution proves we don't need God. Is that true?' Write a 250-400 word response suitable for a thoughtful teenager. Include: the history of science and faith, the God of the gaps vs God of the whole show distinction, an honest acknowledgement that Christians hold different views on the age of the earth, and a pointer to the central question of who made the universe and why.

Hand this in to Mr Scott. He will look for:

Uses at least one accurate historical example (Kepler, Boyle, Newton or similar)
Clearly explains why 'how' explanations do not rule out a 'who' explanation
Distinguishes senses of 'evolution' or separates mechanism from worldview
Treats young-earth and old-earth views fairly as an in-house debate without making either a test of faith, while affirming the special creation of Adam and Eve
Pitched at the right level for a teenager and ends with a personal, gospel-pointing question