Does science prove God?

Drinking from the same well

Does science bring us closer to or move us further from belief in God? Based on the stories of the two guests, the answer is a resounding yes! Both guests drew from the same scientific well; yet, one was intellectually hydrated, while the other remained thirsty until he drank the Living Water. The conflicting testimonies of Ewart and Halper encourage us to consider whether science is merely icing on an already well-baked metaphysical cake or an essential ingredient in the batter. 

Wikipedia defines science as “a systematic discipline that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the universe.” It encompasses both a body of work and a methodology. Atheists point out that the gaps in our understanding, which once served as a hiding place for God, are being demolished to make room for an ever-expanding scientific corpus. However, they fail to acknowledge that the method necessary to generate that knowledge involves dabbling in the dark transcendental arts of hypothesis generation and mathematical analysis. Triumphantly believing they have buried God under all their data, they forget to thank Him for handing them the shovel.

Read more:

Dawkins the Apologist

The richer meaning within a Christian vision for the future

How should we respond to church scandal?

What the Church can offer someone suffering with depression

Method or metaphysic?

The scientific method begins by observing patterns in the natural world. These patterns are broken down into their component parts and mentally reassembled into a working hypothesis. The hypothesis then undergoes rigorous testing in controlled experiments to determine whether it explains the observed physical phenomena. The data collected from those experiments is then mathematically analyzed and, if shown to be statistically significant, is reported to the broader scientific community in a research paper that allows other investigators to retest and potentially falsify its findings. Let’s examine the five parts of the scientific method: observation, hypothesis, testing, analysis, and falsification, and see if they align more closely with a theistic or atheistic worldview.

Observation

Humans find randomness boring yet are endlessly fascinated by order because order requires an explanation, and randomness does not. Our fascination stems from the intuition that there is more to the order in the world than meets the eye. Basic science devotes its resources to uncovering the mechanisms behind that order, and medical science focuses its research on what happens when that order is disrupted. In both cases, science cannot advance without recognizing an underlying order in the world, but what is order? 

Order can be defined as the arrangement of things according to specific patterns, sequences, or functions. Simply put, we detect order when a physical observation aligns with a mental template. Ewart discussed how this order has intrigued scientists over the years. 

“Scientists all down the ages have been so impressed by the order in the universe, not just here on earth, but all the way to the farthest reaches of the universe. We see the laws of physics working the same everywhere, and that’s really remarkable.” (Ewart)

Humans possess what molecular biologist and Intelligent Design advocate Douglas Axe, in his book “Undeniable,” describes as, “Universal Design Intuition,” which he defines as encounters with “tasks that we would need knowledge to accomplish,” leading to the conclusion that the observed process could “be accomplished only by someone who has that knowledge.” In other words, scientists observe phenomena such as DNA code or cellular machinery and intuitively recognize that the knowledge necessary to build them must have existed before their construction, implying a mind-directed activity. 

“Nature seems to be designed so that it works in a repeatable, rational way and that gives us a clue that there’s a mind behind it, and that’s not just an opinion from a Christian or a religious person, but lots of my atheist colleagues have also looked at the order that we see in the universe and are impressed by the indication, the suggestion that there’s a mind behind this. Actually, almost all the classical philosophers down the ages have thought of mind as being there before matter.” (Ewart)

Scientists, therefore, don’t make new discoveries but uncover ancient engineering knowledge; they don’t pen original novels but instead enter a divine library and read one more chapter from the Book of Nature.

Atheists, to avoid a divine designer, must reduce order to the outcome of a cosmic lottery. Without a designing intelligence, they are compelled to play the odds, which is unfortunate because the cards are stacked against them, and the house (of the Lord) always wins. Ironically, materialists who deny that God placed eternity in their hearts must nevertheless rely on an infinite number of chances to explain the world around them. Sadly, when one views reality as a probability calculation, life becomes a game of chance, and our only hope is that we hold the winning ticket.

Halper offered an analogy to push back on the idea that order is evidence for God. 

“Does religion really expect order? This looks a bit post-hoc to me… It’s a bit like you’ve got a dart on a board and then you draw a circle around it and go, “Bull’s eye, just where I meant to hit it”…I don’t think that order is a prediction from Christianity.” (Halper)

If he is correct, scientists are as guilty as the religious when they paint a post-hoc evolutionary order around a random mutational dart. Contrary to Halper, order is an a priori assumption for both the religious and the irreligious. The difference is that the atheist must derive their order from a roll of the dice, while the Christian relies on a divine calculation.

Neo-Darwinian evolution requires an ordered background of accurate genetic replication for random mutations to have any hope of being passed on. The materialist recognizes the absurdity of randomness alone generating biological diversity, so they rely on the questionable ability of natural selection to make good choices. Sadly, natural selection, rather than live off the fat of the genetic land, is forced to dumpster dive and sort through the genetic trash in hopes of finding a mutational morsel on which to survive. The problem with natural selection, as computer programmers intimately know, is that even when you have all the necessary hardware in place, “garbage in is still garbage out.” 

Even if considered a metaphor, the Biblical creation narrative offers a more compelling explanation for our observations in the natural world. It tells of a God hovering over a chaotic void, contemplating its cosmic potential, and then actualizing it through a series of rhetorically well-ordered speeches. It describes the creation of image bearers equipped with divine voice recognition software, who not only hear what He has spoken but are obsessed with rethinking His thoughts. As it turns out, science is meaningful only in a world where the stones cry out and not in one that is as dumb as a rock. 

The Genesis creation account not only explains our scientific fascination with the natural world but also offers a moral incentive for its study. It portrays the natural world as good parts organized in a very good ecological manner. Therefore, science not only searches for the truth but pursues its transcendental colleague, the good.

Hypothesis

Humans aren’t content to merely observe but want to comprehend and are surprised to find a universe that is willing to accommodate. This fact astonished Einstein, who famously said, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” But what is comprehension?

Comprehension consists of making observations in a clockwork universe and then taking them apart to find out what makes them tick. We look at the world and see a tapestry, our mind teases apart the threads, and then we create a mental picture of how it was woven together. Why would we see wholes and instinctively assume they were formed from parts unless we intuitively knew they had been thoughtfully assembled?

Scientists are driven by a deep desire to comprehend the order in nature through observation and then decode its operating manual in the form of a hypothesis. Atheists, however, face a challenge: without a designer, they must approach nature as if it were a Rorschach Test, reducing their hypotheses to the first thoughts that come to their minds. In contrast, a Christian hypothesis is more coherent because it begins by listening to the words God spoke into creation, reflecting on His thoughts, and then articulating them in written form. 

Testing

After making a physical observation and formulating an immaterial hypothesis, scientists take it to the laboratory to determine whether their mental suspicions align with physical reality. Testing is conducted under precise, controlled conditions to isolate variables and ensure the experiment addresses the proposed hypothesis. Testing isolates an abstract thought and determines whether it conforms to the physical world, suggesting that science requires a close relationship between immateriality and materiality. 

Atheism encounters a problem because it is impossible to step outside of materiality and make immaterial claims if one denies that the immaterial realm exists. While appealing to the mind as an emergent phenomenon, this still does not explain how matter can create an immaterial realm. In contrast, Genesis offers a more coherent explanation by using speech as a metaphor for creation. A spirit God has an idea and speaks it into physical existence; it is then heard and understood by image bearers, who can isolate the original divine thought and carefully test it in the world to see if they heard Him correctly. The beauty of the Biblical account is that it describes humans as image bearers, meaning that we have the capability, albeit limited, to rethink God’s thoughts. In other words, it takes one to know One. 

Analysis

Finally, the results are analyzed by plugging them into a mathematical equation to ensure that the data were generated by the proposed hypothesis and not by random chance. If this mathematical testing determines the results are statistically significant, then the hypothesis is confirmed. 

Mathematician and theoretical physicist Eugene Wigner elaborated on the relationship between mathematics and science in his influential article published in 1960 entitled “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.” His article highlighted the power of the immaterial realm of mathematics to explain the material world, which, for Christians, confirms their intuition that science is a match made in heaven. Materialists, on the other hand, while forced to embrace this “unreasonable effectiveness,” are compelled to consider it an unholy alliance if they wish to remain faithful to their worldview. It should be disconcerting to any atheist who believes that science is the only means to determine truth that it can only proceed if it is given an immaterial green light. 

Reporting & Falsifiability

The experimental results are then reported to the larger scientific community in a detailed research paper that carefully describes how each aspect of the scientific method was employed, allowing others to replicate it in order to validate or falsify the results. Halper emphasized that this built-in skepticism is why science is so trustworthy, in contrast to Christianity, which considers doubt an impediment to faith. 

“The Bible, at least in certain passages, really speaks against doubt…What science has really done is show us the importance of rigor, of having doubts and where people believe things without that rigor we get in trouble.” (Halper)

Halper, however, violates this sound scientific principle by declaring that evolution is absolutely true. This is a very unscientific stance given the growing concern, even among secular scientists, about the ability of mutations and natural selection to generate genetic information and biological diversity. The Royal Society addressed this problem in its 2016 meeting. Christians and atheists both need to be self-aware enough to take the dogmatic logs out of their own eyes before they attempt to remove the doctrinal specks from those with whom they disagree.  

Halper caricatures Christians as those who refuse to question their faith by cherry-picking Bible verses that criticize doubt; yet, he fails to acknowledge that Scripture is filled with books such as Lamentations, Psalms, and Job, which question God’s existence. Doubt, rather than being heretical, is canonical. 

The Jews, rather than mindlessly follow scripture, subjected it to relentless questioning in the form of Midrash. In the New Testament, as the Gospel spread, it was at risk of being criticized, altered, and appropriated by competing religious and philosophical traditions. These critiques and misappropriations, however, were not dismissed; instead, they were carefully vetted in church councils and analyzed in the writings of the early church fathers. Interestingly, much of what we know about the various heresies is derived from the writings of the church fathers, who believed that a worthy response required an accurate presentation of the opposing viewpoint. Rather than condemning doubt, the church made significant efforts to address the logical, philosophical, and theological issues related to competing perspectives.  

Christianity, unlike other religions, invites us to test it because it claims that God stepped into this world and left his sandal prints in the Middle Eastern sand. St. Paul even went so far as to say that if the resurrection didn’t happen, then our faith is futile. What other religion offers falsifiability to its adherents? The evidence is available to everyone. The question is, after careful analysis, will people find it metaphysically significant?

Get access to exclusive bonus content & updates: register & sign up to the Premier Unbelievable? newsletter!

The Science of Christianity

Christianity not only makes the scientific method possible but also employs it to support its worldview hypothesis. Christians observe the world and recognize that it possesses a foundational order that has become disrupted - an Edenic world that has fallen short of divine expectations. We compile a problem list which includes Democrats, Republicans, capitalists, socialists, young people, old people, pollution, and climate change. It quickly becomes apparent that the common thread is humanity. We hypothesize that the world has a human sin problem. We test this conjecture in the social media laboratory and are rewarded with abundant confirmatory data in posts, memes, TikTok videos, and cancellations. Intrigued by our findings, we review the historical literature and discover similar data in wars and rumors of wars, genocide, oppression, and corruption. We assess the significance of all our data by comparing it to a transcendent Good and find that it confirms our hypothesis that there is none who does good, not one, but like with any good research paper, we suggest further savior research. We report our findings in the best-selling research journal of all time, making it available to everyone in every language so they can conduct the research themselves. 

While atheists want to separate religion from science, it seems that the scientific method eerily resembles a religious liturgy. Scientists don lab coats, vestments, officiate over the miraculous transubstantiation of the physical world into an immaterial hypothesis, and then taste and see that He is intellectually good.

Erik Strandness is a physician and Christian apologist who practiced neonatal medicine for more than 20 years and has written three apologetic books. Information about his books can be found at godsscreenplay.com