Has Science Disproved God? — Science & the Bible

Hasn't science disproved God and made faith obsolete?

Religion was humanity's first, failed attempt at science. Now that we have the real thing, God is an unnecessary hypothesis — the two are at war, and science won.

The “warfare of science and religion” is itself a 19th-century myth, invented by a pair of polemicists and long since dismantled by historians of science. Modern science was born largely in a Christian world, by people (Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Maxwell, Mendel) who saw studying nature as thinking God's thoughts after him — and plenty of working scientists believe today. Science is brilliant at describing how the machinery runs; it was never equipped to answer why there is a universe at all, or whether it means anything.

Doesn't the Big Bang — an ancient, expanding universe — contradict “In the beginning”?

Science says the cosmos is 13.8 billion years old and began in a Big Bang. Genesis says God made it in six days. They can't both be right.

Oddly, the Big Bang was resisted for years precisely because it sounded too much like Genesis — an absolute cosmic beginning, which an eternal, self-existent universe would have avoided. That the universe had a beginning fits “In the beginning” remarkably well. The age of the earth is where Christians genuinely differ — young-earth, old-earth, and day-age readings all have serious defenders, and it isn't a salvation issue (our Deluge and Book of Generations exhibits lay out the young-earth case). What Scripture insists on is the Beginner, not a stopwatch.

astronomer · Robert Jastrow (agnostic astronomer), God and the Astronomers (1978)“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Doesn't evolution disprove the Bible and make God unnecessary?

Darwin explained the design of life without a designer. Once you have evolution, you don't need God for anything.

Christians hold a real range here — young-earth creation, old-earth/progressive creation, and evolutionary creation (God working through the process) — and thoughtful believers land in each camp. The non-negotiable isn't a mechanism but a claim: that God is the Creator, and that human beings uniquely bear his image, not merely rearranged molecules. And even granted as biology, evolution describes how living things change; it can't explain why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe is rationally intelligible, or where the moral law comes from. It removes one job from God's résumé, not God.

Isn't the universe's “fine-tuning” just luck, or the multiverse?

Yes the constants allow life — but in a big enough cosmos (or a multiverse), someone has to win the lottery. It only looks designed.

The fine-tuning is staggering: dozens of constants balanced on a razor's edge, where the slightest change yields no stars, no carbon, no chemistry, no life. Design is a serious, rational inference — and the multiverse, invoked to escape it, is itself an unobservable, untestable metaphysical posit, faith of a different kind. Even Fred Hoyle, no friend of religion, concluded the numbers looked rigged.

astronomer · Fred Hoyle (atheist astronomer), “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” Engineering and Science (Nov 1981)“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”

Aren't miracles unscientific — didn't Hume settle that?

Science shows nature runs by fixed laws. Miracles violate those laws, so by definition they don't happen — Hume proved testimony can never establish one.

Hume's famous argument quietly assumes its conclusion: it counts the uniform experience that miracles don't happen as the reason to reject any testimony that one did — which only works if you already know none occur. Science observes the regular patterns of nature; it cannot prove the box is closed, that no Author of those patterns could ever act within them. If God exists, a miracle isn't a violation of the system but the free act of the One who wrote it. The question isn't whether miracles are possible, but whether God is real.