Hasn’t science disproved Christianity?
​
​
Listening to the voice of popular atheism, it’s easy to think that science in general and evolution in particular have made belief in God unnecessary and obsolete. But is this correct? Must we choose between thinking scientifically and belief in God?
​
One reason that people think that science and religion are incompatible is because most of the major faiths believe in the miraculous, the intervention of God into the natural order. This is particularly central in Christianity – both Christmas and Easter are celebrations of miracles. Christmas is about God being born into this world in Jesus, and Easter is about Jesus rising from the dead, and the gospels record many other miracles which Jesus did. The rationalist will say that there is no such thing as miracles, but this statement is itself a leap of faith.
​
As Keller comments, “It is one thing to say that science is only equipped to test for natural causes. It is quite another to insist that science proves that no other causes could possibly exist... The hidden premise in the statement ‘miracles cannot happen’ is ‘there can’t be a God who does miracles’. If there is a Creator God, there is nothing illogical at all about the possibility of miracles... To be sure that miracles cannot occur you would have to be sure beyond a doubt that God didn’t exist, and that is an article of faith.”
​
It’s easy to assume that science is in conflict with Christianity but that is not the case. There are many Christians who believe that God brought about life through an evolutionary process of natural selection, but who would disagree that this happened by chance, the product of random forces guided by no one. “When evolution is turned into an All-encompassing Theory explaining absolutely everything we believe, feel and do as the product of natural selection, then we are not in the arena of science but of philosophy” (Keller). There is no logical reason for insisting that those who believe in evolution as a biological model should also believe that it happened without a guiding Creator. Which is why many scientists would say that they are deeply or moderately religious, recognising that science cannot explain everything.
​
What about the more specific issue of how evolutionary science fits with the account of creation in Genesis 1 and 2? Surely there is conflict there? Yes, if we think that the biblical six days of creation are intended to be taken literally, as a scientific record of ‘How’. But Bible interpretation is always about looking to discover the biblical author’s original intention – and the fact that the sun is said to have been created on the fourth day shows that the author could not have had literal days in mind, for even ancient country-folk understood that a day referred to a period of time in relation to the sun! Rather, the account is a poetic song about the wonder and meaning of God’s creation. (‘Why?’ is more important than ‘How?’ See Colossians 1:16.)
​
“What can we conclude?” writes Keller. “Since Christian believers occupy different positions on both the meaning of Genesis 1 and on the nature of evolution, those who are considering Christianity should not allow themselves to be distracted by that debate... Rather, the sceptical enquirer should concentrate on and weigh the central claims of Christianity.”
​
Miracles are certainly hard to believe in. After his resurrection Jesus met with his disciples and “when they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted” (Matthew 28:17). Even they could scarcely believe it at first! But this verse also tells us the primary purpose of miracles –to inspire worship, awe and wonder. His miracles are not just proofs of his power but also a promise and a foretaste of his power to heal and renew our broken world (Matthew 19:28).
​
Just click on the links below.