Many atheists claim that we must choose between science and God, and that each of these are mutually incompatible. So, you can’t be a scientist and a believer in God at the same time. However, this is false and commits the fallacy of the false dilemma by forcing us to choose between only two possibilities when more exist. The truth is that many believers in God see scientific discoveries as only ever increasing their faith. It’s not the other way around. Those who hold to interpretations of scripture that is wholly contrary to what God has revealed in and through nature are the ones who run into trouble, and end up in the trenches having to fend off most of what we know via the natural world. Such does result in us having to choose between science and God.
There are several arguments from science alone that can give us confidence in believing that a creator God exists. Now, science itself is neither capable of affirming or denying the existence of supernatural entities although scientific evidence can be used in deductive arguments that have theological significance. From the current model of Big Bang cosmology we have evidence that in the finite past there was a highly ordered event that resulted in a universe from nothing. This suggest that whatever was behind it must be immaterial, spaceless, and timeless. The argument also implies that the natural cannot be all that there is since the cause must be supernatural (therefore rendering naturalism false). Oddly enough this didn’t only take the efforts of Catholic priest and astrophysicist Georges Lemaître to propose this theory as it was already revealed in Gensis 1:1. The very first sentence of the Bible tells us that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” As the physicist Weisskopf writes, “The Judeo-Christian tradition describes the beginning of the world in a way that is surprisingly similar to the scientific model.” This is not to suggest we should read modern science into the ancient pre-scientific texts of the Bible but it is to say that the Bible got there first which is quite remarkable.
Moreover, the incredible fine-tuning of the universe for human life is also seen by many to be a pointer to God’s existence. For instance, the astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, noted primarily for the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis, explains that “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. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” Or as the physicist Arthur Schawlow once wrote, “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious . . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” Even the late new atheist Christopher Hitchens explained that “I think everyone of us picks the fine-tuning one as the most intriguing… you have to spend time thinking about it, working on it. It’s not a trivial [argument].”
Furthermore, we can also note the intricate detail on the biological level. Former atheist turned deist, Flew, was convinced enough on this basis to reject his atheism, he penned that “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design… I was once sharply critical of the argument to design, I have since come to see that, when correctly formatted, this argument constitutes a persuasive case for the existence of God.” Even the militant atheist, and biologist, Richard Dawkins notes this design by saying that “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
To many it would seem that the information in the DNA of biological life strongly points to an intelligent designer that is behind it that oversaw the development of biological life. Furthermore, many Christians also see evolution as a pointer to God’s existence. According to Howard van Till, a professor of physics, evolutionary theory is readily accepted by many Christians, “Is the concept of special creation required of all persons who trust in the creator God of scripture? Most Christians of my acquaintance who are engaged in either scientific or Biblical scholarship have concluded that the special creationists’ picture of the world’s formation is not a necessary component of Christian belief.”
Impressively two scientists by the names of Barrow and Tippler have calculated the odds of evolution happening by pure chance alone without any outside agency involved. It seems to be an impossibility as they lay out ten steps that human evolution would need to have gone through in order to bring about modern man as we know him, and that number came to between the figures 4^-180^110 000 and 4^-380^110 000. Before just one of those ten steps would have occurred our sun would have burnt out, and incinerated our planet. Such an improbability must be embraced on atheism, and since it is so improbable many have concluded that the best explanation is that an intelligent agency was involved. In fact, some non-theistic scientists have realized that if we had to rewind the evolution of all biological life the probability of getting humans as we are now would be astronomically small. One commentator compared the relevant probability similar to probability of one winning the lottery 4000 times in a row. One could always put it off to luck but that would hardly be rational as one would surely suspect something is up. This would explain why philosopher Mitch Stokes says that this could be “an evolutionary argument for theism.”
However, the false dilemma becomes readily apparent as for the atheist to argue that we must choose between belief in God or science would be like having us choose between the laws of internal combustion and Henry Ford as an explanation to why the Ford car exists. To rule out Henry Ford as an explanation is simply irrational, in other words, the atheist misses the important difference between agency (Henry Ford) and mechanism (internal combustion). To propagate this chasm is contrary to what, explains Graham Veale, “Many contemporary scientists and philosophers have argued that there is a deep coherence between theism and science. Significantly the doctrine that Christendom has perpetually warred with the sciences has been rejected as a fable by historians.” If the biblical God really exists he would then be the agency and the ultimate cause behind everything that exists. He would be the one who created the natural natural laws and mechanisms in the first place. As John Lennox, a philosopher of science, says, “Far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise is validated by his existence.”