God-of-the-gaps arguments use gaps in scientific explanation as indicators, or even proof, of God’s action and therefore of God’s existence. Such arguments propose divine acts in place of natural, scientific causes for phenomena that science cannot yet explain. The assumption is that if science cannot explain how something happened, then God must be the explanation. But the danger of using a God-of-the-gaps argument for the action or existence of God is that it lacks the foresight of future scientific discoveries. With the continuing advancement of science, God-of-the-gaps explanations often get replaced by natural mechanisms. Therefore, when such arguments are used as apologetic tools, scientific research can unnecessarily be placed at odds with belief in God.¹ The recent Intelligent Design (ID) movement highlights this problem. Certain ID arguments, like the irreducible complexity of the human eye or the bacterial flagellum, are rapidly being undercut by new scientific discoveries.

Illustrating God-of-the-Gaps

The familiar story of Isaac Newton and Pierre Simon de Laplace is a classic example of the God-of-the-gaps argument. Newton devised a mathematical equation for the force of gravity that he used to explain and predict the motions of planets with outstanding accuracy. With pencil and paper, the orbit of the planets around the sun could be calculated with great precision. But planets also have gravitational interactions with each other, not just with the sun. For example, when the Earth passes Mars in its orbit around the sun, there is a small but significant gravitational interaction between Mars and Earth. Because these tiny interplanetary interactions occur often — several times per year in many cases — Newton suspected that these gravitational perturbations would accumulate and slowly disrupt the magnificent order of the solar system. To counteract these and other disruptive forces, Newton suggested that God must necessarily intervene occasionally to tune up the solar system and restore the order. Thus, God's periodic special actions were needed to account for the ongoing stability of the solar system.

See "How is BioLogos different from Theistic Evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism?" and "How can evolution account for the complexity of life on earth today?"

Newton also thought that God was necessary to explain how the planets all happen to be travelling around the sun in the same direction and in the same plane. His theory of gravity was entirely compatible with planetary motions in any direction and with orbits tilted at any angle to the sun. But this is not what we find. The planets travel in the same direction, and almost all of their orbits are in the same plane. The planets move around the sun like runners on a track: very orderly. Newton thought only God could have set things up so elegantly:

"The six primary Planets are revolv'd about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. […] But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. […] This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." ²

In both of these examples — one related to the ongoing motion of the planets and the other related to the origin of the motions — Newton is employing textbook God-of-the-gaps reasoning. Scientific theories are proposed to explain as much as possible, and then God is brought in to cover any remaining unexplained gaps in the explanation.

We now know that Newton was wrong on both counts. The gravitational perturbations that planets experience are so completely balanced that they average out to zero over time. The net result is that the planetary motions are stable; they do not deteriorate over time. And it was a straightforward application of Newton’s theory that revealed this. Newton simply had not done all the calculations to see if his intuition was right. The same was true for the orderly motion of the planets. Newton had no concept of how solar systems could form on their own or what the planetary motions would be like in naturally forming systems. Astronomy simply had not developed to this point. In the decades after Newton, astronomers discovered that solar systems form naturally from large clouds of rotating matter. Therefore, a large, slowly rotating cloud collapses under its own gravity, and it tends to flatten into something like a pancake. Saturn's rings are an interesting example where the cloud is still present. The material collects into big clumps in the plane of the pancake. After the process is completed, a collection of clumps all travelling in the same direction and in the same plane exists — just like our solar system.

Such episodes in the history of science are not unusual. In fact they are so common that the phrase God-of-the-gaps has been coined to label the process of invoking God to account for natural phenomena that is not explained by science. The dangers of such God-of-the-gaps reasoning were highlighted a century after Newton by a situation involving the French mathematician Pierre Simon de Laplace who held a bureaucratic post in Napoleon Bonaparte’s administration. Laplace was the beneficiary of a remarkable century of progress in refining and extending Newton’s laws of motion and expanding the vision of what was going on in space. As a result, he was able to write a wide-ranging text explaining the mechanics of the heavens without invoking divine intervention.

As legend goes, Laplace was questioned by Napoleon about the absence of God in his theory: "M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator." To this, Laplace famously replied, “I had no need of that hypothesis.” Of course, God can be still be used as a hypothesis for the existence of the universe. But because Newton had used a deficiency in scientific explanation as an argument for God’s existence, Laplace’s theory delivered an unnecessary blow to the apologetics of the time. Herein lies the danger: If gaps in scientific knowledge are used as arguments for the existence of God, what happens when science advances and closes those explanatory gaps?

Pointers to God: Fine-Tuning and the Moral Law

In the first and third chapters of The Language of God, Dr. Francis Collins mentions pointers to God that played a role in his journey to faith. One of these pointers is the fine-tuning of the universe. Fine-tuning refers to the way the basic laws of physics appear to be delicately balanced for life. This precision calls for an explanation that science cannot provide. There is a spirited debate over the meaning of fine-tuning, and some critics charge that invoking God as the fine-tuner is a return to the God-of-the-gaps. But there does not seem to be any way to explain the detailed properties of the laws of nature from within science. Fine-tuning arguments thus go beyond science into metaphysics to explain why the world that science studies has the properties that it does. Another pointer that Collins mentions, following C. S. Lewis, is the moral law. The moral law is an implicit and universal standard of ethics for humanity. Collins describes morality as a universal law, which, unlike laws such as gravity, is broken very often. Overall, the moral law is consistent with the type of behavior that is expected of products of evolution. However, as Collins points out, altruistic behavior often seems to go beyond what would be expected from the best-established processes of Darwinian evolution.³ Mathematical models developed by theorists like Martin Nowak ⁴ have established that natural selection can produce genes for altruism, but the radical self sacrifice of great saints like Mother Theresa of Calcutta seems to go beyond what the models can account for. A completely natural account of our origins may be insufficient to explain present observations of human behavior. However, if evolutionary psychology could explain human morality, or if theoretical physics could explain such perfect constants of nature, would theistic apologetics be discredited in any way?

Fine-Tuning

Unlike a God-of-the-gaps argument, the argument for fine-tuning uses science without divine action to reveal the impeccable precision of our Universe.⁵ Fine-tuning is described in terms of physical constants and the initial conditions of our universe. Fine-tuning does not try to draw attention to where science has failed, but rather emphasizes how science has revealed the intricate balance of the universe.

One might argue that science could potentially explain the origins of these delicately balanced features, but there are two important things to keep in mind. First, it is very unlikely that a scientific theory could explain away the improbabilities of our Universe without raising other improbabilities.⁶  Second, an argument for fine-tuning is unlike a God-of-the-gaps argument in that it is not intended to prove God’s existence. While it is true that the fine-tuning of the Universe adds credence to belief in a creator, such recent scientific findings could hardly be called upon as the basis or justification of the long history of theistic belief. While the fine-tuning of the Universe does indeed lead many people to consider the possibility of God’s existence, the fact that science cannot disprove God’s existence assures us that it also cannot prove it. Instead, fine-tuning can be understood as a feature of the universe that is accordant with belief in a creator. A deeper scientific explanation of these features — albeit highly unlikely — would not ruin its usefulness as a pointer to God.

Moral Law

The moral law also offers evidence that the world has evolved in a way that is consistent with the belief in a good and loving God. This remains true whether science eventually finds an account or explanation for morality. Even if a purely natural account of moral development could be found, the simple fact that morality has evolved is something that would be expected in a world created by a just and loving God.

Evolutionary theory explains selfishness in a most obvious and natural way. Altruism is far less obvious, but it can also be explained by recognizing that humans evolved in tribes that were essentially extended families with many genes in common. Imagine two tribes, one has genes to help each other even when it requires sacrifice and one does not have such genes. Which tribe will flourish? In such ways, genes for altruism can be selected by nature and spread in a population. But in its most radical form, altruism refers to situations where individuals risk their very lives to help someone they do not even know, and from whom a reciprocal benefit is unexpected or even unimaginable. This concept runs counter to the behavior expected from the best-established processes of evolution, and there are no widely accepted theories that can fully account for such examples. Some have suggested that radical altruism might perhaps be explained as misfiring —  we mistakenly go overboard in our desire to be nice. Radical altruism is currently somewhat mysterious.

As with most situations, science may someday provide an explanation for altruism. In light of that possibility, the argument from the moral law as a pointer to God is subject to the same risk of explanation as Newton’s God-of-the-gaps argument. If radically altruistic behavior is someday given a natural evolutionary explanation, it will no longer stand out as an inconsistency in evolutionary theory. However, Robert Wright argues in Non-Zero: The Logic of Human Destiny, that the evolution of altruism can be explained as an application of game theory.⁷ In Wright’s view, the deep mystery is not altruism itself, but the intriguing mathematical structures of the universe, like game theory, that can coax from the universe surprising behaviors like altruism.

Conclusion

If gaps in scientific knowledge are the basis for belief in God, then as science progresses, evidence for God’s existence continually diminishes. Fine-tuning does not rely on divine action as an explanation, but points out the striking precision of nature’s order in line with the requirements for human life, thus establishing a mysterious connection between physics and biology. As for the moral law, its use as a pointer to God can be understood in that human behavior has evolved in a way that is consistent with the idea of a good and loving creator. Belief in any moral truth rests upon the assumption of God’s existence or some other ultimate standard.

Finally, although these pointers to God should encourage one to consider God’s existence, they must not be placed at the foundation of faith. The belief in a creator and the experience of a relationship with God should not rest solely on a logical or scientific justification. But then, as Collins himself wondered, “How can such [religious] beliefs be possible for a scientist? Aren’t many claims of religion incompatible with the “Show me the data” attitude of someone devoted to the study of chemistry, physics, biology, or medicine?”⁸  

Psalm 19 begins with the well-loved words “The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” Scientists often turn to this Psalm to express their praise to the Creator when they make discoveries in the lab – the biochemistry of a cell also declares the glory of God! In the second half of the Psalm, David turns his thoughts from the God’s world to God’s word, writing “The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul.” David praises God for both revelations – for what God has revealed in both nature and scripture. In later centuries, theologians introduced the metaphor of two “books”¹ where nature is seen as a book, parallel to the book of Scripture. The Belgic Confession of 1561 states in Article 2 that

We know God by two means:

First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe,
since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book
    in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters
    to make us ponder the invisible things of God:
        God’s eternal power and divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20.
    All these things are enough to convict humans and to leave them without excuse.

Second, God makes himself known to us more clearly by his holy and divine Word,
    as much as we need in this life, for God’s glory and for our salvation.²

Since both are revelations from God, they both carry God’s full authority and cannot be ignored. The primary purpose of any revelation is to teach us about God,³ but both of these also have something to say about how and why God created the world. Sometimes the revelations appear to be in conflict, but since God speaks only truth, the two revelations cannot be teaching us contradictory things.

So what is the source of all the friction? The conflict must occur at the level of human interpretation: either a misunderstanding of what God is revealing in nature, or a misunderstanding of what God is revealing in scripture. In debates over Genesis and evolution, Christians often disagree about which interpretation is in error. We can agree, however, that scripture and nature are complementary and faithful witnesses to their common Author.

For more on the relationship between nature and scripture, see "What is the proper relationship between science and religion?"

Science: Interpreting God’s revelation in Nature

Building scientific theories resembles map making. A map gathers different kinds of data like longitude and latitude, elevations, waterways, and climate to make a coherent representation of reality. The map is not reality itself but a model of reality. Scientific maps of reality are known as “theories.” Some theories are new and tentative (like string theory), while others are long-standing and well-supported by abundant observations and experiments (like photosynthesis). The process of science is to develop and test these theories: scientists follow the map, see if it matches the real world, then modify the map to match reality better.

How reliable are scientific results? Science is a human activity, so of course it can be in error at times. Self-promoting individuals can push for outcomes that advance their reputation. A desire for particular results or an assumption about the ways things are can result in manipulation of data, whether consciously or unconsciously. Unfortunately, there have been plenty of examples of such contrived data in the history of science. One chronicle of how such distortions were perpetuated can be found in Steven Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man,⁴ which retells the tragic story of how 19th century science found alleged data to support prevailing prejudices about the relationship between race and intelligence.

However, science is self-correcting. All scientific publications are peer-reviewed, where experts check for errors in methods, over-stated claims, and other problems. Published measurements are tested by other groups of scientists to see if they get the same results. Published theories are vigorously debated and compared to alternate explanations. Sometimes even selfish motivations can help the self-correcting process, since scientists can advance their careers by publishing errors and proposing new theories. Inaccuracies in theories are corrected when new discoveries and experiments reveal a problem. When theories are new and based on preliminary data, biases such as those described above can have a large influence on results. But after theories are tested and refined by many scientists all over the world, they give a reliable interpretation of physical reality.

Interpreting God’s revelation in Scripture

For Christians, the Bible is not just a book of moral lessons or factual statements. Rather, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that all God’s people may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Scripture connects God’s action in real historical events with his purpose behind those actions. Scripture also draws us into the story, so that we are not mere readers, but citizens of God’s kingdom and part of God’s redemptive history. The Bible is the result of human-divine partnerships in which God inspired and commanded the human authors to communicate his word to his people.

Christians often disagree on the precise meaning of particular passages. Some scriptural teachings, like the accounts of Jesus’ death and resurrection, have clear meaning which has been affirmed by the church throughout the centuries and around the world. Other teachings, like baptism of adults vs. infants, are ambiguous and their interpretation has been debated for centuries. Some teachings, like ownership of slaves, were viewed one way for centuries, then were reinterpreted as the gospel moved into new cultures. Church tradition can be a valuable guide to good interpretation, but at times should be challenged.

How can we find the best interpretation of scripture? One good strategy is to always start by studying and pondering what the passage meant to the inspired human author and the original audience. The style of language, the genre of literature, and the historical and cultural context are all helpful in understanding the original meaning. Once we better understand God’s revelation to the first audience, we can consider what God might have to teach us today in the 21st century. Without this strategy, we risk imposing our own modern culture and personal preferences on the text. This does not mean you have to be a scholar to understand the Bible. Even in confusing passages (like Genesis 1-2), the primary teaching of scripture is usually clear even to a child (God created the world and declared it good). The careful background work becomes important for scholars and teachers who want to explore the subtle meanings and implications of the text (such as how it fits with science).

See "What factors should be considered in determining how to approach a passage of scripture?"

An Historical Example

The story of Galileo is a well-known historic example of conflict between science and Biblical interpretation. In Galileo’s time there was a heated disagreement over the solar system, specifically whether the Sun or the Earth was at the center. This led to a debate over the meaning of Bible verses like Psalm 93:1 which state “The earth is fixed and cannot be moved.” If this verse is read scientifically, it would mean that the Earth was stationary and did not orbit the Sun. However, Galileo made astronomical observations that showed the planets did move about the Sun. Today we understand Psalm 93:1 to mean that the earth is established and secure, just as God’s throne is established. Galileo, who remained a loyal Catholic to the end of his life, makes his position clear in a letter to the Grand Duchess Christina:

"[In] St. Augustine we read: 'If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there.' "

"This granted, and it being true that two truths cannot contradict one another, it is the function of expositors to seek out the true senses of scriptural texts. These will unquestionably accord with the physical conclusions which manifest sense and necessary demonstrations have previously made certain to us."⁵

Galileo did not see his discoveries as contrary to the Bible, but contrary to certain human interpretations of the Bible. And rather than dictating what the correct interpretation should be, Galileo recommended that Biblical scholars work to better understand the “true sense of scriptural texts.”

Interaction between science and biblical interpretation

What do we do when the results of science disagree with common biblical interpretations? One response is to say that the Bible is right and science is wrong; the Bible, after all, is more important to the Christian. This response, however, forgets that the Bible is always interpreted, and elevates a particular biblical interpretation to the authority of the Bible itself. It also discounts God’s revelation to us in the natural world, rather than listening to what science has learned about it.

Another response is to say that science is right and the Bible is wrong. This response, however, says that the Bible itself is in error, rather than that a particular interpretation is incorrect. It also elevates scientific knowledge as the best type of knowledge, even though science is ill-equipped to answer questions about ancient texts.

A better response is to reconsider the interpretations on both sides. When we hear a scientific result that seems to conflict with the Bible, we should look at it more closely. How strong is the evidence? Is there a consensus among scientists? Has the theory been tested extensively? What alternate theories are available? At the same time we take a closer look at Biblical interpretation. What did the passage mean to the original audience? What interpretations have been held throughout church history? What are the theological implications? Rather than rejecting one side or the other, we can study both more carefully, remembering that God is speaking to us in both scripture and nature. In this approach, science does not determine which interpretation of scripture is best. Instead, science motivates us to take a closer look at scripture, using good biblical scholarship to determine the best interpretation.

Occasionally, multiple interpretations of scripture seem equally appropriate when considered with the tools of biblical scholarship. In those cases, science can break the tie. By showing us what God reveals in nature, science can show that some interpretations are inappropriate. As Professor Donald Mackay writes:

Obviously a surface meaning of many passages could be tested, for example, against archaeological discoveries, and the meaning of others can be enriched by scientific and historical knowledge. But I want to suggest that the primary function of scientific enquiry in such fields is neither to verify nor to add to the inspired picture, but to help us in eliminating improper ways of reading it. To pursue the metaphor, I think the scientific data God gives us can sometimes serve as his way of warning us when we are standing too close to the picture, at the wrong angle, or with the wrong expectations, to be able to see the inspired pattern he means it to convey to us.⁶

The science of evolution is compatible with many faith traditions. Muslims, Jews and Christians alike can align their faith with the scientific account of our origins, and there is no way to give a scientific proof for one monotheistic faith over another. Therefore, instead of arguing that science supports Christianity over other faiths, this response will simply show the compatibility of Christianity with a scientific understanding of the universe. The Bible’s description of God is consistent with what is seen in the world around us.

See “What is the proper relationship between science and religion?”

Consistency

Christian doctrine is broadly compatible with the scientific accounts of our origins. The Genesis creation story, for example, speaks of beginnings in a way that reminds us of the Big Bang theory, although this concept would certainly not have been a part of the author’s worldview.

Science shows us a universe that reflects many of the Christian God’s characteristics, such as omnipotence, love and perfection.¹ For example, God’s omnipotence and perfection are evident through the laws of nature, all of which are finely tuned to allow life to develop. From a scientific standpoint, these features of the universe are surprising and warrant further explanation. But in light of the Christian narrative — in which a rational God intentionally created a universe congenial to life — the fine tuning of the universe makes sense. The Bible also claims that human beings have been created in God’s image.² Our ability to love others and engage in meaningful relationships is therefore consistent with the existence of a loving God. And although radical altruism challenges evolutionary explanation, it resonates nicely with Christianity. Why, for example, would Mother Theresa of Calcutta spend her life with the poor? Why would a soldier sacrifice his life for people he does not know? These examples fit comfortably within the story of a God who sacrificed his own life for his creation, and whose image we bear.

Consider the words of Albert Einstein: “The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility.”³ The simple fact that we have the intellect and skills to inquire and test and make scientific discoveries is remarkable. But with a rational, all powerful God in whose image we are made, it is no surprise that we are able and eager to make scientific sense of the world around us. Oxford University professor Alister McGrath puts it well:

"The Christian vision of reality offers us a standpoint from which we may view the natural world, and see certain things that others might indeed regard as puzzling, or strange — such as fine-tuning — as consonant with the greater picture that the Christian has to offer."⁴

Many of the underlying themes of the monotheistic traditions are shared. Benevolence and justice, for example, are valued in many faiths. The central difference between Christianity and other faiths is the purpose and meaning of Jesus Christ’s life and the truth of his resurrection. There is nothing about evolutionary science that conflicts with the central Christian trinitarian understanding of Jesus.

Rationality

Read Darrel Falk's essay A Rational Belief for more on why Christian faith can have a rational basis.

Though belief in the Christian God is not scientifically provable, it is not irrational. Commitment to Christ is a reasonable choice supported by a variety of non-scientific evidence from history, philosophy, and the testimony of others. Ultimately, the Holy Spirit works in each person’s life to bring them into relationship with Jesus.

Many voices today say that science and Christianity are opposed to each other. Some atheists claim that science has debunked religion and superstition of all forms. Many in the general public think that the church is anti-science. And within the church, science is often portrayed as challenging important Christian beliefs. None of these voices, however, hint at the positive and fruitful relationship between Christianity and science. Here we review several ways to view the relationship between science and Christianity.

Are Christianity and science at war?

When creation and evolution clash in a courtroom, the daily news fills up with stories suggesting that there is some profound conflict between science and Christianity. Inevitably, someone mentions the historical incident of Galileo. Galileo was charged with heresy by the church in 1633 for teaching that the Earth orbits the Sun. From Galileo to textbook battles, the hasty conclusion is that science and Christianity are engaged in an endless debate, fundamentally opposed to each other.

For a review of Galileo and other historic interactions between science and Christianity, see “Christianity and Science in Historical Perspective” by Ted Davis (blog series, PDF) and “The Galileo Affair: Emblematic or Exceptional?” by Matt Rosano (blog)

Yet the Galileo incident and today’s conflicts are often about much more than the particular claims of science or faith. Personalities, politics, and culture wars all come into play when drawing the battle lines. In many instances, science and scientists are not themselves in conflict with Christian belief. In fact, Galileo himself was a Christian who believed “that the glory and greatness of Almighty God are marvelously discerned in all His works and divinely read in the open book of Heaven”¹ Many scientists then and now² are Christians who see no conflict between their scientific work and their faith. Most things studied via the natural sciences—such as the migration patterns of birds or the interior of atoms—do not raise any theological or Biblical concerns.

The “warfare” model, then, is not very helpful for understanding evolution and Christianity, since it assumes conflict from the start. A few particular areas of scientific study—like the big bang and evolution—do raise concerns for Christians, but most of the BioLogos website (see Questions by Category on the right) is devoted to showing that evolution and Christianity are not truly at war. In the rest of this answer, we’ll explore other models for the working relationship between science and Christianity.

Mark Noll, a leading historian and evangelical, gives 16 reasons why the warfare model is a mistake. (blog series)

Are Christianity and science completely separate?

One way to erase the conflicts between science and Christianity is to view them as entirely separate endeavors, with different purposes, methods, and bodies of knowledge. This view emphasizes that science is a system of knowledge about the world and its behavior, whereas religion is about morality, God, and the afterlife. Thus, Christianity and science cannot conflict, because they are addressing different sorts of questions.³

This model has some weaknesses (see below), but it does help us understand some important aspects of the relationship. Many apparent conflicts between science and religion occur because of a lack of understanding of the fundamental differences between the two. When someone claims that the Bible answers a scientific question, and another claims that science answers a question about God, the conflict immediately flares up. Many conflicts become enflamed because participants forget that Christianity and science do generally address very different questions.

This model also reminds us that science is not the only source of knowledge. There are many sorts of questions that simply do not fall under the domain of science. Borrowing an example from the Rev. John Polkinghorne, there is more than one answer to the question of “Why is the water boiling in the tea kettle?”⁴ The scientific answer might be “the water is boiling because at this temperature it undergoes a phase transition from liquid to vapor.” Another acceptable, though nonscientific, answer is “the water is boiling because I put the kettle on the stove.” A third answer might be “the water is boiling because my prayer partner is coming over for tea.” None of the answers is wrong; rather, each gives a different perspective on the question. The scientific answer does not tell the whole story. Science cannot answer questions like “Is my friend trustworthy?” or “Is this poem well written?” Science is tremendously successful in understanding the physical world, but we should let that tempt us to think it can be used to understanding everything in life.

Artist Mark Sprinkle writes on the importance of music and poetry in understanding God’s world.

Science cannot answer the question “Does God exist?” Some people argue that God’s existence is actually a scientific claim that could be tested like a chemical reaction. But science studies the natural world, not the supernatural. No amount of scientific testing or theorizing could prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural creator. The claim that “God exists” is a metaphysical one, not a claim about nature or physical laws

Though science cannot prove or disprove God’s existence, it can provide clues that support belief in God. See “What is the fine-tuning of the universe?” and “On what grounds can one claim that the Christian God is the creator?”

This model also reminds us that the Bible is not the only source of knowledge. The Bible is silent on most of the topics that concern scientists, like protons, photosynthesis, penguins, and Pluto. The Bible is not a science textbook, in the same way that it is not a textbook of plumbing, agriculture, or economics. Instead, God teaches us about these things through his general revelation in the created order.

However, this model has some significant weaknesses. It isolates religion from science, which can be a first step in marginalizing religion from public discourse. By defining religion and science as separate, this model doesn’t help us understand the interactions they do have, either negative or positive. The model also sets science on its own, apart from religion, while Christians believe that no part of our lives is outside of our walk with God.

Science and Christianity interact, correcting and enhancing each other

While many questions can be clearly categorized as “science” questions or as “Bible” questions, other questions are on the boundary. For topics like evolution, medical ethics, and climate change, we need to consider both science and faith when seeking out God’s truth. For such complex questions, we need all the knowledge and wisdom we can get, rather than handicapping ourselves by looking only to science or only to the Bible. If we look to only one or the other, we will get a distorted view of the issue. As Pope John Paul II wrote,

Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.⁵

God reveals himself in the book of Scripture and the book of Nature. To learn more about God and his work, we study both books. When one book is confusing or ambiguous, insights from the other book can help us understand it. In both revelations, we look for the underlying truth of who God is and how he made the world. Rev John Polkinghorne wrote, “Science and theology have things to say to each other, since both are concerned with the search for truth attained through motivated belief.”⁶

For more on God’s two revelations, see “Can Science and Scripture Be Reconciled?”

Faith can have a positive impact on science by guiding the practical application of scientific discoveries. With the rapid advance of science and technology, many ethical questions are facing our society. Development of safe nuclear energy is not far from the development of nuclear weapons, new medical imaging techniques save lives but are too expensive for the poor, and DNA testing improves treatment of genetic disorders at the risk of the results being misused.⁷ To address these complex questions, we need both science and the moral grounding of religion. We can’t just give a quick answer from the Bible without studying the scientific complexities, nor can we look to science alone to guide ethical decisions. Christianity and other religions lay the groundwork for the moral standards that are essential for the appropriate use of science and technology.

Science also has a positive impact on the faith of the believer. The Bible teaches that “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1). Christians see God’s glory when looking up at the stars, and in colliding galaxies seen through a telescope. God’s glory is revealed in the beautiful symmetry of a maple leaf, and in the complex biochemical activity inside each cell in that leaf. Science and technology have shown us much more of God’s creation than was known in Biblical times, revealing more and more of God’s glory.

See “Science as an Instrument of Worship” by Jennifer Wiseman (PDF) (blog series)

Finally, Christianity can provide the belief framework for how and why we do science. Christians need not set aside their faith when they sit down to do science. Read on to the next question for more.

"The more I examine the universe, and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the Universe in some sense must have known we were coming." — Freeman Dyson¹

"A bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the Universe that is carefully fine-tuned — as if prescribed by an outside agency — or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, a mighty speculative notion to the generation of many different Universes, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see." — Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog²

Fine-Tuning and Pointers to God

Fine-tuning refers to the surprising precision of nature’s physical constants and the beginning state of the universe. Both of these features converge as potential pointers to a Creator. To explain the present state of the universe, scientific theories require that the physical constants of nature — like the strength of gravity — and the beginning state of the Universe — like its density — have extremely precise values. The slightest variation from their actual values results in an early universe that never becomes capable of hosting life. For this reason, the universe seems finely-tuned for life. This observation is referred to as the anthropic principle, a term whose definition has taken many variations over the years.³ 

Constants of Nature

The fine-tuning of the universe is seen most clearly in the values of the constants of nature. There are many such constants, the best known of which specify the strength of the four forces of nature: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity. If these forces took on even slightly different strengths, the consequences for life would be devastating.⁴ Two of these in particular, the strong and electromagnetic forces, are responsible for the unusually efficient production of carbon, the element upon which all known life is based. The forces cooperate in such a way as to create a coincidental match up of energy levels, which enables the production of carbon from the fusing of three helium atoms. For three helium atoms to collide and create carbon is very unlikely, however, because under normal circumstances, the energies would not match up perfectly, and the three helium atoms would come apart before they had time to fuse into carbon. It takes a little extra time to deal with the energy mismatch. But, if there is a statistically unusual match of the energies, then the process is much faster. The slightest change to either the strong or electromagnetic forces would alter the energy levels, resulting in greatly reduced production of carbon and an ultimately uninhabitable universe. In the 1950s, Cambridge University astronomer Fred Hoyle recognized the precision of the energy match up, called carbon resonance, and made the following observation:

"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect 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." ⁵

Hoyle did not mean to argue in favor of divine intervention as an answer. The scientific explanation of carbon’s development was readily accessible, although this explanation offers no insight into why the fundamental forces cooperated to produce the unusual energy match up. Hoyle’s remark should be understood as an acknowledgement of how startling it is that the universe has the exact properties that enable the existence of life.

Consider also the strength of gravity. When the Big Bang occurred billions of years ago, the matter in the universe was randomly distributed. There were no stars, planets or galaxies—just atoms floating about in the dark void of space. As the universe expanded outwards from the Big Bang, gravity pulled ever so gently on the atoms, gathering them into clumps that eventually became stars and galaxies. But gravity had to have just the right force—if it was a bit stronger, it would have pulled all the atoms together into one big ball. The Big Bang—and our prospects—would have ended quickly in a Big Crunch. And if gravity was a bit weaker, the expanding universe would have distributed the atoms so widely that they would never have been gathered into stars and galaxies. The strength of gravity has to be exactly for stars to form. But what do we mean by “exactly”? Well, it turns out that if we change gravity by even a tiny fraction of a percent—enough so that you would be, say, one billionth of a gram heavier or lighter—the universe becomes so different that there are no stars, galaxies, or planets. And without planets, there would be no life. The other constants of nature possess this same feature. Change any of them, and the universe, like Robert Frost’s traveler, moves along a very different path. And remarkably, every one of these different paths leads to a universe without life in it. Our universe is friendly to life, but only because the past fifteen billion years have unfolded in a particular way that led to a habitable planet with liquid water and rich chemistry.

There are many other finely-tuned constants of nature besides the strengths of these forces. Consider the ratio of masses for protons and electrons, as a final example. The mass of a proton is roughly 1836.1526 times the mass of the electron.⁶ Were this ratio changed by any significant degree, the stability of many common chemicals would be compromised. In the end, this would prevent the formation of such molecules as DNA, the building blocks of life.⁷ But with regard to the development of life on Earth, it is sometimes claimed that natural selection would find a way for life to develop no matter what the circumstances. In this way, nature is sometimes said to tune itself. However, the fine-tuning of carbon is even responsible for nature’s ability to tune itself to any degree. As professor Alister McGrath has pointed out:

"[The entire biological] evolutionary process depends upon the unusual chemistry of carbon, which allows it to bond to itself, as well as other elements, creating highly complex molecules that are stable over prevailing terrestrial temperatures, and are capable of conveying genetic information (especially DNA). […] Whereas it might be argued that nature creates its own fine-tuning, this can only be done if the primordial constituents of the universe are such that an evolutionary process can be initiated. The unique chemistry of carbon is the ultimate foundation of the capacity of nature to tune itself." ⁸

Initial Conditions

Fine-tuning is also evident in the "initial conditions" or the beginning state of the universe. The initial conditions of the universe include such information as the expansion energy of the Big Bang, the overall amount of matter that was present, the ratio of matter to antimatter, the initial rate of the universe’s expansion and even the degree of its entropy.

Consider the expansion rate of the Big Bang. If it was greater, so the early universe expanded faster, the matter in the universe would have become so diffuse that gravity could never have gathered it into stars and galaxies. If it was less, so the early universe expanded more slowly, gravity could have overwhelmed the expansion and pulled all the matter back into a black hole. The expansion rate was just right, so that the universe could have stars in it.

Another interesting example of a finely-tuned initial condition is the critical density of the universe. In order to evolve in a life-sustaining manner, the universe must have maintained an extremely precise overall density. The precision of density must have been so great that a change of one part in 10¹⁵ (i.e. 0.0000000000001%) would have resulted in a collapse, or big crunch, occurring far too early for life to have developed, or there would have been an expansion so rapid that no stars, galaxies or life could have formed.⁹ This degree of precision would be like a blindfolded man choosing a single lucky penny in a pile large enough to pay off the United States’ national debt.

Responses to Fine-Tuning

Needless to say, the preceding examples carry significant implications for understanding the universe. With some thought, it seems that out of an unfathomable number of possibilities, our universe is one of very few which is capable of hosting life. Consequently, many of these observations have been used as pointers to God.

Fine-Tuning vs. Irreducible Complexity

Before continuing the discussion, it is important to distinguish these pointers to God from the biological arguments of irreducible complexity, which have a similar form. Fine-tuning provides examples of how nature is able to produce the current complexity of life, and when one reflects upon the unlikelihood of these examples, it may have the potential to point to a creator. In the case of irreducible complexity, however, the argument is advanced to suggest that nature cannot account for our present state of existence without relying upon direct, miraculous, divine intervention somewhere in the process.¹⁰ While an argument of irreducible complexity would be shattered by a scientific explanation, these pointers to God are much less vulnerable to dismissal on the basis of future scientific explanations. However, pointers to God also draw attention to the splendid precision of nature’s laws towards the evolution of life.

A Lucky Accident

Not surprisingly, fine-tuning arguments unsettle those who embrace the philosophy of naturalism, since a straightforward interpretation of the evidence points in favor of an intelligent creator. Some of the naturalist responses are common and are worth mentioning here. The first amounts to a nonchalant shrugging of the shoulders. Many adherents to philosophical naturalism give a response along the following lines: Because humans exist, the laws of nature clearly must be the ones compatible with life. Otherwise, we simply wouldn’t be here to notice the fact. To argue against this line of reasoning, John Leslie makes the analogy of surviving an execution at a firing squad completely unharmed.¹¹ Here, Leslie argues that the naturalist’s argument above is analogous to saying, "Of course all of the shots missed, otherwise I wouldn’t be here to notice that I’m still alive!” A much more logical approach would be to seek out an explanation for why such an unlikely event occurred. A good scientific explanation satisfies curiosity, whereas this kind of explanation does nothing to offer any resolution.

An Inevitability

From a more scientific standpoint, it is often claimed that the theory of inflation gives an adequate explanation for such precision and balance. The theory of inflation states that in the early stages of cosmological evolution, the universe underwent a period of exponential expansion. By proposing the right kinds of inflationary models, it is possible to show that some of the examples above — most importantly the critical density of the universe — would naturally take on the appropriate values. In this way, some of the universe’s fine-tuning seems to be explained away. Whether inflation occurs is a subject of debate. However, most theoretical physicists agree that some form of inflation took place, and more importantly this phenomenon could indeed explain many examples of fine-tuning. But what is not always included in the description of these inflation theories, is the extra fine-tuning the theories themselves require. In order to produce such an enormous inflationary rate of expansion — and to result in the necessary values for our universe’s critical density — inflation theories rely upon two or more parameters to take on particularly precise values. So precise are these values that the problem of fine-tuning remains and is only pushed one step back. A second naturalist response is to suppose that the finely-tuned features of our world will someday show themselves to have been inevitable. That is, with an increase in our understanding of physics, it is possible that one day we will discover a Theory of Everything through which all other facts of physics could be explained. Such a theory might even explain why the universal constants and physical laws have to have such specific values. However, each of the finely-tuned features of our world put certain restrictions on the possibilities for the possible Theory of Everything. In the end, only a few specific theories would suffice, and this essentially results in a fine-tuning problem even for Theories of Everything.¹²

The Multiverse

There is a final response, known as the multiverse hypothesis. The multiverse hypothesis claims that there are many other universes in addition to our own. Each of these has different properties, and different values of the basic constants of physics. If the number of these universes is extremely large, it would be less surprising that one of them would happen to provide the specific conditions for life. At first glance, the proposition of many other universes sounds impressively scientific. However, one must keep in mind that the likelihood of ever being able to observe evidence of another universe is extremely remote, since it is unlikely that information could ever pass from one universe to another. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the process which produces all of these universes would randomly set all the physical parameters in such a way that every possibility is realized. It could be that there are constraints on the characteristics of these many universes and that the production process itself would have to be fine-tuned in some way to guarantee that we get enough variety of universes to account for our remarkable cosmic home. Additional problems arise with the details of proposing a multiverse, which are enumerated in the suggested readings below.

Many people assume that Darwin’s theory must have shaken the foundations of the Christian faith because of the stark difference between evolution and the idea of a six-day creation. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1–2 was not the only perspective espoused by Christian thinkers prior to the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859. The works of many early Christian theologians and philosophers reveal an interpretation of Genesis compatible with Darwin’s theory.

Early Christian Thought

Origen, a third-century philosopher and theologian from Alexandria, Egypt—one of the great intellectual centers of the ancient world—provides an example of early Christian thought on creation.

Best known for On First Principles and Against Celsus, Origen presented the main doctrines of Christianity and defended them against pagan accusations. Origen opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world. There were other voices before Origen who advocated more symbolic interpretations of the creation story. Origen’s views were also influential for other early church thinkers who came after him.¹

St. Augustine of Hippo, a bishop in North Africa during the early fifth century, was another central figure of the period. Although he is widely known for Confessions, Augustine authored dozens of other works, several of which focus on Genesis 1–2.² In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.³

In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop, a view that is harmonious with biological evolution.⁴

Later Christian Thought

There are many other non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1–2 later in history. St. Thomas Aquinas, a well-known thirteenth-century philosopher and theologian, was particularly interested in the intersection of science and religion and was strongly influenced by Augustine. Aquinas did not fear the possible contradiction between the Genesis creation story and scientific findings.

In Summa Theologica, he responds to the question of whether all six days of creation are actually a description of a single day, a theory Augustine had suggested. Aquinas argues in favor of the view that God created all things to have potential:

On the day on which God created the heaven and the earth, He created also every plant of the field, not, indeed, actually, but “before it sprung up in the earth,” that is, potentially.…All things were not distinguished and adorned together, not from a want of power on God’s part, as requiring time in which to work, but that due order might be observed in the instituting of the world.⁵

Augustine’s creation perspective can be seen even as late as the eighteenth century—just before Darwin published The Origin of Species—in the works of John Wesley. An Anglican minister and early leader in the Methodist movement, Wesley, like Augustine, thought the scriptures were written in terms suitable for their audience. He writes,

The inspired penman in this history [Genesis] … [wrote] for the Jews first and, calculating his narratives for the infant state of the church, describes things by their outward sensible appearances, and leaves us, by further discoveries of the divine light, to be led into the understanding of the mysteries couched under them.⁶

Wesley also argues the scriptures “were written not to gratify our curiosity [of the details] but to lead us to God.”⁷

In the nineteenth century, Princeton Theological Seminary was known for its staunch defense of conservative Calvinism and the absolute authority of Scripture. Perhaps the most noted Princeton theologian of that era, B. B. Warfield, accepted evolution as giving the proper scientific account of human origins. He believed that hearing God’s voice in Scripture and the findings of solid scientific work were not at odds. As historian Mark Noll puts it, “B. B. Warfield, the ablest modern defender of the theologically conservative doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible, was also an evolutionist.”⁸

Conclusion

The history of Christian thought has not been consistently dominated by proponents of a literal interpretation of Genesis. The discoveries of modern science should neither be seen as the instigator of some abandonment of trust in Scripture, nor as contradictory to Scripture, but as guideposts toward a proper understanding of Scripture’s meaning.

Augustine offers this advice:

In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.⁹

Many believe that before Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, Christians as a whole maintained an entirely literal, six-day interpretation of Genesis in which the earth was only a few thousand years old. In fact, however, the idea of an old earth had already become increasingly popular among Christians throughout the half century leading up to The Origin of Species. ¹

Another misconception is that the arrival of Darwin’s theory led the scientific and theological communities to immediately take up positions opposing each other. But history reveals that one of the earliest supporters of evolutionary theory in the American scientific community was a devout Christian botanist named Asa Gray. And among theologians, BB Warfield—an architect of the contemporary evangelical understanding of biblical inerrancy—believed that certain forms of evolution were also compatible with a high view of Scripture.

The First Christian Response to Origin of Species in America

Darwin did not invent the idea of evolution. By the time The Origin of Species was published, the idea of evolution in many natural processes was already popular, and the term development was used in its place for discussions of society’s change or the history of the solar system.² What’s more, it was widely accepted that the earth was much older than previously thought. Most of the groundwork for this understanding resulted from geological work done earlier that century. Through meticulous study of the fossil record, naturalists helped spread the view that the earth was old rather than young.

See How are the ages of the earth and universe calculated?

Though many people like to focus on Christian hostility to evolutionary theory, a careful look at history reveals some surprising facts. For instance, the first American scientist to carefully review and publically support Darwin’s Origin of Species was a devout Christian named Asa Gray, now regarded as one of the most prominent American biologists of the 19^th century. A shy person who avoided politics, Gray worked quietly and does not have the same name recognition as scientists like Louis Agassiz and T.H. Huxley—both flamboyant self-promoters who provoked public debate. But, his brilliant research during his 30-year career at Harvard University helped usher in the era of modern biology in the United States.

Source: http://www.huh.harvard.edu/libraries/Gray_Bicent/images/gray_1325.jpg

Asa Gray made his commitment to Christ in 1835, a few years after completing medical school (much like Francis Collins of our own era). ³ As a professing Christian, Gray was a committed churchgoer and member of a local congregation in Cambridge, Massachusetts. As a professional scientist, he insisted that science was neutral in matters of religion and metaphysics. Gray found evolutionary theory incredibly stimulating to his scientific research, but never found it threatening to his faith. Both before and after reading Origin of Species, Gray remained firmly grounded in the Nicene Creed, a profession of faith that Christians have shared since the early Church. ⁴

What happened when Origin of Species burst onto the scene? Gray’s extensive research on American and Japanese plants—which he published after corresponding with Charles Darwin—had already convinced him that species and genera found in both countries resulted from common ancestry, not separate creations. He responded to Darwin’s book by writing the first major review⁵ of Origin on his side of the Atlantic, and he defended Darwin’s scientific theory in a series of meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1859 and 1860. Gray was determined that Origin would get a fair reading from the scientific community, and he even took a leading role in negotiations to reprint Origin in the United States in 1860, ensuring that Americans could have the most accurate edition in their hands.

Regarding the theological implications of evolution, Gray believed that Darwin’s theory was not atheistic, although he recognized that some would use it as an “excuse” for unbelief. Henceforth, he concluded, we need “to reshape” the argument from design “in such wise as to harmonize our ineradicable belief in design with the fundamental scientific belief of continuity in nature, now extended to organic as well as inorganic forms, to living beings as well as inanimate things.” The question of whether or not life evolves should not be confused with the issue of God’s existence. Instead, Gray thought that each issue should be investigated using methods appropriate to the subject of inquiry. His refusal to argue for either extreme in this contentious debate upset both anti-evolutionists and radical popularizers of science, both of whom were eager to believe that evolution implied atheism.⁶

See How is BioLogos different from Evolutionism, Intelligent Design, and Creationism?

Early Theological Concerns with Evolution

In the decades after Origin of Species was published, theologians began to ponder the compatibility of Darwin’s theory and Christian doctrine. Some of them adopted Gray’s view that evolution was God’s method of creation.⁷ Others argued that since Darwin explained away the apparent design in nature, it was compatible only with atheism.⁸ Some scholars accepted Darwin’s argument for common ancestry, but rejected the idea of natural selection, either for scientific, philosophical, or theological reasons.⁹ Others resisted evolution specifically for the human species, partly due to concerns that evolution could conflict with Christian claims that human beings are created in the image of God.¹⁰

See How could humans have evolved and still be created in the "Image of God"?

With time, however, even some of the more conservative theologians became comfortable with evolution. B.B. Warfield, for instance, developed a powerful and enduring legacy in American evangelicalism for his belief that the Bible communicates revelation from God entirely without error. Yet while he defended biblical inerrancy, Warfield was also a cautious proponent of the possibility that God could have brought about life through evolution. His basic stance was a doctrine of providence that saw God working in and with the processes of nature, rather than completely replacing them. In Warfield’s mind, a high view of biblical authority was fully compatible with a divinely guided process of evolution.¹¹

Rise of Young Earth Creationism

Although many Christians were concerned about the implications they found in Darwin’s theory of evolution, by the end of the nineteenth century very few Christian authors argued for a young earth. Enthusiasm for this was largely confined to the Seventh-day Adventists, who followed the writings of their founding prophet, Ellen G. White. She claimed to have seen the creation of the earth in a vision from God. In another vision, God revealed to her that Noah’s flood produced the fossil record.¹² Early Adventists thus explained the geological data found in the early nineteenth century with their interpretation of the flood story of Genesis 6-8.

Between 1910 and 1915, a group of conservative Christians wrote a large collection of papers titled The Fundamentals.¹³ They clarified the beliefs of conservative Christians intent on preserving the faith from the threats of their time. Interestingly, The Fundamentals put no emphasis on Noah’s flood as an explanation of geological data and the contributors accepted an old earth. Even William Jennings Bryan, a fundamentalist who crusaded against the teaching of evolution in public schools, accepted an old earth.

Nevertheless, the modern Creationist campaign gained traction as an anti-evolution movement in the decades that followed. The 100th anniversary of Darwin’s publication in 1959 brought with it a cry from academics to make the public more aware of Darwin’s theory. Around the same time, the federal government funded the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), which produced a series of textbooks that taught evolution without reservation. Many conservative Christians at the time saw this as an attempt to “ram evolution down the throats of children.”¹⁴

As if in response to this outcry, John Whitcomb and Henry Morris updated Adventist flood geology in their 1961 book, The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications.¹⁵ Whitcomb and Morris gave an explanation for how Noah’s flood could account for the geological evidence for an older earth. Soon after, small groups of conservative Christian scientists began to form in support of this research. They came to be known as Young Earth Creationists and referred to their flood geology as scientific creationism. The movement continued to grow, and by the 1970s the term “Creationism” increasingly came to mean only the narrow belief that God created in 6 days and the earth is young, not the larger, foundational belief that God is the Maker of heaven and earth, regardless of the time scale involved.

Conclusion

Going back to the original publication of Origin of Species in 1859, we have seen that the original Christian reception of Darwin’s theory was not universally hostile, and that Asa Gray even found it scientifically insightful. With his faith firmly grounded in the creeds of the early church, Gray conducted brilliant scientific research and maintained an unwavering commitment to Christ.

It was actually not until the second half of the 20^th century that Young Earth Creationism became a mainstream view within the evangelical community. Knowing this, many Christians today have decided to stop perpetuating a “war” with science. Prominent scholars like Asa Gray and BB Warfield demonstrate that it is indeed possible to maintain a high view of scripture and accept scientific evidence of evolution.