It is reasonable to assert that Christianity was an essential component of the culture in which modern science developed because it provided a more encouraging worldview for the investigation of nature than did alternative belief systems.
I suggest that the level of confidence any one person has in the truth of evolutionary history directly reflects the degree of confidence they have that science is the surest way of finding truth in any topic, and/or the confidence they have in the assumption of naturalism.
The way in which God interacts with the world, or divine action, has long been a matter of discussion for theists in the philosophy of science, and continues to remain a complex and controversial topic. In recent decades, this question has taken on additional complexity with advances in contemporary physics, namely quantum physics, which posits a random or probabilistic world in contradistinction to the apparently completely deterministic natural world of Isaac Newton.
In discussions of science and faith, one often gets the impression that either science or Scripture can be believed—not both. In the secular world, science is by default seen as the true source of knowledge.
If we had perfect knowledge, our science and our theology would never be in conflict because the same God who reveals Himself through Scripture has also revealed Himself through creation, and God is not in conflict with Himself. Thus, when we see conflict between our best theology and our best science, this is merely an indication of our lack of complete understanding.
To understand how human beings acquire and evaluate knowledge, and how to determine what is true involves consideration of the relationships between data, interpretations, assumptions, and worldviews. All of these contribute to the scholarly search for truth, and none can be safely ignored.
At present, there is an almost absolute exclusion of God from scientific textbooks and journals. Unfortunately, such a closed attitude prevents science from following the data of nature wherever it may lead. Science cannot evaluate evidence for God as long as He is excluded from consideration.
As science develops more complete naturalistic explanations to describe the universe, it may appear that there is less room for God in the picture. And if science ever discovers a “complete” theory, it could be presumed that it would describe a universe without God. I am confident, however, that this conclusion is neither necessary nor valid. Drawing upon examples from physics, my purpose is to show that in developing a more complete picture of the universe, scientists are led to greater evidences for God and His design.
There have been a number of carefully written books and articles arguing that ID has failed to make its case. ID advocates have published responses to these arguments. Which of these lines of argument is most convincing, when compared to what is known about living systems?
Since both reason and revelation have their ultimate source in God, they should be in complete harmony. Yet reason and revelation appear to conflict when attempting to explain the world around us. This article will discuss some of the factors contributing to the conflict between science and faith and suggest ways in which Christians might choose to deal with it.
A review of the book, A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature. Darwinian reductionism dissolves appreciation of the genius behind masterpieces. In the real world, science and the arts each enrich and complement understanding of the other; both, at their best, are part of and point to the same Truth. Published in Origins, n. 61.
The debate raging around ID is not one of scientific fact versus religious faith. The real clash is an ideological one in which scientists are seeking to maintain the intellectual and cultural dominance of the humanist/atheist worldview.