“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” – Albert Einstein
Science is one of humanity’s most powerful tools for understanding the natural world, but its limitations are often misunderstood. Some atheists mistakenly believe that science disproves God, oversimplifying both disciplines. Below are 15 common errors and why they fail to undermine belief in God.
1. Science Has Disproven God
Science cannot disprove God because it operates within the natural world, while God is understood as transcendent—beyond nature. John Polkinghorne explained, “Science asks how things happen; theology asks why.”¹
Romans 1:20 affirms that creation itself reveals God: “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.” Science can illuminate the mechanics of creation but cannot address ultimate questions of causation or purpose.
Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, says, “I see no conflict in what the Bible tells me about God and what science tells me about nature. They are complementary.”²
Anticipating Objection:
- Objection: “Science explains everything; God is unnecessary.”
- Response: Science describes natural processes but cannot explain why those processes exist or why the universe exists at all. These are philosophical and theological questions, not scientific ones.
¹ John Polkinghorne, Science and Theology: An Introduction (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998).
² Francis Collins, The Language of God (New York: Free Press, 2006).
2. Faith and Science Are Opposed
The idea that faith and science are at odds is a modern myth. Historically, many of the greatest scientists were Christians who believed their work uncovered God’s design. Isaac Newton stated, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”³
Modern scientists echo this harmony. Jennifer Wiseman, an astronomer and senior scientist at NASA, observes, “The more I study nature, the more I’m amazed at the creativity of God.”⁴
Faith provides the philosophical foundation for science, particularly the belief in an orderly, rational universe. Without this foundation, science would lack its assumptions of consistency and intelligibility.
Anticipating Objection:
- Objection: “Faith is irrational, but science is based on evidence.”
- Response: Faith is not blind; it is based on evidence from history, philosophy, and personal experience. Science and faith address complementary questions: science explores how creation works, while faith explores why it exists.
³ Isaac Newton, Principia Mathematica (London: Joseph Streater, 1687).
⁴ Jennifer Wiseman, “Faith and Science: A NASA Scientist Reflects,” interview by BioLogos, 2019.
3. The Universe Came from ‘Nothing’
Some atheists argue that the universe arose from “nothing,” but their definition of “nothing” often includes quantum fields or vacuum states. Philosopher David Albert critiques this, stating, “Vacuum states are particular arrangements of physical stuff…hardly a case of getting something from nothing.”⁵
True nothingness means no space, time, energy, or matter. Genesis 1:1 declares, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” A transcendent Creator provides the most coherent explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.
Alister McGrath, a theologian and scientist, writes, “The universe is not self-explanatory. Its existence demands an explanation.”⁶
Anticipating Objection:
- Objection: “Quantum mechanics proves particles can arise spontaneously from nothing.”
- Response: Quantum mechanics operates within a framework of pre-existing laws. These laws themselves require an explanation, which points to a transcendent source beyond nature.
⁵ David Albert, review of Lawrence Krauss, A Universe from Nothing, The New York Times, March 23, 2012.
⁶ Alister McGrath, The Big Question: Why We Can’t Stop Talking About Science, Faith, and God (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2015).
4. The Big Bang Eliminates the Need for God
The Big Bang theory affirms that the universe had a beginning, aligning with the biblical concept of creation ex nihilo. Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin concluded, “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”⁷
John 1:3 states, “All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” While the Big Bang describes how the universe began, it cannot explain why it began or what caused it.
Deborah Haarsma, astrophysicist and president of BioLogos, writes, “The Big Bang points to a moment when space, time, matter, and energy were brought into existence. This is entirely consistent with God as the Creator.”⁸
Anticipating Objection:
- Objection: “The Big Bang is a natural process, so God isn’t needed.”
- Response: The Big Bang describes the development of the universe after it began but does not address the cause of its beginning. A transcendent Creator remains the best explanation for the origin of space, time, and matter.
⁷ Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006).
⁸ Deborah Haarsma, “God and the Big Bang: A Conversation About Creation,” BioLogos, 2017.
5. Evolution Explains Everything
While evolution explains biological diversity, it does not account for the origin of life, morality, or consciousness. Biologist Michael Behe critiques this overreach, saying, “What we detect in life is a purposeful arrangement of parts.”⁹
Genesis 1:27 affirms humanity’s uniqueness: “So God created man in his own image.” Evolution describes mechanisms within creation but cannot explain ultimate purpose or intentionality.
Francis Collins writes, “Evolution could be a creative and ingenious way by which God brought about the diversity of life on Earth.”¹⁰
Anticipating Objection:
- Objection: “Evolution eliminates the need for God.”
- Response: Evolution explains processes within creation, not the origin of life, the universe, or consciousness. Many scientists, including Collins, see evolution as compatible with faith in a Creator.
⁹ Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: Free Press, 1996).
¹⁰ Francis Collins, The Language of God (New York: Free Press, 2006).
6. Occam’s Razor Eliminates God
Occam’s Razor suggests that simpler explanations are preferable, but it does not exclude God. Philosopher Richard Swinburne explains, “God provides a simple explanation of why there is something rather than nothing and why the universe is as it is.”¹¹
Proverbs 3:19 says, “The Lord by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding he established the heavens.” By contrast, atheistic naturalism often requires additional assumptions, such as infinite universes or uncaused physical laws.
Jennifer Wiseman adds, “The simplest explanation for the order and intelligibility of the universe is that it reflects the mind of its Creator.”¹²
Anticipating Objection:
- Objection: “Naturalism is simpler than theism.”
- Response: Naturalism often introduces unnecessary complexities, such as multiverse theories or infinite regress. Theism posits a single necessary being as the ultimate cause.
¹¹ Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004).
¹² Jennifer Wiseman, interview by BioLogos, 2019.
7. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe is Coincidence
The universe’s physical constants—such as the gravitational constant and the speed of light—are precisely calibrated to allow for life. The slightest variation in these constants would render the universe uninhabitable. Physicist Paul Davies remarked, “The impression of design is overwhelming.”¹³
Hebrews 1:3 affirms God’s sustaining power over creation: “He upholds the universe by the word of his power.” Fine-tuning strongly suggests intentionality and purpose, which align with a Creator.
Deborah Haarsma, an astrophysicist, says, “The fine-tuning of the universe is not easily dismissed as coincidence. It is a powerful pointer to the Creator’s care and purpose.”¹⁴
Anticipating Objection:
- Objection: “The multiverse explains fine-tuning by positing infinite universes.”
- Response: The multiverse hypothesis lacks empirical evidence and raises further questions: why is the multiverse itself finely tuned to produce life-permitting universes? A Creator remains the more plausible explanation.
¹³ Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? (London: Penguin Books, 2006).
¹⁴ Deborah Haarsma, “The Fine-Tuning of the Universe: A Reflection on God’s Purpose,” BioLogos, 2017.
8. Science Can Answer All Questions
Scientism—the belief that science is the only valid way to gain knowledge—ignores the limitations of science. Science relies on metaphysical principles, such as logic, the uniformity of nature, and the existence of objective truth, which it cannot justify on its own.
Max Planck, the father of quantum theory, stated, “Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle against skepticism, against dogmatism, and against disbelief.”¹⁵
Romans 11:33 marvels at the limits of human understanding: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!”
Anticipating Objection:
- Objection: “Science is the only reliable path to truth.”
- Response: Science excels at explaining natural processes but cannot address questions of purpose, morality, or ultimate meaning. Philosophy, theology, and other disciplines complement science to form a fuller understanding of reality.
¹⁵ Max Planck, Religion and Natural Science (London: Oxford University Press, 1931).
9. Quantum Mechanics Eliminates Order
Quantum mechanics is often misused to argue for a chaotic or random universe. However, quantum phenomena operate within a structured mathematical framework. Physicist John Polkinghorne observed, “Quantum theory points to a reality deeper than materialism.”¹⁶
Colossians 1:17 says, “And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” Even at the quantum level, creation reflects order and interconnectedness.
Deborah Haarsma adds, “Quantum mechanics challenges deterministic views of the universe, but it doesn’t negate the deeper order established by God.”¹⁷
Anticipating Objection:
- Objection: “Quantum mechanics shows that randomness governs the universe.”
- Response: Quantum mechanics describes probabilities but does not negate the underlying order of physical laws. This points to a Creator who established these laws and their boundaries.
¹⁶ John Polkinghorne, Science and Theology: An Introduction (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998).
¹⁷ Deborah Haarsma, “Quantum Mechanics and the Hand of God,” BioLogos, 2020.
10. Religious Belief is Merely Evolutionary
Some argue that religious belief is an evolutionary byproduct, designed for survival. While evolution may describe the human capacity for belief, it does not disprove the validity of belief in God. Alvin Plantinga writes, “The fact that belief in God arises naturally could itself be evidence that God created us with a sensus divinitatis.”¹⁸
Ecclesiastes 3:11 declares, “He has set eternity in the human heart.” The universality of religious belief points to humanity’s innate awareness of the divine.
Jennifer Wiseman reflects, “Our capacity for wonder and worship speaks to a Creator who designed us for relationship with Him.”¹⁹
Anticipating Objection:
- Objection: “Religion is just a survival mechanism, not truth.”
- Response: Even if belief in God had survival benefits, this does not negate its truth. The ubiquity of religious belief aligns with a Creator who designed humans to seek Him.
¹⁸ Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).
¹⁹ Jennifer Wiseman, “Faith and Wonder in the Cosmos,” BioLogos, 2021.
11. Miracles Violate Natural Laws
Atheists often claim miracles are violations of natural laws. However, C.S. Lewis clarified, “A miracle is not a violation of the laws of nature but rather an intervention by the Author of those laws.”²⁰
Matthew 19:26 reminds us, “With God all things are possible.” Miracles do not contradict natural laws; they reflect God’s sovereign power over creation.
Francis Collins writes, “As a scientist, I do not believe in a God who constantly tweaks creation, but I do believe in a God who occasionally reveals His power through miracles.”²¹
Anticipating Objection:
- Objection: “Miracles are scientifically impossible.”
- Response: Miracles are extraordinary events caused by God, who transcends natural laws. They are not violations but demonstrations of His authority over creation.
²⁰ C.S. Lewis, Miracles (London: HarperOne, 1947).
²¹ Francis Collins, The Language of God (New York: Free Press, 2006).
12. Order in the Universe is Taken for Granted
Science assumes the universe is orderly and intelligible, but this assumption is not self-evident in a naturalistic framework. Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner remarked, “The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious.”²²
Job 38:4 underscores God’s role in creating order: “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?” A rational Creator provides the best explanation for why the universe operates consistently.
Jennifer Wiseman reflects, “The order we observe in nature is not random; it reflects the creativity and intentionality of its Maker.”²³
Anticipating Objection:
- Objection: “The universe’s order is just a brute fact.”
- Response: The intelligibility of the universe points to a rational Creator who designed it to be comprehensible. Naturalism fails to account for this fundamental aspect of science.
²² Eugene Wigner, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences,” Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 13, no. 1 (1960): 1–14.
²³ Jennifer Wiseman, interview by BioLogos, 2020.
13. The Origin of Life is a Simple Problem
The complexity of even the simplest life forms defies naturalistic explanations. Biochemist Michael Denton described the cell as “an intricate complexity unmatched by any human invention.”²⁴
Psalm 139:14 celebrates God’s creative power: “I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” Life’s origin points to a Creator, not random chance.
Francis Collins writes, “The origin of life remains one of the great mysteries of science, but the complexity and elegance of life point me toward a Creator.”²⁵
Anticipating Objection:
- Objection: “Given enough time, life could emerge spontaneously.”
- Response: Time does not solve the problem of information and complexity required for life. A Creator provides the best explanation for life’s origin.
²⁴ Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda: Adler & Adler, 1986).
²⁵ Francis Collins, The Language of God (New York: Free Press, 2006).
14. Consciousness is Just Brain Activity
Materialists often reduce consciousness to brain activity, but this fails to explain subjective experience. Neuroscientist David Chalmers calls consciousness “the hard problem” because it resists physical explanation.²⁶
Genesis 2:7 highlights the spiritual dimension of humanity: “The Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” Consciousness points to a reality beyond material processes.
Alister McGrath writes, “Consciousness is not just a product of neurons; it hints at the transcendent.”²⁷
Anticipating Objection:
- Objection: “Consciousness is just brain chemistry.”
- Response: Consciousness involves subjective experience, which cannot be fully explained by physical processes alone. This points to the spiritual nature of humanity.
²⁶ David Chalmers, The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).
²⁷ Alister McGrath, The Big Question (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2015).
15. Science Disproves Purpose
Science describes how things work but cannot determine their purpose. Werner Heisenberg, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, said, “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass, God is waiting for you.”²⁸
Proverbs 16:4 reminds us, “The Lord has made everything for its purpose.” Purpose is inherent in creation, pointing to the intentionality of its Creator.
Jennifer Wiseman writes, “The more we learn about the universe, the more it reflects purpose, beauty, and the character of God.”²⁹
Anticipating Objection:
- Objection: “Science shows that life has no purpose.”
- Response: Science is a tool for understanding mechanisms, not determining purpose. The presence of purpose in human life and creation points to a Creator who imbues meaning into His work.
²⁸ Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy (New York: Harper, 1958).
²⁹ Jennifer Wiseman, “Purpose in the Universe: Reflections from an Astronomer,” BioLogos, 2021.
A Final Challenge to Atheism
Science reveals the universe’s complexity, order, and intelligibility—qualities consistent with a rational and purposeful Creator. Proverbs 1:7 says, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.”
Could it be that science itself points beyond the natural world to the God who created and sustains it?
Tom's Theology Blog 
Leave a comment