top of page


Science & Christianity

The relationship between Science and Christianity


Vincent smith


The relationship between Science and religion is today seen in the following typical fashion. Modern science has been the most impressive intellectual phenomenon from the 1700’s to the year 2016. Many Christians today have the belief that science is a threat to their belief and many scientists believe religion is a threat to science and reason.

Indeed, there are conflicts between scientists and religious people but is it between science and religion? I will examine how these conflicts come about and although Secular thought often portrays religion as the enemy of science yet it is a fact that many of the world's greatest scientific discoveries throughout the centuries were consistently made by persons of faith, who may have been seeking to honor God and His creation.

According to Lawrence M. Principe, the Johns Hopkins University Drew Professor of the Humanities, “from a historical perspective this points out that much of the current-day clashes occur between limited extremists—both religious and science fundamentalists—over a very few topics, and that the movement of ideas back and forth between scientific and theological thought has been more usual”. In the last 20yrs the number of topics that caused clashes between science and religion has increased from Evolution of life and the Solar system issues to the idea of causality of the universe ‘big bang’ Cosmology, Paleontology, Anthropology and Zoology.


Christian believers have played a significant role in scientific thought and reason. It may be said that because of religion we have scientific advancements as men sought to explore the universe in search of God or to understand God better. Religions have also made key contributions in development of modern universities, libraries, centers of learning. Scholarships were founded by religious institutions – whether Muslim, or Christian.


Dan Greaves writes, "Christians and the Christian worldview were crucial to the formation of the early sciences. . . . If science, technology, and medical advances, properly used, are examples of God's grace to us, then those who brought them into being should be credited for them. . . . None of these men were perfect... I have deliberately chosen to respect all Christians who have honored the living God with their lives and work, regardless of their theological differences. They began their search for truth with the assumption that God exists, that His Word is true, and that He has created an orderly universe that reveals Himself. Graves, Dan (10).

It appears that science and Christianity had a harmonious relationship from the second century to the eighteen hundreds. There were no recorded travesties between the two. In the first century there was no clear-cut scientific world views that seemed at odds with the Christian views. In the religious groups Muslim especially had a golden age of mainly comic discoveries due to scientific methodology. Religion and science were married and science was simply a tool to discover more about Gods universe/ creation. There was no inkling of a threat.

Scientific and theological perspectives often coexist peacefully. “…in the 11th and 12th centuries, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church's "model theologian", not only argued that reason is in harmony with faith, he even recognized that reason can contribute to understanding revelation, and so encouraged intellectual development”. It is evident that Christianity and Theologists had a world view that was the impetus for the emergence of science. Religious scientists saw reason as a way of understanding God. There was a passion for the exploration of God’s world. The depth and kind of science may only have been hindered by the moral codes and doctrines of scripture that clearly imposed limits in some areas.

It is very difficult to link science to people who are anti-religious in the period before 1700. The Catholics embraced the study of astrology and cosmology as long as purpose and cause for their existence was not a question and not in opposition to Christianity. In fact the Catholics had established the Jesuit schools which taught the natural sciences and cosmology by Christian professors, who accepted the Tychonic model of the Solar System and Aristotle’s theories of the Solar system revolving around the earth as true and were consistent with the Bible.

According to Andrew Kassebaum in the 1600…“the Catholic Jesuits (an arm of the Catholic Church that managed schools of reason and science) who embraced Aristotelian science and the Tychonic model of the solar model of the earth being the Centre of the universe debated Galileo Galilei. This however was more of a scientific debate and not religion versus science, Kassebaum, Andrew. (1). Galileo Galilei used many of the Jesuits scientific notes which helped him lay the foundation for his theories on motion. Jesuit science and the republic of letters. Galileo also claimed to have proven that miracles do happen, according to the (1), “in his (Galileo) letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (circulated in manuscript only) he actually interpreted the problematical biblical passage in the book of Joshua to conform to a heliocentric cosmology” (the planets revolved around the Sun) (7).

The most notable Religious opposition came not initially because the idea was scientific but because it had opposed an already approved scientific theory the Catholic Church held. The Catholic’s Jesuit priest’s scientific schools opposed Galileo firstly in 1616 and lastly in 1632 (he was put to death in 1633) because of his Heliocentric theory. The Catholic inquisition was drawn into the matter to condemn him on certain scriptures which his Heliocentrism heretically violated, e.g. Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 which include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place”. Recently in 1992, the Catholic Church vindicated Galileo.

We can see here evidence of scriptural interpretation in opposition to certain scientific postulations. We can assume that the stance taken was because the scientific positions of Tychonus and Aristotle which supported the biblical views were used as proof or evidence of God and this lent to the support for reason and scientific exploration.

A century later as science made greater advances in various fields the harmony of science and Religion began to see some strain. It is said that Sir Isaac Newton’s profound theories kicked off the “Age of Scientific Enlightenment”, also known as the Age of Enlightenment or the Age of Reason; was an intellectual movement which dominated the world of ideas in Europe in the 18th century. The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy. There was also and religious tolerance which was in opposition to an absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. The Enlightenment was marked with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy by protestants for freedom of Religious choice. Some recent historians begin the period in the 1620s, with the start of the scientific revolution. Newtonianism was becoming more known to an increasingly literate population who saw significant advancements in the practice of medicine, mathematics, and physics” and an emphasis on scientific method. Also people became disillusioned with ‘Christianity” during the 30 years religious war (1618-1648; over 8 million casualties) in Europe between the Roman Catholic Emperor and the protestant states who rejected his imposed Catholicism on them.

According to a Wikipedia article – ‘The first individuals to identify themselves using the word atheist lived in the 18th century during the Age of Enlightenment. The French Revolution, noted for its unprecedented atheism," witnessed the first major political movement in history to advocate for the supremacy of human reason’ (1). At that time the fear of the Catholic Inquisition was removed and man was free to think and offend the church.


Unlike the 1600’s, the mid 1800’s saw the theory of Evolution or Darwinism became the centre of controversy as Atheists grew in number. It is widely believed that Darwinism has had a devastating impact on Christianity. Many scientists believe that the acceptance of Darwinism has convinced large numbers of people that the Genesis account of creation is erroneous, and that this has caused foundation of Christianity and other theisms to fall. According to Stephen Jay Gould, “before Darwinism we thought that a benevolent God created us and after Darwinism we know there is no intervening spirit watching over us”.

In the 1800’s and 1900’s we see a developing anti-religious animosity by scientists and they take on the very Character of the people that they opposed. They become deeply upset with people who believe in religion. They preach the “truth” of science, the necessity of Newtonian and other types of physics, they increasingly adopted evangelising and proselytising characteristics of the same religion/s they despised.

Alvin Plantinga believes that between 1995 and 2016 the New Atheists are saying that there are deep irreconcilable differences between Religion and Science but the reality is that the modern conflict really lies not with religion and science but Atheism and Science.

Many of the postulations of scientists were proven not true by the very science itself, e.g. evolution, Millions of years old dinosaurs, the Universe beginning with a big band etc.

Today’s fundamental Christians are the ones at odds with scientific positions that propose better answers to life’s questions than religion or out rightly rejects God. The fundamentalists have taken to the streets, University debates and media platforms as apologists, who use argument and reason to convey Christian thought on world views. They take a defensive stance on the issues that challenge Christianity fundamentally. Other Christians who hold ‘modern interpretations’ of the bible seek to reconcile with some topics e.g. Evolution and the Big Bang Theories. Yet other Christians may show little interest in science and any atheistic postulations. Atheistic scientists are also the instigators of discord and they conclude that there is a permanent divide between the science and religion. According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, “hypothesis is a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences”. One can conclude that it is not the study of science or scientific methodology itself that are at odds with Christianity but only some scientific theories and hypotheses proposed by men.

There are many Christians who contributed to science and that pushed the boundaries of science to its limits today who as Christians had no conflict with their life’s work and their religion but rather saw a harmony between the two. These men had a passion and love for their work. In other words if these scientists were alive today maybe there would be a different view of the relationship between science and religion.


Works Cited

(1) Graves, Dan. “Scientists of Faith” (Kregel Resources: Grand Rapids, MI; 1996)

(1) Kassebaum, Andrew. < > Filed under Christianity and Science

(1) <>

(1) < - last modified on 5 February 2017, at 10:41.>

(7) Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Alvin Plantinga

Christians who are scientists

As an aside to this essay here is a list of Christian scientists.

Nicolaus Copernicus


Catholic (priest)

Andreas Vesalius



Gallileo Galilei



Johannes Kepler



William Harvey


Anglican (nominal)

Rene Descartes



Blaise Pascal



Robert Boyle



Christian Huygens



Anton van Leeuwenhoek


Dutch Reformed

Robert Hooke



Isaac Newton


Anglican (rejected Trinitarianism, i.e., Athanasianism;
believed in the Arianism of the Primitive Church)

Edmund Halley



Daniel Bernoulli



Benjamin Franklin


Presbyterian; Deist

Leonard Euler



Carolus Linnaeus



Henry Cavendish



Joseph Priestley


Presbyterian; unitarian

William Herschel



Antoine Laurent Lavoisier



Alessandro Volta



Edward Jenner



John Dalton



Georges Cuvier



Alexander von Humboldt



Karl Friedrich Gauss



Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac



Humphry Davy



Jons Jakob Berzelius



Michael Faraday



Charles Babbage



Joseph Henry



Matthew Fontaine Maury



Louis Agassiz



Charles Darwin


Anglican (nominal); Unitarian

Augusta Ada Byron



James Prescott Joule



Jean Bernard Leon Foucault



Gregor Mendel


Catholic (Augustinian monk)

Louis Pasteur



William Thomson, Lord Kelvin



Joseph Lister



Friedrich August Kekule



James Clerk Maxwell


Presbyterian; Anglican; Baptist

Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleyev



William Henry Perkin



Wilhelm Konrad Roentgen



Thomas Alva Edison


Congregationalist; agnostic

Luther Burbank



Ivan Petrovich Pavlov



John Ambrose Fleming



William Ramsay



Antoine-Henri Becquerel



Albert Abraham Michelson



Sigmnd Freud


Jewish; Atheist; Freudian psychoanalysis (Freudianism)

Joseph John Thomson


 Devout Christian

Nettie Marie Stevens



George Washington Carver



Marie Sklodowska Curie


Catholic (lapsed)

Henrietta Swan Leavitt



Ernst Rutherford



Lise Meitner


Jewish-born Protestant

Albert Einstein



Alexander Fleming



Niels Bohr


Jewish Lutheran

Selman Abraham Waksman



Edwin Powell Hubble


Christian turned agnostic

Robert Alexander Watson-Watt



Arthur Holly Compton



Irene Joliot-Curie



Linus Carl Pauling



Enrico Fermi



Werner Heisenberg



Margaret Mead



Barbara McClintock



Grace Brewster Murray Hopper



Marie Goeppert-Mayer



John Bardeen



William Bradford Shockley



Dorothy Crowfood Hodgkin



Jaques Yves Cousteau



Luis Walter Alvarez



Charles Hard Townes



Richard Philipis Feynman



Frederick Sanger



Rosalind Elsie Franklin



Rosalyn Sussman Yalow



Har Gobind Khorana



Tsung-Dao Lee



James Dewey Watson



Stephen William Hawking



100 Scientists Who Shaped World History (Bluewood Books: San Francisco, CA, © 2000), written by John Hudson Tiner.


Galileo Galilei (Italian pronunciation: [ɡaliˈlɛːo ɡaliˈlɛi]; 15 February 1564 – 8 January 1642) was an Italian polymath: astronomer, physicist, engineer, philosopher, and mathematician, he played a major role in the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century.

He has been called the "father of observational astronomy", the "father of modern physics", the "father of scientific method", and the "father of science".

Paleontology from Greek παλαιός, palaios, i.e. "old, ancient", ὄν, on (gen. ontos), i.e. "being, creature" and λόγος, logos, i.e. "speech, thought, study".[

Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence or reality as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology often deals with questions concerning what entities exist or may be said to exist and how such entities may be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.

Zoology – particularly with its evolutionary branch that take an evolutionary view to the origin and the decent of the animals.


Whitehouse, D. (2009). Renaissance Genius: Galileo Galilei & His Legacy to Modern Science. Sterling Publishing. p. 219ISBN 978-1-4027-6977-1.

Singer, C. (1941). "A Short History of Science to the Nineteenth Century". Clarendon Press: 217.

Science or presupposition


Does science prove or disprove God’s existence-- does science prove evolution?


Presuppositions. Secular logicians recognize that every philosophical system must start with presuppositions, starting points or assumptions that cannot be proven from anything more basic, but are accepted up front as the foundation for all subsequent reasoning.


There are two types of science.

Observational (empirical) and historical (forensic). Observational science-- Neither creation, evolution nor Darwinian biology are directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable, and therefore neither qualifies as observational science. Therefore, they cannot be proven directly. Either the universe started from a singularity (evolution) was created by a God. Neither are observable or can be empirically proven. Christians argue that the list of scientific evidences seem to point towards a designed (God), just like the car does, but we ultimately make that determination not the science.

Historical science studies the past to try to determine the origin of something. Science provide some clues but the conclusion is based on the person’s inferences.


Can observational evidence lead one to a designer?

Theologian John Lennox asked his students to look at a car and it’s builder. Then decide what accounts for the car. Is it the laws of combustion or the engineer who built it. They said both. Why can’t atheists get this? Its because of their world view.

The more science (knowledge) you learn about the car, it cannot disprove the maker, in fact the science points to design and the design points to a designer. Likewise, cosmogenic science points to order not randomness, laws that maintain order that achieves a goal or purpose/intent. Science does not identify the original cause however, as Christians, because of our presuppositions we assume it’s the only intelligent thing that claimed to create order in the universe and that is God. For the evolutionists based on their several opposing presuppositions it could be nothing did it, other galaxies, colliding particles, ongoing universes, gas expanding and the list goes on.

Science doesn’t say anything, scientists do.

Science gives you the evidence you have to then take the evidence gathering and decide or interpret the evidence and no evidence is self-interpreting. All evidence all data needs to be interpreted.

Science does not make something innocent or guilty a scientist does that. How can two people looking at the 10 evidence come to two different understandings our views. That’s because it depends on their presuppositions.

The so-called scientific evidence is an interpretation of the evidence based upon anti-biblical philosophical presuppositions. Some Theistic evolutionists argue that “the verdict of geology (science) shows that the earth has been here for a very long time.” The verdict of geology says no such thing. It is the verdict of uniformitarian geologists the scientists presuppositions that suggest the world is very old because it can’t be young, why, because that would require a miracle and they don’t believe in miracles. Miracles will suggest a God and they don’r believe in God.


Frank Turek, a Christian Apologist, argues that it is obvious that you won’t find God in the car because He is the creator of the car. However, evolutionists look at the car and claim they don’t see the designer just as they would look at the universe and say we don’t see God out there.


Mathematical laws

Physicist Paul Davies said, Scientists take the orderly laws on “faith and that those laws all are expresses as tidy mathematical relationships.” It is suggested that the universe has rational orderly laws because there is a rational orderly mind behind it. We believe that we can use logic, reasoning and be rational because God the creator of the universe is logical and rational and allows for us to understand logic and able reason. We believe also that all knowledge (science) in the universe we can gain is because of God equipping and allowing us to acquire such. If there are orderly laws of nature there must be a creator or giver of these laws.

Planets in our solar system orbit in an orderly fashion, why don’t they break the laws? There seems to be a purpose, reason or goal to this.

It is not being said here that secular scientists do not utilize observational science to make evolutionary models. Neither should we state that all evolutionary models are based only on historical science.


Atheist scientists would try to make you believe they are objective and have no beliefs but once a person’s mind is hardened on what they believe it won’t matter how much the evidence appears to point to an intelligent design they won’t accept it. So this is why it was no surprise when supposedly objective scientists rejected the blood tissue found in a so called prehistoric animal. Here the scientific observational evidence is pointing towards a recently live animal but since their beliefs (not objectivity) were so entrenched they asked that the sample be tested over 50 times and still refused to follow the science.

Christian scientist
Science or presuposition
Science or Creation pt1



SCIENCE AND CHRISTIANITY-are they incompatible?

What is science?

Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system.

Explain historical and observational science.

Evolutionists and Christians agree on the same facts we disagree on the interpretation of the facts.

In Experimental or operational science, scientific facts exist in the present and they can be tested and repeated to verify the results.

Historical science: we examine facts that exist now in the present, but we try to examine them to learn how they came into existence. Scientists make conclusions about these facts. The assumptions about the facts are based on the scientist’s own beliefs on what happened in the past. If he has an evolutionary belief that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, he will look at the rock layers (which are scientific facts) and say they took billions of years. the facts do not draw conclusions for or against creation or evolution. So, it’s the interpretation and has two interpretations we must find out which of these two interpretations provides the best explanation for what we see.

However, the Bible is not meant to be a science book and does not have to reveal modern scientific facts for it to ‘align’ with science.

Is the material world all that there is?

Evolutionists believe this to be true but what do we know?

(1) Professor Richard Lewontin an evolutionary biologist said, I paraphrase-“ It is not that the methods and institutions of science (that) compel us to accept a material explanation of (the) world, but, on the contrary, we are forced by our a priori adherence to materialism which) causes us to create an apparatus of investigation and (to create) a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”.                                        

So according to Lewontin, it is their belief that the material world is all there is, not that science has proven it to be so, but it is their commitment to rejecting the divine God that drives them to come up with explanations for a material world. 

(2) Man can initiate thoughts and actions; they are not merely the results of deterministic laws of brain chemistry. This is a deduction from the biblical teaching that man has both a material and immaterial aspect (e.g. Genesis 35:181 Kings 17:21–22Matthew 10:28).

This immaterial aspect of man means that he is more than matter, so man’s thoughts are not bound by the makeup of his brain. i.e., mankind is both physical and non-physical at the same time which means there exist in the universe both material and non-material. So, the material is not all that there is.

(3) Material cannot think or generate free thought, have no consciousness, and have no morals because according to evolutionists their brains are meaningless chemicals from leftover stardust fizzing away. So, whose chemicals are more morally superior to the other. They don’t even have free will because everything is directed by these chemicals firing without purpose or reason. After all, evolution does not have purpose or reason, or free will.

William Provine, said: “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences … 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics /morals exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists, and 5) human free will is non-existent.

There is no evidence for this assumption. This is what some theologians want you to believe.  There is more to the world than just matter.

What is Christianity?

Without Jesus, there is no such thing as Christianity. Who is Jesus, he is the creator of the universe, Savior of sinful mankind, and leader of those who is spiritually reborn in Him? So, it is a belief in Jesus, ongoing spiritual growth in Jesus, and life of Holiness in Jesus controlled and maintained by His Spirit for the purpose of eternal life to holiness.

Is there a Biblical position on the use of science?

--The word science is not in scripture. However, based on the definition of science we can say there is no explicit position for or against the use of science. Science is the intensive observation of all living and non-living things in and around us.

--What we do know,

Gen 1:28 God gave mankind the authority to dominate this world and subdue it. We can observe and investigate this world for food, medicine and to increase our knowledge in an area that is beneficial.

Psalms 19

1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky displays his handiwork.

2 Day after day it speaks out; night after night it reveals his greatness.

3 There is no actual speech or word, nor is its voice literally heard.  


Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse.

God is saying the material world is evidence of my power, design, creativity, and wisdom. There is an implication here that God is saying if you want evidence for me search the universe and it will provide evidence of me.

How can we know the material world around us is truly evidence as God said unless we observe it?



“When the Bible disagrees with science, we must follow the science”. What are your thoughts on this statement?

The question is a loaded question and therefore a logical fallacy, it assumes that the Bible disagrees with science. Some theologians continue to argue that when scientific discoveries in God’s world conflict with interpretations of God’s Word/scriptures, Christians have three options:

  1. Abandon our faith and accept the results of science,

  2. Deny scientific evidence to maintain our interpretation of scripture,

  3. Change our interpretations of Scripture in light of the evidence from God’s creation


The problem is that they are assuming there is an incompatibility between science and our interpretation of scripture, which is a false assumption. There is no conflict between the discoveries and our interpretations of the Bible. Since this is not the case, what is the incompatibility they are seeing? It is incompatible with another worldview called evolution, not science. Science does not interpret the facts, people, evolutionists, Christians, scientists all interpret the facts, and the facts, are interpreted by our world views.

--Did the discoveries of Copernicus and Galileo (that the Earth is not the center of the universe), for instance, change the Church’s perspective on whether the Bible intends to teach us about Earth’s place in the solar system? 

The Bible never said the earth had a particular location in relation to the sun and moon nor where it is in relation to the universe. It could be centre or maybe not. The universe. There was a misinterpretation by the Catholic Bishops involved. But Copernicus and Galileo never proved the Bible wrong. They proved the Catholics had a wrong interpretation of scripture. This was normal for the Catholics. We don’t have the Catholic interpretation, so we don’t have to change.

These Theologians have a procedure, when there is an evolutionary view that conflicts with scripture, they tell you to go back to the Bible and see how best you can reinterpret the passages to make it fit with evolution. This is what they do. They let evolution dictate to them what is truth. Do you know how many times they had to revise their interpretations?

So, I am saying to you believers, that when Christians are faced with scientific facts, look at the scientific facts and interpret them in light of the scriptural facts. Because our interpretations are not in conflict with science so there is no need to change our interpretation.

Is there a distinction between evolution and science?

Evolutionists discuss three main points (1) the origin of the universe, (2) the origin of life on earth, and (3) if all life forms evolved into other life forms. Evolution is guided by the personal views of the evolutionist. So, all scientific data or discoveries are interpreted according to the presuppositions of the evolutionists.

--However, many evolutionists do not consider the big bang evolution, they will tell you evolution is related to life only. They will say, “Evolution, is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction”. evolution is particles to man/anmal/tree.

-(2) Now, Science is the study of nature using an objective method. Science does not conclude anything, humans do. Discovering a fossilized bone in the earth is science but determining if God created the animal or did the animal evolve is a human conclusion about the scientific data.

--Science and scientists are two different things. Science doesn’t do anything it has no motive while a Scientist is a person who conducts scientific research to advance knowledge in an area of interest. However, scientists have world views that they use to interpret the research data and draw conclusions. An evolutionist does not believe in a God who created the world in six literal days. A Christian scientist and an evolutionary scientist are going to view the evidence of science differently.

Does science disagree with the Christian worldview?

Is an unbiased, objective systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Christianity has a biased view of nature because we believe God made it. When Christians view the known scientific discoveries so far, we see they are consistent with what the Bible said about creation. “We don’t think ‘science’ is wrong, in the sense of real (operational) science like chemistry and physics. We think that the materialistic philosophy of history masquerading as science is wrong.”


What about science and miracles?

Liberal theologians have attempted to remove biblical miracles from Christian theology, but in doing so they have sacrificed the supernatural power of Christianity. Jesus without miracles becomes a mere man, the Bible without miracles, becomes only the words of men.

People reject miracles, not because they have critically analyzed the evidence for and against them and consciously decided that miracles are impossible, but because our culture assumes the impossibility of miracles. Of course, that’s not an argument, only a bias.

If mankind can resist the law of gravity using planes and artificial means, then why can't God suspend or resist these same laws using his methods?

It is assumed that either there is a God or there are natural laws you can’t have both. But in this case, this is a false dilemma because there is a third option. There is a God that created the world miraculously and set forces in place that holds molecules and maintain relationships between materials this is what we call natural laws.

Since creation, which is the biggest miracle, God has worked through his natural laws except when He used a miracle from time to time as revealed in the scriptures. God does not have to use a miracle everyday single day and every minute to keep the sun shining and the earth rotating and revolving and creatures breathing. He lets natural laws do that.

These Laws of nature are descriptive, not prescriptive. They describe what we observe happening repeatedly. The laws of thermodynamics, the gas laws, the laws of electromagnetic induction, laws of chemical reaction, the law of biogenesis, and many more. E.g., the law of gravity is what we call a ‘natural law’, or a ‘law of nature, because it is not derived from any theoretical proofs, but is simply the result of countless observations of what happens continually around us.


To tell the story of the Big Bang evolutionists must bypass the law of conservation of matter/energy: matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Since matter cannot create matter in the beginning nor could the big bang create its energy, this is why it requires a miracle, in the beginning, to create the matter in the universe. Hence the ARGUMENT for God.


the 2nd law says, in the beginning, everything was orderly and is now becoming chaotic, but evolutionists ignore this law and say everything was chaotic in the beginning and became orderly. You can’t call yourselves scientists and ignore these laws. They practice scientism, not science.


To tells the story of the origin of life evolutionists must remove the law of Biogenesis (life can only come from life) but they claim life comes from non-life which is abiogenesis. A blatant disregard for these laws -they defy the laws of nature, and they talk about miracles defying natural laws. The only explanation for the origin of life is a miracle and where do miracles come from-God. You need God to start life-hence the ARGUMENT for God. God is a necessary being.

So, you can’t get a universe without miracles, and to get miracles you need God, you can’t get an orderly universe without God, and you certainly cannot get life without God.

The evolutionists circumvent the natural laws, invent their own laws that don’t exist in nature. You just can’t create a universe without God or miracles. God is your best explanation.

Who said laws of nature cannot be suspended? laws are descriptive. We see these things happening all the time and they have never been broken as far we know. The Law of gravity has been defied many times by planes, birds, etc. God can easily defy gravity and levitate on air, above the water, through, or on water. It’s not like God made these laws more powerful than him so he can’t overcome them. God knew he will intervein in mankind’s affairs after He created them.

It is not that the laws cannot be defied, it is that modern science has never seen them being defied. History (the Bible) said they have been defied on many occasions.

Another reason why many people disbelieve miracles is that they have a doctrine against them. C.S. Lewis (from book Miracles):

A caveat – theistic evolutionists would try to use this argument to say -God put things in place and things evolved on their own. That is, the material world on day 1 evolved into the material on day 2, and day 2 evolved into day 3, etc. example how can the earth evolve into the sun moon, and stars all by itself? This is not a third option. They claim it is, based on Evolution and Christianity but evolution and creation reject it, so it is baseless.


---I am not one of those who holds that religious belief should be off-limits to scientific scrutiny or any type of scrutiny. God is not afraid of what mankind thinks of Him.

 —If I put my hand on your cut and pray and it healed immediately, and I pray for another person’s cut and nothing happened, but it healed within normal healing time. Someone, observing the two scientifically can say the first one was not consistent with natural phenomena but is consistent with a miracle and the second one was not consistent with a miracle but very consistent with natural healing, I have no problem with these conclusions of scientific data at all.

--in many congregations there are pretend healers and if its trickery then it is not about God but them. Many pride-filled people become cult leaders and have led many souls down the wrong path.


Has Christianity contributed to science?

Two points I will make concerning Christian culture and the Christian scientists

(1) Many Christians were driven by their beliefs to pursue science and became significant contributors to modern science.

Johannes Kepler said, his scientific thoughts were “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” Sir Isaac Newton said: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion, he is wont to be called ‘Lord God’.

(2) Science was able to flourish in Christian culture more than many others because Christians believe in absolute truth, the material universe is real and the universe is evidence of God.

  1. There is such a thing as objective truth. Jesus said, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me (John 14:6). But postmodernism, for example, denies objective truth. In many postmodern cultures, “What’s true for you is not true for me.” So maybe they should try jumping off a cliff to see if the Law of Gravity is true for them. Another postmodern claim is, “there is no truth” to deny the truth, you are suggesting you truthfully know there is no truth, and if you have the truth then you are saying there is truth, and your argument is self-refuting”—or some say “We can’t know the truth”—so how do they know the statement is true?

  2. The universe is evidence of God who is its intelligent designer and the universe if you examine it will provide evidence of him. This appeals to those living in the Christian culture to go ahead and freely examine the material world to learn more about God or to try to disprove God.

  3. The material universe is real because God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1). This sounds obvious, but many eastern philosophies believe that everything is an illusion (so is that belief an illusion as well?). There is no point in trying to investigate an illusion by experimenting with it.

Both Christians and the Christian beliefs and culture, promoted science and contributed to science.

According to Prof. Peter Harrison, then a professor of history and philosophy at Bond University in Queensland, Australia, “Adam was thought to have possessed a perfect knowledge of all sciences, knowledge lost to posterity when he fell from grace and was expelled from the Garden of Eden. The goal of 17th-century scientists such as Francis Bacon and his successors in the Royal Society of London was to regain the scientific knowledge of the first man…”

There, is an objective reality that is independent of what anyone thinks. Postmodernism denies this. That is why modern science developed in a biblical creationist Christian worldview during the Middle Ages but was stillborn in other worldviews.

Has science research been useful in validating the Christian belief?

Science has helped to show Evolution is not a scientific fact leaving us with the other option the Christian belief.

  1. Geology - Age of the earth-

    1. Scientific evidence from Geology and paleontology are used to refute millions of evolutionary years.

    2. We also learn that islands can form in months and don’t need billions of years to do so.

    3. Science helps explain the specific method of burial of animals and plants and connects them to a worldwide flood.

  2. Engineering-Noah’s ark a marvel of engineering-Science is used to help argue for the sensible structure (size and shape) and floating integrity of the ark.

  3. Paleontology revealed

    1. the dinosaur’s soft tissues and bones which is not consistent with millions of evolutionary years.

    2. the unearthed skulls are variations in humans and the other group are just variations in apes, there are no transitional fossils.

  4. Biology and genetics

    1. Animals can change that produces variations but not new kinds, therefore, explaining the many differences in human phenotype, and variations we see in animals can come from an original male and female pair.

    2. Life cannot come from non-life (rock etc.).

    3. Animals cannot evolve to humans in 6-7millions years as evolution states.

    4. humans are not Apes simply because we have similar DNA.

  5. Population calculations- the rate of population growth if calculated for millions of years, people would be piled upon each other because of lack of space on earth.

  6. Astrophysics – the study of distant starlight shows the universe had a beginning as God said.

  7. Physics- law of conservation -the universe is losing energy, was once orderly, and is becoming chaotic which disagrees with evolution and is used to support genesis where God said the universe was created good and since the fall is progressively corrupting.

So, it's very consistent with the Christian teachings.


Can Christians be scientists.

Of course, we have a hall of fame of Christian and religious scientists. There are about 100 Scientists Who Shaped World History (Bluewood Books: San Francisco, CA, © 2000), written by John Hudson Tiner.

Louis Pasteur 1822-1895 catholic- discovered that many diseases were caused by germs and showed that life comes only from life,

Gregor Mendel discovered genetics,

Carolus Linnaeus 1707-1778 developed the modern classification system.

Nicolaus Copernicus

1473-1543 Catholic (priest)  first modern European scientist to propose that Earth and other planets revolve around the sun, or the Heliocentric Theory of the universe

Galileo Galilei 1564-1642 Catholic astronomer, and mathematician- motionastronomy, and strength of materials and to the development of the scientific method

GEORGES LEMAITRE-Catholic-In 1927, Lemaître formulated the theory of the Big Bang, he proposed that the Universe is expanding, (which led to the big bang theory) deriving the notion mathematically from Einstein's theory of relativity. The Universe began as a "primeval atom”, He walked around his priestly gown and lectured Einstein and other scientists.

Johannes Kepler 1571-1630 Lutheran- laws of planetary motion

Rene Descartes 1596-1650 

Catholic Blaise Pascal 1623-1662

Jansenist Robert Boyle1627-1691

Anglican Isaac Newton 1642-1727

Anglican (rejected Trinitarianism, i.e., Athanasianism; believed in the Arianism of the Primitive Church)

Benjamin Franklin 1706-1790 

Presbyterian; Deist Alessandro Volta 1746-1827

Catholic John Dalton 1766-1844

Quaker Michael Faraday 1791-1867

Sandemanian Charles Darwin 1809-1882

Anglican (nominal); Unitarian Thomas Alva Edison 1847-1931

Congregationalist; agnostic Albert Einstein 1879-1955

Jewish Edwin Powell Hubble 1889-1953

Christian turned agnostic Stephen William Hawking 1942-

Should science be used as an argument for God?

Paul in Acts 17: went outside of the Bible to argue for the unknown God and used allusions to Greek Philosophy and their poetry to build a case for God.

I digress a bit to say that there are two approaches to evangelism, and this is dependent on which of two groups of people we evangelize (1) acts 2 evangelism and (2) acts 17 evangelism. Acts 2 evangelism is for people who know of God, religion, or the Bible so you start with the gospel. Acts 17: is for persons who are atheists, know little about God, etc. You don’t start with Jesus or the Gospel, you establish the existence of God, then work your way up and finish with Christ. Let’s go back to the question at hand.

Paul showed that you can go outside of scripture. If you burn all of the Bibles, you won’t kill God because God does not exist in a book. The power of God is real and exists outside of the Bible book. His power is manifested in everything around us.  If someone says through away that Bile and talk to me about God (which I do not recommend you do), but you will be standing upon all the evidence you need. However, it may not be enough to prove the need for the salvation of Jesus.

Ps 19: the heavens declare the glory of God. Rom 1:20 Godhead and the power of God is revealed in the material world which is loosely referred to as Nature and it is understood by man that God created it. The Bible is implying that you can appeal to nature, examine this material world and you will discover God for this world and universe are organic and inorganic evidence from the time of creation, of God’s handiwork.

So how do we examine the material to find God? We use casual observations and intensive observations we call science. Science is one-way mankind has appealed to or searched the material world to prove God. We have explored nature scientifically or otherwise and have concluded there is a creator God. We must, however, separate scientific evidence from hypotheses and theories. These form part of the scientific method but not scientific evidence.


Why are we having this conversation?

Yes, a few weeks ago a theologian made some Gen 11 is a myth, man evolved from ape and him a theologian is an evolutionist. But to understand this discussion fully we need to go back over 400 years to the 1600s to understand where he go those ideas. Galileo said “the Bible teaches theology and morality, but not astronomy or science.”  and Francis Bacon said, “(we have to) restrain, (people) from the unsound admixture of things divine and human, there arises not merely a fantastic philosophy, but also a heretical religion.” To sumarise, theologians should only tell us about God and religion not about the world around us or nature, only scientist can do that. So, these religious men began to separate God from the world. God initiated the universe, but nature did everything else.

If you can’t observe it and test it, then it’s not science was the gist of Bacon’s scientific method. This was used to suggest, since you can’t observe and test creation it’s not science. However, we can’t observe and test the big bang so neither is it science.

The great turning point from theology to naturalism.

1773? Werner’s deistic geological theory suggested a slowly receding ocean producing the geological record over one million years

1796 Laplace’s nebular hypothesis of over 75,000 of years. He imagined that the solar system had naturally and gradually condensed from a gas cloud during a very long period of time. (which became the seedbed of the big bang theory).

1778. Buffon’s theory that the earth was the result of a collision of a comet and the sun and then cooled from a molten state over at least 75,000 years.

1788 James Hutton’s 1700s / 18th century uniformitarianism Theory of the Earth [1788], popularized by 1830s Charles Lyell 1830s /19th century book, Principles of Geology, first led some scientists to think that the earth must be millions of years old. In fact, Lyell’s book influenced Charles Darwin after Captain FitzRoy gave him a copy on the Beagle voyage. Lyell explicitly wanted to “free science from Moses”. By the late 1800s/ 19th century, uniformitarianism and a millions-of-years old earth were scientific ‘orthodoxy’. God started the universe and set natural laws in motion but had no further role in formation of the universe. The earth slides into the sea, lays down strata, volcanoes break up the crust and the cycle continue again forever and was always this way forever.

1859 Darwin used this idea of millions of years to help determine the time it would take for biology to evolve.


This was the basis of theological Accommodation and compromise started:

-These views opposed the idea that God played a major role in creation, if God did not create according to the Bible, then Genesis creation was seen as a myth, the age of the earth may not be 6000 yrs. but could be older millions of years, the flood would have to be a myth, so once you had a naturalistic philosophy then the Bible goes through the window.

-You can see how troublesome this was for the theologians back then and even for today.

They thought the science was undeniable and was evidence of millions of years and they thought, if God wrote the book of creation and the book of nature, we must be able to reconcile the two. So, guess what the theologians did?

1804 Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) proposed the ‘gap’ theory

1823 Anglican clergyman, George Stanley Faber (1773–1854), began advocating the day-age theory

John Pye Smith (1774–1851), advocated that Genesis 1–11 was describing a local creation and a local flood, both of which supposedly occurred in Mesopotamia

1830s German liberal theology was beginning to spread in Britain, the view that Genesis is a myth, which conveys only theological and moral truths.

1897 Henry Drummond book Natural Law in the Spiritual World

1857 Philip Henry Gosse book Omphalos [is the Greek word for navel] attempt to reconcile Genesis with geology. The suggestion was that just as Adam’s navel had been prepared to simulate a natural birth, so God had created the fossils and placed them in the rocks to test men’s faith. Adam and Eve had no navel string because they were not born.

Their solution was and is to revise the scriptures and to fit evolutionary theory into the scriptures to make the scriptures fit evolution.


The correct interpretation of Genesis

While some theologians were trying to reconcile the two by altering Genesis, the majority of theologians hung on to the literal interpretation of Genesis because it was the soundest interpretation of Genesis. The evolutionists reject these compromised attempts and the scriptures also rejects these compromises. These compromised theologians have found themselves unwanted and in no man’s land with debunked and rejected theories.


What is Science

The whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causality and induction. The philosopher Hume and Bertrand Russell made it clear that these are believed by ‘blind faith’. The cause is assumed.


Creation and Evolution-

There is no room in creation or the Bible for evolution and pure evolutionists will tell you there is no room in evolution for creation. Therefore, those Christians who are sympathetic to evolution you need to change your thinking. For some reason you thought evolutionary theory is true. It is not.

What is Micro and Macro evolution- micro evolution becomes macro evolution over long periods of time. Evolution requires change but all change is not evolution. We see small changes in species what we call variations within the same kind. We don’t look at the amount/ quantity of change only the quality which is the genetics. No new information has been created when something change, so it remains the same kind. Instead, information is lost and the losing of genetic information is not evolution.

None of the two evolutionary notions of micro or macro evolutionary changes are observable.

So, evolution operates in the realm of assumptions not facts.

Most popular literature on evolution say that since we see small changes going on today in successive generations of living things, we only have to extend this in time, and we will see the types of changes which have caused single-cell-to-man evolution.

Laws of nature: After each day of creation new natural laws were put in place and after the end of day 6 all laws were in place by God.


 For some reason some Christians believe miracles cannot work. We have natural laws that miracles will have to break for them to happen. But remember laws are descriptive not prescriptive. Our natural laws are simply things we observed for many years that work without being broken. We say they can’t be broken because we have never seen them broken. But wait a minute, these laws were actually broken before on many occasions, and this was documented in biblical history. It’s not that, laws can’t be broken it’s that in recent 100s of years scientists have not observed this. Any Christian who denies miracles because they break the laws of nature deny the Bible and deny God’s power and you have to deny the conception and resurrection of Jesus were miracles. That means Jesus is dead because miracles don’t happen. You cannot claim to be following a risen Christ and at the same time argue that science says he is dead. We assume laws cannot be broken natural means. But gods breaking of the laws were not by natural means.

Is the material world all that there is? B

oth material and non-material aspects exist in this universe. Unfortunately, the scientific tools currently being we have can only observe material things. It seems our senses are also limited to the material world. Despite we demonstrate immaterial thoughts and logic we still wrongfully conclude that we only have a material world.

Many who subscribe to the scientific method (Sir Francis Bacon’s modern science method) assume that physical / material is all there because the scientific method can only test and verify the physical. Those who subscribe to the metaphysical say this unfortunately is the limitation of the method and those who rely on it to determine what exists. Metaphysical proponents believe there is more than just the physical and science does not have the technology and capability to explore this realm. Therefore, the scientific method does not disprove the existence of the metaphysical, instead, it simply falls short of proving or disproving it because of its limitations and the a-metaphysical presuppositions of those who use it and believe it is the only way to experience existence. It is a kind of circular reasoning, i.e., did science prove the assumption is true or did the assumption prove science to be true. It is a philosophical presupposition and not a scientific finding.

If you believe there is no metaphysical world then any and every manifestation of metaphysical phenomena (miracle, angels, demonic possession etc.) will be denied as impossible and even if science were to show the intrusion is real or the plurality of existence on two planes is real their closed biased minds will reject it and see it as purely physical. To be sure miracles can’t take place is to be sure beyond doubt that God doesn’t exist and this is an act of faith

There are two main sciences, historical and observational.

Many Christians only know of observational science. Christians who argue that there is a place for evolution in Creation do not know that evolution relies mostly on historical science. Evolutionists love to conflate the two interchangeably to confuse the ignorant into thinking one is the other or they are the same and evolution is observable and testable. Many have fallen for this clever trick.


Evolution is not science; it remains the biggest hoax and there is no place in the scriptures for it. The earth declares the glory and handy work of God. I see this as a challenge to anyone who doubts God. Examine the world and you will find proof God designed and constructed it.

vincent smith

Science & Creation pt 1
bottom of page