Atheists charge that soon there will no longer be a purpose for God. Why? Because—they claim—we will no longer need God to explain the mysteries of life, since science is now providing those explanations, making God irrelevant. One atheist exults:
· "As our understanding of the physical world has increased—and as our ability to test theories and claims has improved—the domain of God's miracles and interventions, or other supposed supernatural phenomena, has consistently shrunk...We stopped needing God to explain floods, but we still needed Him to explain sickness and health. Then we didn't need Him to explain sickness and health, but we still needed him to explain consciousness. Now we are beginning to get a grip on consciousness..."
The assumption is that science will soon make God irrelevant. However, this assumption is based upon an unsubstantiated leap of faith—that, in some way, scientific explanation is opposed to God's existence.
Instead of this model, there is another more in keeping with reason—that God is the foundation of science. It is God, therefore, who makes science possible. Looked at this way, science becomes, not the enemy of God but rather His invention, beautifully highlighting His workmanship.
After all, what is it that makes scientific discovery possible? Is it not God's immutable, universal, and elegantly causal laws—laws which are impossible without a Designer and immutable Sustainer?
Only with such a God as this is science and learning possible.
How can we account for the elegant laws of science without an Intelligent Designer? Can an explosion, what some might call the Big Bang, account for these exquisitely-structured laws? Can it explain E=MC2?
Instead, we recognize that such elegance is normally the product of intelligence. Without such simple and elegantly-fashioned laws, scientific discovery would be almost impossible. Think about it…if a law of science required fifty terms to accurately describe it, that very complexity might keep it hidden, preventing scientific understanding.
How do we account for the fact that such laws and/or causes operate uniformly and universally throughout the universe? Ordinarily, forces or causes operate locally. A campfire warms only when we are close to it. The radio station can only transmit its signal within a certain distance. However, the laws of science are not limited to certain locales. If they were, there could be no science, no descriptive formulas, no textbooks, no predictions, and no replication of findings appropriate to various continents and conditions.
What then enables the laws of the universe to operate uniformly and universally, unobstructed by storms, mountains, or distances? And why does nothing affect them, while they affect everything? They contrast with the things of this material world in every respect, suggesting that they come from another realm, a Transcendent realm.
What can account for the immutability of these laws in view of the fact that this entire universe is expanding, moving, and even deteriorating—moment by moment? Must there not be an uncaused Cause who remains immutable? For, if the Cause changed, how could “it” sustain our immutable laws?
Besides this, how can science function in such a changing world? Would not its findings also be in flux? And wouldn't these findings be entirely useless? As soon as we could publish them, the supposed facts would have already changed.
In all their characteristics, the laws of science point to their Creator and Sustainer. Their immutability, uniformity, and elegance demand an Intelligent Designer.
Yet, the atheist encounters other problems, as well. If the many laws of science are not eternal, then they too require a cause and an explanation. Their cause can only be an uncaused Eternal Intelligent Being, who does not require a cause.
If these laws are eternal, they must transcend the beginning of this finite universe. The fact that they would have worked so harmoniously and would have been so fine-tuned to create such an orderly, functional, and life-sustaining universe points to their unity and perhaps eternality within the Mind of God.
Besides, without such a transcendent Being, science would never be able to reasonably explain anything! Why not? Because any explanation would always require its own explanation, ad infinitum.
In conclusion, science does not do away with God. Instead—whether it wants to admit it or not—all the sciences depend upon Him! Therefore, science is not in opposition to God. Rather, science derives its very being and substance from Him! As a result, every scientific finding declares, not only His existence, but also His glory.