How would you answer the question, “As we learn more about the world, is there less need for God?” Here’s the answer we’ll explore:
“Some think that science leaves less room for God and ‘evidence for God’ just appeals to gaps in our knowledge. But science actually gives positive reasons for believing in God. Also, modern evolutionary theory has not disproved that God is the Creator.”
Now, let’s walk through this answer . . .
“Some think that science leaves less room for God . . .”
Science studies the natural world. Through the scientific method, our understanding of how the world works has exploded in recent centuries. And we should all be grateful for the many great technologies and conveniences that come from science. If you like playing video games, instantly talking to friends who are hundreds of miles away, or not having to gather firewood to stay warm, you should be thankful for the scientific discoveries that made those things possible.
Because science is such a powerful tool for understanding the natural world, some people think it’s removing all the reasons humans used to have for believing in God. For example, in Norse mythology, Thor (the god of thunder) caused lightning and thunder by swinging his hammer. But now we know that lightning is caused by electrical energy building up and discharging in the atmosphere, and thunder is merely the sound produced by the rapid expansion of air as lightning heats it. Likewise, the ancient Egyptians believed the sun moved across the sky because the sun god Ra carried it in a boat. But now we know that the sun is a star that produces energy through nuclear fusion, and we see it move across the sky because our planet is rotating in relation to it.
“Through the scientific method, our understanding of how the world works has exploded in recent centuries.”
So, as science explains more and more about how the world works, does it make belief in God less necessary? The famous atheist Richard Dawkins thinks so: “Gaps [in our knowledge] shrink as science advances, and God is threatened with eventually having nothing to do and nowhere to hide.”[1] In particular, he thinks that modern evolutionary theory has explained away the appearance of design in the world. Although it used to seem obvious that living things are carefully designed, Dawkins says evolution has “made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” because we can now give a natural explanation for the apparent design.[2]
“. . . and ‘evidence for God’ just points to gaps in our knowledge . . .”
Not only do some skeptics of God (like Dawkins) think science is removing all the reasons ancient people had for belief in God, but they often claim that the scientific evidence for belief in God that modern-day people give simply points to the remaining gaps in our scientific knowledge. Dawkins thinks that those who believe God designed the world have this mindset: “If you don’t understand how something works, never mind: just give up and say God did it.”[3] This is often called the “god-of-the-gaps” fallacy. It’s a fallacy (a mistaken way of thinking) because it relies on ignorance. It wrongly assumes that if something cannot currently be explained by natural causes, then it must be the result of a supernatural being. It fails to recognize that gaps in our knowledge may eventually be filled by later scientific discoveries, just as they have been throughout history.
But what about scientific evidences for God? Do they merely rely on gaps in our knowledge? Do they commit the “god-of-the-gaps” fallacy?
“Skeptics often claim that the scientific evidence for belief in God that modern-day people give simply points to the remaining gaps in our scientific knowledge.”
“. . . But science actually gives positive reasons for believing in God . . .”
God reveals himself in creation by speaking the universe into existence, writing nature in the language of mathematics, making the universe just right for life, and designing living things with a complex code. Notice that these scientific clues for God don’t appeal to any gaps in our knowledge at all. Rather, they are based on scientific discoveries that we do know. These clues appeal to positive evidence and not ignorance.
For example, we saw that it’s now widely accepted in science that the universe began to exist. It isn’t that we’re clueless about the history of the universe and just say “God made it.” There is a lot of evidence that points to the universe having a beginning. Then, based on this scientific fact, we think about what sort of thing could create a universe. This leads us beyond science and the natural world to the supernatural—whatever brought the entire physical universe into existence is obviously beyond the physical universe. It must be beyond space, time, matter, and energy in order to create those things. It must also be incredibly powerful.
“These clues appeal to positive evidence and not ignorance.”
So this isn’t like understanding nothing about thunder and saying a thunder god with a hammer is responsible. We start with a scientific fact and then reason to the best explanation for that fact. This is known as “inference to the best explanation,” and it’s how scientists often work—choosing the explanation that best fits the known facts. In this case, the best explanation for the beginning of the universe is a powerful cause that is beyond space, time, matter, and energy.
Likewise, we appealed to other facts that we know from science, such as how the universe is fine-tuned for life and how DNA is a highly complex and meaningful code that functions like a computer program. These are facts that are widely accepted in science today. We then reason about what best explains them. The odds of the fine-tuning happening by random chance are well understood, and the odds are so astronomically bad that chance is a poor explanation. Design is far more plausible.[4] And DNA is clearly complex and meaningful information. Whenever we see information (in a book, computer program, etc.), a mind is always responsible for it. So, concluding that these things are designed is based on established facts and reasoning based on our repeated experience.
We should also remember that there are non-scientific reasons for thinking that God exists—evidence based on things like morality and personal experience. These also appeal to things we know and not merely gaps in our knowledge.
“We start with a scientific fact and then reason to the best explanation for that fact.”
“. . . Also, modern evolutionary theory . . .”
But doesn’t evolutionary theory call into question God’s role in creation? Some argue that if evolution can give a natural explanation for the diversity of life (how there are so many different kinds of living things), it removes the need for a designer. Let’s take a look at what evolutionary theory actually says and then consider whether it eliminates the need for God.
Modern evolutionary theory tries to explain the diversity of life on earth by a natural process that happens slowly over a long period of time. The theory began with Charles Darwin in the 1800s, who proposed that species evolve through a process called natural selection. Small changes randomly occur within a population of living things (e.g., certain finches have narrower beaks than others), and these random changes sometimes provide an advantage in surviving and reproducing (e.g., the birds with narrower beaks can get to food better). It is called “natural selection” because, in nature, traits that aid in survival are “selected” (passed on from parents to children). Darwin didn’t know what caused the random changes, but modern evolutionary theory suggests that they’re caused by random genetic mutations (unexpected changes in DNA that happen by chance and can affect how living things grow or function).
“Modern evolutionary theory suggests that they’re caused by random genetic mutations.”
Evolution is also said to occur on different scales. Microevolution refers to small changes within a species, like the variation in the beak shape of finches. (A species is a group of genetically similar organisms that can mate with each other and have babies that are, when grown, also able to have their own babies—e.g., domestic dogs can be different breeds, but they are all in the same species.) Macroevolution, on the other hand, involves bigger changes that can result in the formation of new species. Little changes within a species add up over time to big changes so that an entirely new species emerges. Thus, macroevolution involves all living things sharing a common ancestry: through millions of years of gradual changes, all life forms, from plants to animals, are connected by a long evolutionary history and began with a single-celled organism (the first living thing).
Nobody denies that microevolution happens; there are small differences within a species (like skin color or beak shape). But some scientists do question macroevolution–and for good reasons. Nevertheless, some people think that if macroevolution is true, then God isn’t needed to explain why living things look designed. If all the different animals and plants resulted from a purely natural process, then we can explain it without God’s design. Let’s explore this claim.
“. . . has not disproved that God is the Creator.”
Modern evolutionary theory should not make us reject intelligent design. Let’s briefly consider a few reasons why.
First, we’ve already seen multiple good scientific clues for God, and macroevolution has nothing to do with them. Regardless of whether macroevolution is true, the beginning of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, the information in the DNA code, and the mathematical language of the universe all point to an intelligent designer.
Second, even if macroevolution were true, that doesn’t explain how the first living cell began. In order for evolution to begin, there first needs to be a living cell with DNA that could copy itself and make new cells. We now know that a single cell is enormously complex, functioning much like a bustling factory with various specialized structures performing many tasks (energy production, waste disposal, communication, manufacturing, etc.). And even the simplest single-celled organisms have hundreds of thousands of base pairs of DNA (letters in their DNA code). The more we learn about the cell and the information in DNA, the more reasonable it is to think design best explains how life began. Evolution does not explain where the information in the DNA of the first living cell came from.
“We’ve already seen multiple good scientific clues for God, and macroevolution has nothing to do with them.”
Third, there are significant challenges to macroevolution as a purely natural way of explaining how we got so many different kinds of living things (the diversity of life). We can’t cover them all here, but one big challenge is the so-called “Cambrian Explosion.” This refers to a period in earth’s history in which many major animal groups appear suddenly in the fossil record rather than there being a chain of gradual changes over time. Somehow a lot of new genetic information came about rapidly. Another big problem is that random mutations to DNA code are far more likely to cause damage than anything useful. Just like randomly changing letters in a computer program will almost always break the code and almost never add new functionality, the same is true with DNA. 
Ultimately, the case for a Creator is strong. Macroevolution faces significant challenges, and it would not undermine all the great evidence for design even if it were true.
“Macroevolution faces significant challenges, and it would not undermine all the great evidence for design even if it were true.”
In fact, these clues for God—the beginning of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, the information in the DNA code, and the mathematical language of the universe—would all need to be in place for macroevolution to get started in the first place.
[1] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (London: Bantam Publishers, 2006), 125.
[2] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996), 6.
[3] Dawkins, The God Delusion, 132.
[4] Some might argue that the fine-tuning could be explained by the multiverse theory, where multiple universes exist with different conditions. We didn’t address this theory here, as it lacks empirical support and does not eliminate the need for a fine-tuner. For a good summary on why this is the case, see Willian Lane Craig, “Has the Multiverse Replaced God?” Reasonable Faith, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-ofgod/has-the-multiverse-replaced-god.
