Does science contradict religion?

This article is part of a larger series where we critically examine various arguments that attempt to show a conflict between faith and science. See the main page for more.

The argument

If God exists, then religion and science would not contradict each other.
Religion and science do make contradicting claims.
Therefore, God does not exist.

TL;DR

When the skeptic’s argument shows up in conversation, here are some things to remember: First, admit that many religions do seriously contradict science, and that those religions are probably false as a result. However, you believe that Christianity is one religion that doesn’t contradict science in any meaningful way. Second, ask the person what Christian/Biblical claims are in conflict with scientific claims. Push for specifics; otherwise, the conversation will move around in vague territory without any helpful result. If the person is able to bring up specific contradictions, you can suggest different scientific perspectives that resolve the contradictions, or you can offer alternative interpretations of the Bible. If they mention miracles or the resurrection, you can say that an all-powerful God (if he exists) could easily make such things happen, and that would not violate anything science says about the world.

Analysis

Premise 1

Premise 1 implies that Christianity, if true, would not make claims that contradict scientific claims. The reason for this is that science is a rational method for discovering truth, and God (if he exists) should not embed irrational or false beliefs into his religion. So, if religion really comes from God, and if God really is truthful, then both science and religion should assert the same true beliefs about the world. For this argument to be perfectly sound, it would require science to be infallible. However, as history clearly shows, science is not infallible. Strictly speaking, most (if not all) scientific theories have been false, but this does not render science unreliable, just fallible. To make this argument strong, it should depend on generalities and probability. In other words, religion should not contradict those scientific claims that are highly evidenced, time-tested, and widely approved by scientists. Christians typically¹ believe that God is truthful and that humans were given rational faculties to learn about creation, so we should agree with this last statement, so long as we reject the infallibility of science.

Furthermore, premise 1 may depend on the concept that reason always produces the same, true answer to any question. Of course, any well-defined question about objective reality only has one true answer; however, rational people may disagree with each other regarding what the truth answer is. Therefore, assuming both religion and science are rational means of apprehending truth, it is still possible that they may disagree about a matter, where either one could possibly be wrong. We cannot assume with certainty that science is always right, even granting that science is always rational. This point is driven home by the phenomenon of competing theories within science, each proposed by rational scientists, where each must be defended by reason and evidence, without a priori assumptions of victory.

Certain religious people may choose to deny premise 1 because they think that God is not constrained by logic or reason. In other words, they believe that science is based on “human logic” and their religion transcends human logic. Thus, it is no problem for their religion to contradict reason. Although this sentiment is popular in cults, it also appears in some Christian circles. These Christians may cite Isa. 55:8–9, “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.” They may also cite 2 Cor. 5:13, “For if we have lost our minds, it is for God; if we are of sound mind, it is for you.” However, these verses do not imply that human reason is invalid or distinct from God. Isaiah teaches that God has far superior wisdom, knowledge, and methods than humans. Paul teaches that the way of Christ, of humility and faith and the Spirit, is very foreign and hard to grasp for those whose minds are worldly. The ability to reason and understand logic is a gift from God, and he gives knowledge to even the most ungodly. Rom. 1:19–21 asserts that all people have certain knowledge of God, although many lack wisdom to respond rightly to such knowledge. Per Isa. 1:18, “Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord”; the Psalms and Proverbs are full of exhortations to seek understanding. The Bible could not say these things if correct rationality were impossible for humans. Finally, when cultists claim that God does not abide by logic, they are either saying that nothing can be known about God from reason, or that God’s ways are inconsistent and nonsense. Either way, the cultists’ claim is self-refuting, unbiblical, and insulting of God’s wisdom.

Premise 1, in summary, only holds with reference to high-confidence scientific claims, and even in such cases it can only be asserted in general, but not in absolutes. Therefore, when we analyze premise 2, we should acknowledge that the argument succeeds when religion generally make contradicting statements to well-established science, but the argument fails if the contradictions are spurious, infrequent, or non-existent. In cases where contradictions exist, but are not overwhelming, the argument becomes inconclusive.

Premise 2

Turning now to premise 2, the argument asserts that certain religious claims contradict certain scientific claims. We should be careful not to flatly deny premise 2 since many religious do, in fact, make claims that obviously contradict science. For example, some religions teach that the universe is eternal, without an absolute beginning, which contradicts mainstream scientific cosmology. The finite age of the universe is an extremely well-established scientific fact, and so constitutes strong rational evidence against any such religion. Given that premise 2 holds for some religions, we should determine whether it is true for Christianity, and whether the contradicting scientific claims are well-established.

Genesis

The most obvious candidate for contradictions comes from Genesis. For example, Genesis speaks of God creating the world in six days, him creating each kind of animal, and him sending a flood across the earth. The scientific view is that world has developed over billions of years, that the animals evolved from prior life forms, and that a world-wide flood is very unlikely. Many Christians today maintain an interpretation of Genesis that contradicts science in this respect, and they are content to deny the scientific majority consensus on these topics. For these Christians, they ought to engage the scientific community to demonstrate why the current consensus may be flawed and how the Genesis account is plausible. These Christians need to work within science on the basis of natural evidence and systematic research. Actually, much work in this area has already been done, notably by the young-earth creationists (YECs),² though with varying degrees of success. Personally, I believe these YECs should continue their research, but I also encourage them to entertain the possibility that their interpretation of Genesis may be incorrect.³

If a YEC is unable for whatever reason to reference scientific evidence supporting their position, they may simply assert that science will eventually correct itself. This strategy may satisfy the individual, but is unlikely to convince a skeptic. Alternatively, a YEC could argue that certain influential scientists are dishonest or delusional, but this also requires evidence and is rather offensive. These last two strategies, if used in evangelism, will probably just give a skeptic more reason to doubt the Bible. For these YECs, the best strategy may sometimes be to say, “I don’t know”, and admit that mainstream science has evidence against their beliefs.⁴

For Christians who believe that modern scientific views are very strong and unlikely to change in any significant way, they can opt for a different strategy. Rather than seeking to reform science, they can adjust their religious beliefs. Alternative interpretations of Genesis exist which do not contradict any of the aforementioned scientific claims. In fact, many Christians think the non-YEC (i.e. “old-earth”) reading of Genesis is exegetically superior. While not every Christian needs to believe these other interpretations, everyone should be familiar with the range of understandings. So when the skeptic claims that science contradicts Genesis, you can explain how certain interpretations eliminate the accusations.

Even if you are a YEC, rather than argue that current mainstream science is wrong on some points, you are still free to introduce the other views of Genesis. Thus, even if you don’t personally believe the alternative interpretations, you can propose them as viable options just to defuse the skeptic’s argument.⁵ If you remember one thing, remember this basic contention: Regardless of whether you believe in young-earth or old-earth, evolution or not, when speaking with a skeptic, you should inform them on the range of Genesis views. If they think science supports old-earth or evolution, let them know that many Christians believe this fits with Genesis. If they think science supports young-earth or non-evolutionary methods, let them know that many Christians accept this too. Evangelism is about making disciples for Christ, so emphasis the Gospel first and you will have plenty of time to argue about Genesis when you see them in church.

Genesis with Secular Science

So, how can a Christian interpret Genesis 1–2 to be compatible with old-earth and evolution? Since many books and articles have already been written on this question, I will only offer four points of introduction and then recommend external resources. First, the days of creation do not need to be literal 24-hour days. The word translated “day” is also used to represent arbitrary time periods, depending on context. So, the author may view creation as composed of six stages that each take variable and possibly long time. The language of “evening and morning” need not be bound to solar cycles since the sun wasn’t even created until the fourth day, according to YECs. Second, the author’s intention in writing the creation account might not be to teach earth science, but rather to teach theology. In other words, Genesis may want to teach us a right perspective on God, people, and nature without intending every detail to be taken literally. For example, it teaches the proper and ideal relationship between humans and God (before the fall), and it builds a spiritual framework for understanding the new relationship (after the fall) with promises of hope for future reconciliation (fulfilled in Jesus). We are taught that humans, created in the image of God, are special among all the animals. We are taught that the stars and nature are creations just like us, rather than being deities for worship. Genesis firmly opposes polytheism, pantheism, paganism, and atheism. Third, given that God is sovereign over creation, all natural processes are governed by his providential power. Moreover, God is free to use complex means to achieve his goals.⁶ Since the natural process of evolution⁷ (if true) can rightly be considered God’s design and work,⁸ the day-event depictions in Genesis may just be the best way to communicate our monotheistic origins in a way that people of all times can understand. Thus, the fact that God planned, built, orders, guides, and sustains the universe is independent of his chosen mechanisms. Fourth, the great flood could be local instead of global, since the global language could be a form of exaggeration that is consistent with literature in that era. To conclude, I have only touched on a few possible ways to interpret Genesis. There are many other interpretations available for your consideration which are defended by serious Bible commentators. The bottom line is that we can maintain the truth of Genesis without requiring the story to be strictly literal.⁹ Here are four online academic resources where you can find more information: reasonablefaith.org, peacefulscience.org, biologos.org, reasons.org, drmsh.com.

Resurrection

Finally, there is one other Christian belief that supposedly contradicts science: The occurrence of miracles and the resurrection. The physical resurrection of Jesus is non-negotiable for Christians; there is no alternative interpretation here. Skeptics may claim that science excludes the plausibility of Jesus’ bodily resurrection.¹⁰ This conclusion has two motivations: First, there is no known physical mechanism that could cause a dead body to regain life after three days. Second, we lack sufficient observations of resurrection to establish it as a real phenomenon in nature. I think both of those reasons are good, but the supposed conclusion doesn’t actually follow. What does follow is that science excludes the plausibility of Jesus’ bodily resurrection by natural causes. A simple thought experiment makes this point evident: Suppose in the distant future, science progresses to where highly intelligent doctors can bring a cold, dead body back to life. Such a state of affairs is not at all unlikely on the atheistic perspective. However, when these doctors resurrect someone, it is still true that resurrection is highly unlikely by natural causes because the doctors’ actions are personal causes and not natural causes. People often cause events by their inventive agency which would otherwise never exist in nature. For example, the existence of smart phones or the fact of the lunar landings are such events.¹¹ The point is that Christians believe God personally acted to raise Jesus from the dead, which was a unique event in history. Therefore, nothing in science makes Jesus’ resurrection unlikely since we do not claim it to be a natural event, but the result of a personal action by a highly intelligent being.¹²

The physical sciences concern the study of nature, and so scientists generally assume there are no gods disturbing the natural order, which allows them to focus on making useful discoveries. This assumption, called “methodological naturalism”, is a pragmatic convention that many believe to be advantageous for scientific progress. However, when we claim that God exists and raised Jesus, we are not contradicting science; we are just making a statement that is outside the scope of the physical sciences.

A skeptic may reply to the prior argument by drawing a parallel to the earlier Genesis discussion: If Jesus’ resurrection (JR) does not contradict science since we believe it was a supernatural act of God, why not apply similar reasoning to make YEC agree with mainstream science since the event of creation was also a supernatural act of God? The parallel between JR and YEC breaks down once we examine the details of each event. YEC, if true, would have many observable consequences in the physical world, which scientists could discover and analyze. If YEC is false, then scientists would observe different consequences. The mainstream view in science today is that observations of nature correspond better to the falsehood of YEC than to its truth. On the other hand, there are no cosmic-scale physical consequences of JR that scientists could study today. JR was a unique event in the past that was caused by a personal act of God and had personal, not physical, consequences in the world.¹³ By “personal consequences”, I mean the witness of Jesus’ disciples, the conversion of many Jews and Gentiles, the written testimony of early church writings, and so on. These observable consequences of JR provide a rational basis for belief in JR, whereas the consequences of YEC are widely considered to be observationally deficient.¹⁴ Therefore, while the personal nature of JR prevents it from contradicting mainstream, secular science, the same cannot be said for the YEC view.¹⁵

Wrap-up

Finally, when discussing contradictions and Christianity, the conversation may jump to internal textual contradictions in the Bible, or contradictions between the skeptic’s and Christian’s ethical views. Neither of these types of contradictions relate at all to the opposing claims of religion and science. So, if the original conversation was about science, you should note that these internal Biblical issues and ethical issues are separate topics.¹⁶

Although I have argued that science offers no compelling rebuttal to the claims of Christianity, I have not offered any argument that science supports Christianity. For a serious discussion of this latter topic, I recommend Stephen C. Meyer’s book, “Return of the God Hypothesis” (2021), where he explores the question from historical, scientific, and philosophical perspectives. For more discussion on the relationship between miracles and science, I highly recommend William Lane Craig’s book, “Reasonable Faith” (2008), specifically chapter 6, “The Problem of Miracles”.

End-notes

1
I have met people who in all other respects appear Christian, except that they deny the epistemic validity of reason. Obviously this is a fringe and absurd viewpoint, but it does exist.
2
I may interchangeably use the “C” in “YEC” to represent “creationist” or “creationism”, depending on context.
3
Note that I have not taken a position on whether the YEC view is true or false. I am only discussing how different Christian perspectives can respond to the skeptic’s argument.
4
Regardless of whether a belief is true or false, there will always be evidence for and against it. Christians should not claim that there is no evidence against Christianity. Rather, a Christian should claim that the evidence for Christianity is better than the evidence against it; or, more modestly, they can claim that there are better reasons to believe Christianity than to deny it. This advice holds regardless of whether you accept an evidentialist epistemology.
5
Since a typical non-Christian is not equipped to debate exegesis, it is not necessary for you to be an expert in every interpretation.
6
Recall the long and complex history leading up to Christ’s arrival. He was prophesied in the beginning, but rather than come immediately, he waited thousands of years for the “fullness of time” (Gal. 4:4).
7
The term “evolution” is overloaded. It could refer to the modern theory of evolution or just Darwin’s original idea. Plus, the scientific evidence for evolution is compatible with both universal ancestry and the special creation of Adam and Eve. Some YECs will object to evolution because they believe death could not exist before the fall. However, a closer examination of Gen. 2:17 and Rom. 5:12 shows that while human death is a result of sin, animal death is not addressed. So it’s possible that animal death existed before sin. Furthermore, even though human death is a consequence of sin, it is likely that Adam and Eve were always mortal. They had everlasting life because they ate from the tree of life, in the same way that Christians regain everlasting life by partaking of Jesus. When Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden, they eventually died because God no longer allowed them to eat from the tree of life.
8
One example of how God could providentially order evolution in a way that is consistent with scientific evidence would be for him to influence the outcomes/frequencies of random mutations.
9
In this essay, I am not taking a side on the debate between the YEC and non-YEC views. I’m only discussing each view with reference to the skeptic’s claim that science contradicts the Bible. Basically, the point is that someone who believes in evolution and old-earth (regardless of whether that belief is true) is free to interpret Genesis in a non-YEC fashion rather than just reject Genesis as anti-science.
10
One could claim that science excludes the possibility of the resurrection, but such an absolute claim is indefensible on scientific grounds. If the skeptic wishes to make a strong argument, they should say science makes the resurrection very improbable but not impossible.
11
Scientists a thousand years ago might be inclined to call these events scientifically absurd.
12
Of course, God is not just intelligent but also wise, powerful, knowledgeable, and loving. However, we can illustrate to skeptics the analogy between God and future doctors without hoisting on them all of God’s attributes at once.
13
Of course, Jesus’ bodily resurrection was physical. I’m saying that the consequences following the event are the result of what people did in response rather than some physical mechanism.
14
Again, I’m not arguing that YEC is wrong. I’m just saying that, taken at face value, it contradicts modern, mainstream science.
15
Actually, some Christians have appealed to the free agency of God to reconcile YEC with modern science. They say that God could give the universe the appearance of old age, and that he could make human genetics appear to descend from prior animals, and so on. As a Christian, I cannot absolutely rule this view out, but I also do not consider it a serious option due to its lack of Biblical support and its incredibly ad hoc premises.
16
Bible contradictions and Christian ethics are both hot topics in apologetics that we all should be prepared for. So, please do your reading and be prepared.

The Mindful Doubter