on the subject of God...

Near the close of the 19th century, the German philosopher, Frederich Nietzsche made international headlines with the laconic statement: “God is Dead.” In his 1882 book, Die Fröhliche Wissenschaft (The Gay Science), he wrote: “God is dead! God remains dead. And we have killed him.”[1] I believe Nietzsche was asserting that critical reasoning, applied through the vehicles of science, mathematics and philosophy, had proven that a supernatural exegesis was no longer necessary to explain anything.
Continuing on until today, science is frequently the skeptic’s weapon of choice to attack the validity of the Bible. Some people in fact, consider science and Christianity to be mutually exclusive. Others hedge their bets, accepting and rejecting just enough of both to unite the two in a way that simply feels right to them individually – what one might call a causality collage approach. Yet what if science, with all its empiricism and rationality, actually reinforced both the truth and accuracy of the Bible? The answer to this question is that this is indeed the case. Repeatedly, the research results of scientists the world over and from a plethora of different disciplines, demonstrate the Bible’s factual verisimilitude.
The origins of life and the universe are the penultimate questions mankind has sought to answer throughout history. Indeed, an even marginally thorough study of just one topic is as colossal an endeavor as the names imply. However, several, widely acknowledged theories, based upon sound scientific discoveries and the subsequent application of critical reasoning, demonstrate how science and rational thought can buttress Christian theology.
The famous physicist, Stephen Hawkings said: “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.”[2] Science has supplied quite a lot of evidence to support Big Bang theory. In fact, such evidence is frequently cited by biblical critics to justify their agnostic or atheistic ontologies. Yet, the scientific discovery of background radiation, which ultimately led to the theory of the Big Bang in the first place, [3] decisively proved wrong a great number of older, non-theistic theories of how the universe and life managed to come into existence. Two examples of refuted hypotheses are the Random Chance Argument and Steady-State Theory. [4] Once science refuted such arguments of statistics and the historical infinity of all existence, a clearer picture of the true nature of the question of the how the universe came into being materialized. If the universe began with the Big Bang, what (or who) caused the event? If a non-theistic argument is continued to its logical conclusion, the concept of something coming from nothing must be embraced. Furthermore, along with this concept’s intrinsically illogical nature, a counter argument must be supplied to contend with thousands of years of Western Thought’s refutations. Pre-Socratic philosophers such as Parmenedes all the way to modern thinkers such as Bertrand Russell have argued the irrationality of such a theoretical position.
The only other possible direction for adherents to the Big Bang is a concession of ignorance as to the causality of the event, a willingness to admit that a logical, non-theistic argument does not exist. Once this is established, by following both science and critical reasoning, what remains is bias. Admittedly this is a strong statement, but Christianity, offering at the very least a plausible theory, can account for the more philosophical problem of something created from nothing as well as the scientific question of how did it occur at all – a supernatural creator.[5] Obviously, concrete proof against this theory cannot be readily offered, as there are no scientifically supported contending theories in the first place. Therefore, if the Creationism of Christianity is rejected outright, without any impartial consideration, we are left with only the preconceived and prejudicial bias of the individual, a condition science has always strived to eliminate.
Science continues to reinforce the soundness of the biblical explanation of the universe and life’s genesis with Intelligent Design theory, which demonstrates, via empirical research in several branches of study, the enormous amount of information and discrete precision necessary for life to occur in the universe. One example being the four-letter chemical alphabet of DNA that provides every living cell with all the instructions it will ever need to perform the required functions of life.[6] Furthermore, molecular biologist Michael Behe’s research into the chemical makeup and complexity of even the simplest single celled organisms, simultaneously confirms both Intelligent Design theory and Biblical Creationism. Behe’s conclusions stand Darwinian Evolution on its head by completely refuting Darwinian theory’s presupposition “…that nonliving chemicals, if given the right amount of time and circumstances, could develop by themselves into living matter.”[7] Behe, utilizing the time-stamp provided by Big Bang theory, which limits if not negates the “right amount of time” component, then demonstrates that the circumstances, far from simply involving just the right chemicals, require the conditions be so exact as to statistically negate the possibility in the first place. He says “…the odds of creating just one functional protein molecule (200+ being necessary in a typical living cell) would be one chance in a 10 with 60 zeroes after it.”[8]
Hopefully this brief synopsis of just a few scientific theories that support the Bible, shows how science and rationality can comfortably co-exist along side Christian theology. Christians today need not fear an erosion of their religious beliefs due to embracing the study of science. Instead, an unbiased education in the sciences can provide empirical evidence to further support their faith. Physicist Robert Griffins succinctly summarizes science’s contribution to religion in saying: “If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the Philosophy Department. The Physics Department isn’t much use.”[9]

Apparently, Nietzsche was wrong.
[1] John Bartlett, Familiar Quotations (Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co., 1992).
[2] Stephen W. Hawking & Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time (Princeton Univ. Press, 1996); quoted in Lee Stroble, The Case For Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: HarperCollins, 2000).
[3] Ibid.
[4] J.P. Moreland & John Mark Reynolds, eds., Three Views on Creation and Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: HarperCollins, 1999).
[5] Ibid.
[6] Jimmy H. Davis & Harry L. Poe, Designer Universe: Intelligent Design & the Existence of God (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2002).
[7] Lee Stroble, The Case For Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: HarperCollins, 2000). See also, Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York, NY: Free Press, 1996).
[8] Ibid.
[9] Robert Jastow, “The Secret of the Stars” New York Times Magazine, June 25, 1978, quoted in: Lee Stroble, The Case For Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: HarperCollins, 2000).