I find this to be an odd claim. Again, these questions are coming from the U.K.’s radio program “Unbelievable” and a link can be found from this page to that program. I encourage everyone to listen as on my day’s off, I’ve been going back and listening to archives and I am quite pleased with what I’ve heard. (And really itching to debate some of the non-Christians as well.)
But this is really an odd claim. For the sake of argument, I am going to accept the theory of macroevolution. Readers know that I do not believe in the theory, but this is simply for the sake of argument. This is especially important in light of statements like how Dawkins says he can’t imagine anyone being an atheist before Darwin and since he is here and evolution is true, then there is no God.
I do not accept though that a scientific theory can prove or disprove God. It can lend credence to the idea or make it seem more unlikely, but proof is too strong a word. Especially since science is the study of the physical universe composed of matter and God in classical theism is immaterial. It seems like a category fallacy to think that science could say something with certainty about God.
I do believe though that there is something to arguments such as the fine-tuning of the universe and even if evolutionary theory is accepted, even a TE would say that there is still wonder in the design (If they’d even want to use that word) of life. Even if one doesn’t accept the premises of ID, I don’t know anyone who would deny that a single cell is incredibly complex!
However, as I’ve said, science can only tell us with certainty about the physical world. It can’t tell us about things beyond it. Science can tell me the atomic weight of the Carbon atom, but who designed the carbon atom if it is designed cannot be answered. Science can give reasons for thinking it’s a highly complex structure, but it cannot tell me about the designer.
Science also cannot answer our most important questions.
How do I raise my children?
How do I love my neighbor?
What does it mean to be a friend?
Is there a God?
What is love?
Is there such a thing as objective morality?
Imagine that you knew everything there was that could be known about the physical universe. Imagine you knew all the chemistry and all the physics behind things. You still would not know the answers to these questions because these deal in the nature of metaphysics and theology and philosophy. They are not answers that can be obtained by repeated experiments. In fact, questions like “What does 2 + 2 equal?” cannot be answered. Science uses math, but it cannot determine the answers to mathematical questions.
You also would not know the answer to the God question.
Now someone like Richard Dawkins can try to extrapolate, but really, he goes into the areas of philosophy and theology which he doesn’t know well. Dawkins is great at explaining science, even though I don’t accept his conclusions since I think they stem largely from his naturalistic worldview. In naturalism, evolution is the best theory. I just want to know if it’s the best theory period.
In fact, without that philosophical base of the world being real and knowable and our senses giving us an accurate picture of it, which science cannot demonstrate answers to any of those questions, there can be no such thing as science. When I compare theology, philosophy, and science, I put them in that order and the physical sciences are thus at the bottom. Philosophy gives the basis for those and theology for the philosophical sciences.
Science does not disprove God. Instead, scientists extrapolate beyond their findings. I tend to believe though that more and more discoveries are pointing to a designer, but again, that is not the area of science. Even if we say there is a designer, it is up to philosophy and theology to give information on the nature of that designer.