One of the biggest claims that you hear today is that science has eliminated the need for God. This claim is based on the presupposition that science has done away with the need for a creator, or a need for God to explain any phenomenon that is observed. The problem is that with regard to the origin and history of the universe and Earth the presupposition that God was not involved is a critical part of the theoretical system being used. Consequently, the claim that science eliminates the need for God is based on inherently atheistic assumptions.
One factor that is often missed is the fact that modern science grew out of a Christian worldview. It was the Christian view of God as creator that led people to believe that the universe would be intelligible. This is one of the reasons why despite the fact that several civilizations had the beginnings of science they failed to develop the scientific method.
When you really think about it, it is an amazing fact That not only is the universe intelligible, but that it also can be described mathematically. Mathematics is an abstract form of reasoning regarding numbers so without a mind behind it all, there is no logical reason why we should expect the universe to obey mathematical laws. Yes, math grew out of practical applications such as counting, but when you dive into deeper forms of math including algebra and calculus, mathematical reasoning can get quite abstract.
The simple fact of the matter is that in no real way or God in science mutually exclusive. For example, there is nothing in the scientific method that excludes a hypothesis that includes God, because the only requirement is that the hypothesis be falsifiable, and you can start with God doing something specific that if correct would produce results that if absent would falsify that hypothesis. However, If those results are present, it would suggest that the hypothesis was correct. In such a case, it is more than simply saying God did it, but more like God did it in this specific way. There is a huge difference between these two statements in that if the action of God is specific enough that it produces distinct results it will be testable and fit the requirements of the scientific method and thus based on the scientific method to qualify his science.
The only thing that excludes God from science is the philosophical notion held by the scientific establishment of absolute naturalism. This is an inherently atheistic form of naturalism that excludes God by definition such that He is not even allowed to be considered. Absolute naturalism is more of a religious concept related to scientism than it is to actual science. It makes sure that God is excluded before any data is ever looked at.
One thing that comes across loud and clear, is that God is not allowed by the scientific establishment. He has been pushed out and he has been sued out. And if even the slightest hint of intelligent design shows up in a paper, you get a highly religious burn the heretics type of attitude. This showed up loud and clear in a paper that was published in the plus one journal, the phrase, the “best design of the creator” appeared in a paper in reference to the human hand. It caused an uproar, that would have been similar to standing in Saint peter's square and denouncing the Pope as antichrist. The religious fury demonstrated a burn-the-heretics type attitude. The irony of this event is that the phrase was a result of a translation error from Chinese. The fury died down after the translation effort was discovered and corrected, but the reaction shows the attitude towards anything even remotely implying intelligent design.
The simple fact is that everything you see in the scientific establishment indicates that God is not only unwelcomed but summarily rejected before any data is ever looked at. As a result, in areas such as origins it is literally impossible for anything supporting Biblical creation or simply an intelligent designer to have a chance within this establishment. If you reject a possibility before you look at the data, you are not doing real science.
Part of the problem is the presupposition that science can explain everything. This is of course not true. It cannot explain morality, it cannot explain why the universe obeys abstract things like mathematics, it cannot explain freewill in fact atheists claim it's an illusion, they cannot explain consciousness, and despite claims to the contrary it cannot explain life. This is more than just about the origin of life this is about how life operates.
Regardless of the claims by the scientific establishment for Big Bang to man evolution to be scientific, it is repeatedly propped up by unscientific means. Probably the most classic example of this is dark energy. The Big Bang cosmology predicted two possibilities for the expansion of the universe. The first is that there would be enough mass in the universe to slow the expansion Until it began to collapse. The second, would be insufficient mass for it to collapse resulting in the expansion slowing but never actually stopping. When they did the actual measurements, the result as interpreted by The Big Bang indicated an accelerating expansion. After this result they did not even question The Big Bang itself what invented an unfalsifiable patch called dark energy. This is despite the fact that in a bounded universe the type 1A supernova data could be explained as a blue shift caused by gravity. The only variable would be the amount of mass around the outer edge.
Within our own solar system there are multiple cases where what we observe goes against the nebular hypothesis. We have two major planets in a dwarf planet that rotate backwards, and we have several moons around the gas giants that are in retrograde orbits, that is their counter to the planet's rotation. A common explanation for which there is no evidence given for retrograde rotation is a massive collision in the distant past, the evidence for which has been erased. As for retrograde moons, a just so story about a star passing close to the solar system has been invented for the sole purpose of explaining away this problem, despite the fact that there is no other evidence for the existence of this star. For example, there is no actual star that we can point to and say that's the star.
An intelligent designer naturally solves the problem of being able to assemble living cells, because designing and constructing complex systems is something that we are known to be doing as human beings. One of the reasons why we still need God in a scientific age is that Quantum Mechanics indicates that our reality is fundamentally information. Both the information, the information system, and the program behind it could only have come from an intelligent designer who would have had to have been outside of the space-time of our universe. This means that this intelligent designer had to be the being we know as God.
This means that we still need God even in a scientific age because he is ultimately needed to explain our existence. Not just because we have gaps in our knowledge, but rather because of our knowledge. What we know not only tells us that life cannot exist without the input of an intelligent designer such as God but that the universe and our reality cannot exist without him has creator.
In conclusion even in a scientific age we need God because contrary to what you hear from evolutionists, science actually tells us the God has to exist. Not only do chemistry physics and biology go strongly against abiogenesis, but quantum mechanics shows that reality itself had to have been created by God. Including God is not a God of the gaps, but rather a God of the necessity of the laws of science.
