Has Science Disproved God?

In a recent conversation I have had a person suggest to me that science has “closed the gap” on God.  What he meant was that scientific discovery has now explained the world we experience so well that there is no reason to think that God was necessary to make it happen.  So is the evidence on the side of a strictly materialistic world?

Materialistic reductionism, asserting that all is explainable through the laws of physics, not only still has great holes in it. I would assert that our growing understanding of the complexity of life is making evolutionary theory not only implausible but less and less imaginable.  If you are a person with doubts about the Christian faith,  that is fine.  You are not saved by certainty.  But be sure to thoroughly investigate with a skeptical eye the claims of atheism.  It is not good enough that smart people promote it.  Smart people can be blind to many things.  There is plenty to be skeptical about in evolutionary theory.

In later blogs, I will look more closely at these areas and others, but for now here are several areas in which materialists either have no answer or will not admit how improbable their answer is.

1. The Origin of Life  The magic mechanism that materialists imbue with great power is natural selection.  Natural selection can do nothing in non-living systems, however.  If the very lowest form of life was something very simple.  It might be imaginable that pure chance could have brought together the necessary chemicals to get life started.  We know now that even the simplest life is not simple at all.  How could that get started, regardless of how long chance had to work on it?  This is not simply a “God of the gaps” argument.  At some point you have to consider mathematical odds and consider that life couldn’t happen by itself.
2. Macroevolutionary Development  Everyone knows that creatures can change over time.  It is also agreed that creatures share common features (homology).  What isn’t proven is that natural selection has the power to create all the millions of species from an initial species.  It is more reasonable to conclude that natural selection plays some role in modest changes within a species and that homology results from having a common creator.  The number of changes that would be necessary to create all the variety in life as we know it simply through chance mutations, even with natural selection preserving any helpful mutations once again is mathematically prohibitive even with billions of years to work.
3. The Conscious Mind  Naturalistic reductionism must conclude in the end two very unsatisfying and implausible things.  First, our sense of being conscious is really an illusion.  My thinking about why we are here is really just the result of interesting chemistry in my head.  Second, everything is deterministic.  The laws of physics really only can produce one reality.  If I am thinking about life, it is only because the chemical reactions are forcing such a sensation.  If I “willing” crash my car, I had no choice but to crash my car.  That is the logical conclusion of a theory out of touch with reality.