God and Science

Is there a place for both God and science? Richard Dawkins believes that scientific truth is the only truth. However, what is this view based on? It is surely not based on science, there is no evidence to this truth, in fact, it is a philosophical truth. Does a place for God mean no place for science? Again, I would have to say no, God uses science as a mechanism. This leaves us with one other option, the harmony of God and Science. Let's take a look at one of the most controversial and hot topics, Genesis and Evolution.

Evolution
This is a scientific theory. This means that it is a basis of scientific outlook, a starting point, one where new hypotheses are based on. It is not (as some say) 'just a theory' in that it is not proven. The mass of evidence about evolution comes from fossils which are carbon dated. This is a very accurate form of dating and the data can, on a whole be trusted. There are questions however, which do face evolution, such as the 'Cambrian Explosion'. A time where seemingly a lot of fossils appeared in a short space of time, however this could be due to the climate and conditions with just suited fossilization. Nevertheless, the evidence for evolution appears to be quite comprehensive but as any scientist will tell you, it does not deal with how life got here in the first place.

Genesis
To some, this is hard fact, take it word for word, God created the earth in six 24 hour days out of nothing. However, this argument seems to fall short because the notion of a 24 hour day did not exist until day 4, when the Sun was created. I believe that Genesis 1 is in fact, a poem. There are many poetic traits in it, such as the rhythm, how each day starts and how each day ends, it is a cycle. There is also structure in it, God separates in days 1, 2 and 3, God fills in days 4, 5 and 6. What God separates in day 1 He fills in 4, what He separates in day 2, He fills in 5 and what He separates in day 3, He fills in 6. It would be illogical to lecture the Israelites on microbiology and evolution, instead, God tells them what is important, that He created them.

Conclusion
This is only a brief summary of the debate but it can already be seen that there is a place for both God and science to work. Benjamin Warfield, one of the 'Princeton Theologians' said, "A theory of the method, of the divine providence". There was no tension then so why should there be now? Science does not and never will prove how we got here, the universe is so intricate so many levels and balances. You may argue that this is one of the 'God for the gaps' arguments but is it? The two are addressing very different things, on one hand science tells us how things work and on the other God tells us why they work.

Additional Resources:
Rob Bell - Everything is Spiritual
Francis Collins - the Language of God