My response is to mention that I have a book here called, "Inventing the Universe - Why we can't stop talking about science, faith and God" by Alister McGrath. The blurb on this books says he is (amongst other things) the Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at Oxford University. He initially did academic work in the natural sciences, and one of the many academic and theological works he has authored is called "The Dawkins Delusion". He deals with origins, the burden of proof, the meaning of life, the existence of God and our place in the universe. This particular book deals with the complex yet fascinating relationship between science and faith.
Now, I've read this book, and although I don't agree with everything Professor McGrath says, here's a quote that deals with one problem with this question. It is based on the supposition that science can be compared with religious faith, as if both 'things' were the same sort of 'thing'. They are not. Although a degree of faith can, at times be needed to hold on to some scientific theories in the face of apparently contradictory facts, that is not the faith needed for belief in some of the claims of God and Christ (which cannot be proven in the same way that scientific tests can be applied.) Apples and oranges are both fruits, but you cannot compare one with the other. Science and Christian faith are both seeking truth, but one deals with material elements while the other deals with spiritual elements.
"Science is on a journey, seeking the best way of explaining and
representing reality. Science is primarily about a method and
secondarily about the outcomes of the application of the method. What
one generation regards as secure and reliable may be abandoned by the
next. Scientific theories are provisional. That does not mean that
they are arbitrary. It just means that they are not - and never can be
the last word on anything. Richard Dawkins rightly points out that Darwinism is just as provisional as any other scientific theory. 'We
must acknowledge the possibility that new facts may come to light
which will force our successors of the twenty-first century to abandon
Darwinism or modify it beyond recognition.'
"...Now, some people believe that science is about what can be proved.
Yet, to say it again, it is just not that simple. Science often
proposes the existence of invisible (and often undetectable) things -
such as 'dark matter' - to explain what can be seen... The reason why
the Higgs boson is taken so seriously by particle physicists is that
it makes so much sense of scientific observations that its existence
seems assured. In other words, its power to explain is seen as an
indicator of its truth.
"There is an obvious and important parallel with the way religious
believers think about God." Inventing the Universe, Alister McGrath
pp 56, 58 (Hodder & Stoughton 2015)
The book goes on to explain where similarities end and the uniqueness of faith in God and Christ in no way rules out the worth of science. They are both disciplines that are needed, but it's not a competition between them. Only those who hate the idea of God try to promote a false dichotomy between their beloved, material science, and the intangible nature of much that is spiritual.
That point is particularly borne out in another book, also written by a scientist with Christian faith, Tom McLeish, Prof. of Physics at Durham University, who applies physics to biology. His book deals with this idea, that there is:
“a competition between science and theology in terms of
their explanatory power of the phenomena we experience in nature. Many
people make an appeal, that we should sign up to one sphere of
activity or the other, but never to both... [but] historically
speaking, the claims that scientists make are also ‘usually false’.
Good science is arguably about being false in a constructive way that
takes us nearer to truth, rather than capturing truth in some timeless
way. Seen in the light of Einstein’s relativity, Newton was ‘wrong’
but we do not discard his achievement for that reason. Science also
requires rhetoric, advocacy in the face of apparent initial
refutation, defending a weak conclusion or partially developed
understanding in its early life... New ideas in science would die at
birth without these social instruments to keep them in circulation
until they gather strength of their own.
The battle between Religion and Science only arises when people don't
distinguish between theory / theology, and practice.
We need to treat those two disciplines as distinct in their remit and
capabilities (for Science can say nothing about that which is
immaterial). It's only when Scientists and supporters of scientism
start spouting on about metaphysics that the clash arises on their
side. And it's only when Religionists swallow the bait, wrongly
supposing that Scientific theories are some kind of threat to their
beliefs about God that the clash arises on their side. Faith & Wisdom
in Science, Tom McLeish, p 167 (Oxford University Press 2014)
Again, I don't agree with everything Tom McLeish proposes, but at least, by reading such books written by men of faith, who are also highly accredited scientists, Protestants can proclaim the scriptures without seeing science as some kind of threat. It isn't. Our job, as Christians, is to point to the risen Christ, who also "made everything that was made" and sustains the universe by the power of his word. We don't argue with those who ridicule such matters of faith. We certainly don't argue with atheists. The same power that created the universe is the same power that brings spiritually dead people to spiritual life. We just proclaim the gospel of Christ, in faith, and praise God for the wonders of his creation.
