Will Science Eventually Kill God?

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Impossible concept, and yet it has captured the attention of the news media
of late (e.g., Wolchover, 2012). Will the bulk of society likely tend to
continue its movement away from God in the coming years? Probably, since
that has historically been the trend, inside and outside the Bible. But God
has never been eliminated from human thought in the thousands of years
of human existence, because His providential hand brings punishment on
societies at those times when the population in sufficient numbers turns its
back on God. Then inevitably follows a return by many to spiritual matters (see Miller, 2008).

Still, according to NBC News, Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist at the California Institute of
Technology, believes that science will eventually remove the need for God in the equation to explain
certain Universal phenomena. He argues that, “God’s sphere of influence has shrunk drastically in
modern times” (Wolchover). We are not sure where he is getting his information, because statistically,
the world is en masse (84%) theist (e.g., “Major Religions of the World,” 2007), and the percentage of
the population in this country that believes that God has played a role in the origin of the Universe
(78%) is far beyond the secular evolutionary community (15%) (see Miller, 2012). While there certainly
has been an increase in the ranks of the non-religious community in the past several years, the Earth is
still, by far, theistic.

Carroll further argues that many of the phenomena that were once highlighted as proof of the
existence of God, since science could not explain those phenomena, are gradually being eliminated, in
his opinion. He believes that the need for a God to cause the Big Bang to “bang” is side-stepped by the
idea of an eternal Universe—a Universe like the one theorized by the Oscillating Universe Big Bang
model. [NOTE: This is not to say that we believe the Big Bang Theory to be true. We have outlined
several issues that show the Big Bang to be false elsewhere (e.g., Thompson, Harrub, and May, 2003).
We are merely addressing his assertions.] He believes that the problem of having a necessary cause for
the Universe, even if the Universe is not eternal, is side-stepped by the idea that time started at the Big
Bang, and therefore, there is no need of a pre-existing cause. According to Alex Filippenko, an
astrophysicist at the University of California, Berkeley that is quoted in the article, “The Big Bang
could’ve occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there. With the laws of physics, you can
get universes.” Carroll further argues that the “fine tuning” argument used by theists with regard to
many physical constants that seem perfectly suited for our existence, can be side-stepped using
theories about parallel universes beyond our’s (Wolchover).

Several comments are worth mentioning in response to Carroll. First of all, notice the tacit admission
that God is still needed to explain some things in the Universe, even if they might eventually be
eliminated in Carroll’s mind. Many issues that point to God have been eliminated, in Carroll’s opinion:
but that implies that some remain.

Second, his attempt to side-step the problem of needing a “trigger” for the Big Bang by giving credence
to theories that postulate the eternality of the Universe, does not lend to the idea that science has
eliminated the need for God in that area. On the contrary, science has already spoken on that matter.
Nothing lasts forever, according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (see Miller, 2007 for an in depth
discussion of the Laws of Thermodynamics as they relate to the Universe as a whole). So such theories
are not in keeping with the findings of science. Since nothing lasts forever in nature, the Universe
could not have lasted forever—God is needed.

His further attempt to side-step the issue of needing a cause for a non-eternal Universe Big Bang
model, by arguing that time began at the Big Bang, is reminiscent of Stephen Hawking’s recent
comments on the matter. However, as we have discussed elsewhere (see Miller, 2011), that idea is not
in keeping with the scientific evidence either. The Universe could not have caused itself since, in
nature, nothing comes from nothing. Energy cannot spontaneously generate, according to the
evidence from science—specifically the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (see Miller, 2007). Theories that
postulate such erroneous concepts are not in keeping with science. So, once again, science has not
eliminated the need for God in that instance either. The existence of the Universe still requires an
adequate Cause, according to the evidence from science.
Filippenko’s comments merely highlight another issue that science cannot explain without God—the
existence of the laws of physics. A poem requires a poet. A law requires a law writer. As eminent
atheistic theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist of Arizona State University, Paul Davies,
noted, “You need to know where those laws come from. That’s where the mystery lies—the laws” (“The
Creation Question…,” 2011). The atheist has no explanation for how the laws of science could have
written themselves into existence, and there is no logical explanation outside of a cosmic Law Writer.

Carroll’s attempts to side-step the issue of the theist’s finely tuned Universe argument by postulating
parallel Universes is not a sound argument. Science has not proven such a theory. No alternate
Universe has ever been witnessed, and therefore is outside the scope of the evolutionary community’s
own definition of empirical science. Such an argument is mere conjecture and speculation—not
evidence. So again, science has not dismissed the need for God in this instance either.

Time and again, Carroll attempts to make his case for science eliminating God, by relying on theories
that cannot be verified with science or that blatantly contradict the evidence from science. So, in the
end, Carroll has not proven that science has or could ever eliminate God. The only thing he has proven
is that atheists are not self-consistent in their viewpoint on this matter.

Is it true that many people today are accepting such “evidence” and are therefore turning from God?
Are they in the process causing God to be eliminated from their minds—i.e., not “retain[ing] God in
their knowledge” (Romans 1:28)? Is it likely that there will be more and more people in the coming
years that join the bandwagon in rejecting God? Definitely. However, such behavior is not due to the
evidence from true science, but rather, due to their own desires (cf. Romans 1:20-32). Ironically, while
such atheists wishfully dream that science will one day kill God, science has actually already ruled out
atheism as an explanation for the origin of the Universe (see www.apologeticspress.org for evidence
on this subject).

REFERENCES
“The Creation Question: A Curiosity Conversation” (2011), Discovery Channel, August 7.

“Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents” (2007),

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html.

Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,”
Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.

Miller, Jeff (2008), “The Cycle of Unbelief,” Apologetics Press,

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2495.

Miller, Jeff  (2011), “A Review of Discovery Channel’s ‘Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?’” Reason
& Revelation, 31[10]:98-107, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?
pub=1&issue=1004&article=1687.

Miller, Jeff (2012), “Literal Creationists Holding Their Ground in the Polls,” Reason & Revelation,
32[9]:94-95, September, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APPubPage.aspx?
pub=1&issue=1093&article=2040#.

Thompson, Bert, Brad Harrub, and Branyon May (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique
[Part 1],” Reason & Revelation, 23[5]:33-47, May, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?
pub=1&issue=541&article=540.

Wolchover, Natalie (2012), “Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God?” NBC News: Science,
September 18, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49074598/ns/technology_and_science-
science/#.UFnWIlEpCeZ.

Copyright © 2012 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Creation Vs. Evolution" section to be reproduced in
part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be
designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3)
the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly
forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual
property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the
person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g.,
running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available,
without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered
for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for
posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is
given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558

http://www.apologeticspress.org