There really is no “science vs. religion” war — or at least, there shouldn’t be.
Yet certain loud voices keep trying to force one. On one side you have Seth MacFarlane, who likes to mock Christians as believers in a “Sky Daddy” and once claimed creationists are less intelligent than people with severe cognitive disabilities. On the other side sits Ken Ham, who insists Genesis 1 must be read as six literal 24-hour days and treats anyone who disagrees as a closet atheist or compromiser.
I have almost zero respect for either man. Both are thin-skinned pseudointellectuals who excel at insults but struggle with actual conversation unless their audience already agrees with them. Disagree with MacFarlane and you’ll get sarcasm or a reminder that he’s friends with Neil deGrasse Tyson. Disagree with Ham and you’ll be called a compromiser or worse. Both build strawmen, traffic in surface-level arguments, and prefer mockery over engagement.
I’m using them only as stand-ins for the broader problem: far too many people on both sides act as if science and religion are inherently at war. They are not. Accepting this truth does not make you a traitor to your “side.”
Let me be clear about my own position. I am not a Young Earth Creationist — I consider that position indefensible. I am not a deist. I am also not anti-science; I have a deep appreciation for astronomy and cosmology. At the same time, I am a Christian theologian who believes God created the universe and that Jesus rose from the dead. These things are not incompatible. It is the height of willful stupidity to insist they must be.
The Problem Starts with Genesis 1–2
Much of the unnecessary conflict comes from how people read the opening chapters of Genesis. A small but vocal group of Christians insists on six literal 24-hour days, a physical Garden of Eden, and a young earth. On the flip side, critics assume every Christian must hold that view and then mock the faith accordingly.
Both approaches miss the mark.
The key Hebrew word in Genesis 1 is yom (יוֹם). While it can mean a literal day, it frequently carries a broader, more flexible meaning — an epoch, an indefinite period of time, or simply “when” something occurred. This is the same word used in other parts of Scripture in clearly non-literal ways. Context matters. The sun is not created until the fourth “yom,” which already complicates a strict solar-day reading. The highly structured, poetic form of Genesis 1 (“evening and morning, the Xth yom”) strongly suggests literary framework rather than scientific chronology. The chapter is theological poetry declaring God’s sovereignty and order, not a modern scientific timetable.
Science and Faith Are Compatible
We have strong evidence that the universe is billions of years old: cosmic microwave background radiation, the formation of stars and heavier elements, and the fossil record. None of this precludes God. In fact, many serious thinkers on both sides of the faith question have long recognized that science and religion address different domains.
Christian philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig has repeatedly affirmed that the Big Bang cosmology provides powerful scientific confirmation of the biblical doctrine of creation out of nothing. He argues that a universe with a finite beginning aligns with the theological claim that God created the cosmos. Far from seeing science as a threat, Craig sees modern cosmology as supportive of theism.¹
Even some prominent atheists have acknowledged that science and faith are not inherently at war. The late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould — a committed atheist — famously proposed the principle of “Non-Overlapping Magisteria” (NOMA). He argued that science and religion occupy entirely separate domains: science deals with empirical facts and natural processes, while religion addresses questions of meaning, morality, and ultimate purpose. Gould insisted there should be no conflict because the two magisteria do not overlap.²
Atheists like MacFarlane often begin with the assumption “no supernatural cause is possible” and then act as if the data proves their starting point. That is not science — it is philosophical naturalism masquerading as neutrality. True science describes mechanisms and regularities; it does not dictate ultimate causes or rule out intelligent agency by fiat.
As a Christian, I have no problem saying God initiated the universe, set its laws and initial conditions, and specially created life. I also have no problem accepting the Big Bang and an ancient cosmos. These are not in conflict. God is not threatened by good science, and good science is not threatened by the possibility of a Creator.
The real tragedy is how many people on both sides have turned a false dichotomy into a tribal battle. Christians who demand young-earth literalism and atheists who treat any belief in God as anti-intellectual are equally guilty of intellectual laziness.
Science and faith address different questions. Science asks “how?” Faith asks “why?” Both can coexist without one devouring the other.
It’s time we stopped forcing them into conflict.
Notes
- William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), 111–156. See also William Lane Craig, “God and the Big Bang,” lecture, University of Hong Kong, October 2018.
- Stephen Jay Gould, “Nonoverlapping Magisteria,” Natural History 106 (March 1997): 16–22.
Rooted & Reckoned 
Leave a comment