What is it in Science that makes Christianity fit in the reality of Truth or simply what makes Christianity true in relation to Science?

Greetings Sir Thyer!

I hope all is well with you and your family brother amidst this ordeal. Hard times but Jesus still is our refuge amen haha.

Sir, in relation to the design argument and Chemistry (since that was your profession haha!), what is it in Science that makes Christianity fit in the reality of Truth or simply what makes Christianity true in relation to Science? What is the framework or set of points or arguments in science for us Christians to consider in helping the skeptic see Truth in Christianity?

Thank you brother I am looking forward for your wonderful answer haha. Maraming Salamat Po! (Thank you very much sir!) :slight_smile:


Hi Karl - great question. I’ve been re-reading and re-watching some lectures on this question to give a succinct and clear response. I’m just finishing some notes on this so will get back to you further on this. In short though I have found the material by James Tour from Rice University to be fascinating investigating the chemical details behind macroevolution; namely that no-one knows how it is occurs!

P.S. Apologies for the delay in getting back to you, have had to rush back to Perth from Brisbane due to the COVID-19 situation and we were driving home from the east coast of Australia with little to no reception along the way.


Hi Karl.
I wouldn’t say there is only one-line of reasoning in science that I believe makes Christianity fit or appealing for skeptics - it is much more of a cumulative case for me that it has such incredible explanatory power for our natural world and experience of life.
However, one thing in particular that I’ve found especially compelling personally over the last 15 years would be the scientific data supporting the 2nd premise in the Kalam cosmological argument. The Kalam version of the cosmological argument goes like this:

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

This is a philosophical argument but it’s premises are supported by modern science - in particular the second premise is rock solid according to the laws of thermodynamics (the majority of a chemical/process engineers work is mitigating the effects of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in a closed system). The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that things tent towards entropy (disorder) when in a closed system. This means that without there being initial order (from an energy perspective) in the universe and the universe having a beginning in the finite past - we simply could not have any usable energy left now. Since we do have usable energy left now this is strong scientific evidence that the universe (a closed system on the whole) began at a point in the finite past and with usable energy. All this to say the science from a thermodynamics perspective very strongly supports the premise that ‘the universe began to exist’.

Now while I find the science and philosophical reasoning behind the Kalam cosmological argument very compelling, I’ve been surprised at how easily disregarded it is by skeptics - but not necessarily for scientific or philosophical reasons, mostly because they just refuse to accept it’s conclusion might be God (a timeless, spaceless, immaterial and powerful mind). For this reason I primarily use this argument when people are genuinely interested in considering the evidence for a creator. If someone is determined to remain in unbelief no amount of evidence will change their heart of mind (think Jesus performing miracles in full view of many who would not believe in him, even shout for his crucifixion). So we must be careful in how much faith we place in these arguments to persuade. I have found them to be very persuasive once someone is open to examining the evidence, but if they’re closed they aren’t convincing for people.
All this to say as John makes clear in his gospel account that belief is not just a matter of the evidence but also of the will. So we must not place our faith in arguments to persuade but in the Holy Spirit to use our words by his grace to change hearts and lives.

There is more to say on the role of arguments/apologetics in persuasion so I’d recommend Os Guiness’ book ’ Fools Talk’ to dig deeper on that.
Brother, I’ve got to run and I’ve probably typed too much already so I hope there is something helpful in there for you as you seek to live for Christ and his glory!
Enjoy grace,