Contrary to a recent report in Newsweek, the answer is "no." Religion's approach to determining truth is contradictory to the scientific method; the vast majority of practicing scientists do not believe in a god; and recent scientific discoveries have not revealed any evidence for the existence of a god. If current scientific knowledge has any theological implications at all, it is that our universe is probably not the result of a personal Creator.

Consider the radically different ways of knowing things in science vs. religion:

• Scientific hypotheses are always tentative; they are held only so long as they are supported by evidence. Religious doctrines, on the other hand, may be held in accordance with evidence (e.g., Pontius Pilate was a historical person), without supporting evidence (e.g., the angel Moroni delivered the Book of Mormon on Golden Plates to Joseph Smith), or even in spite of evidence (e.g., the Genesis flood).
• Scientific hypotheses must be testable. There is no such guarantee with respect to religious claims: they may be testable; then again, they might not be.

Thus, although religious epistemology may sometimes reach the same conclusions as the scientific method, there is no guarantee that it will do so. Thus religious epistemology is inconsistent with the scientific method.

The vast majority of scientists are atheists or agnostics. According to a letter by EJ Larson and L Witham, just published in Nature 394:313, a recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God. Figures from an almost identical survey in 1914 and 1933 show a steady decline in God-belief among scientists.

Why is the percentage of scientists who believe in God so much lower than the general U.S. population? One possible explanation is that scientists understand (much better than the scientifically illiterate general population of the U.S.) that science offers no evidence for the existence of God. Big Bang cosmology only entails that our universe is expanding as the result of a cosmic explosion which took place billions of years ago. From this it does not follow that the Big Bang was caused by a god, much less a personal god. Indeed, most scientists hold just the opposite conclusion. As the late Carl Sagan said, if Big Bang cosmology is true, "there is nothing for a Creator to do." But what about the claim that the universe must have been "fine-tuned" by a cosmic designer? Simply put, the argument begs the question. The argument assumes that the values of the physical constants of our universe (e.g., the speed of light) are extremely unlikely. But how could anyone know that? We have no idea how likely or unlikely variations in the physical constants are. We do not even know that the values of the constants are in fact "tunable!"

Although these points do not constitute a strict disproof of the existence of a personal God, the nonexistence of a personal God is the best explanation for these points. They support a naturalistic worldview.

To paraphrase a point made by Robby Berry, atheists and agnostics may find articles about "science finding god" upsetting, but there is a positive side to all this. Theists have tried to give scientific evidence for the existence of God. Their arguments may not be successful, but they clearly want others to think that their theism is supported by science. This in itself is a sign that skepticism is slowly but surely taking the place of faith. It wasn't that long ago when the vast majority of religious believers simply ignored science, or condemned it outright. But nowadays, most theists are trying to make their religious claims appear scientifically sound. It would seem that science (and thus its methods) have gained the respect of a large proportion of the populace, such that science can no longer be ignored by those who don't like its implications. As a result, Christians dare not condemn science outright; they must instead make it appear that science really agreed with them all along. Thus witness the onslaught of books attempting to integrate science and religion: Hugh Ross's Fingerprint of God, Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, J.P. Moreland's (ed.) Creation Hypothesis, Patrick Glynn's God: The Evidence, and so on. All of these are attempts to make it appear that science is on the Christians' side.

So guess what? The skeptics are winning. While its still too early to toast our victory, we can take comfort in the fact that we've managed to dictate the terms of engagement.

--by Jeffery Jay Lowder, Internet Infidel