Science and theology have always seemed to conflict. Many religious people believe that, if the universe in general and humanity specifically were created seemingly at random through the Big Bang and evolution, then existence itself is meaningless. Believers dismiss the scientific evidence because they do not like the only reasonable conclusions that, to them, result from these premises. However, this is a logical fallacy. Once cannot ignore a fact simply because one does not like what an acceptance of that fact may mean.
Scientist-theologians take a more balanced approach by stating that people must first deduce the factual basis of the universe and then make theological and philosophical deductions based on the evidence. (The opinion that “God caused the Big Bang” is a simplified view of this thinking.) Another example of this approach is described in this Salon article:
…more and more physicists point to various laws of nature that have to be calibrated just right for stars and planets to form and for life to appear. For instance, if gravity were just slightly stronger, the universe would have collapsed long before life evolved. But if gravity were a tiny bit weaker, no galaxies or stars could have formed. If the strong nuclear force had been slightly different, red giant stars would never produce the fusion needed to form heavier atoms like carbon, and the universe would be a vast, lifeless desert. Are these just happy coincidences? The late cosmologist Fred Hoyle called the universe “a put-up job.” Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson has suggested that the universe, in some sense, “knew we were coming.”
Religious people who appreciate science believe that the fine-tuning of the universe that enables it to support life — albeit, as far as we know, on one planet out of trillions — is proof that the universe was designed. This, of course, is one small step away from stating that a Creator God exists.
But the anthropic principle in cosmology stands in the way of making theological statements based on this scientific observation. The principle essentially states that if the universe’s fine-tuning had been slightly off, then we would not be here in the first place to observe that it had been off. If there had been a 0.00000001% chance that the universe would randomly develop the needed characteristics to sustain life, then the scientific response is that “we lucked out” — that 0.00000001% chance, in fact, occurred. The complex nature of the universe, then, is not proof of a Creator God.
I’m a liberally-religious Jew and someone who, particularly as a former journalist, is passionate about discovering factual, objective truth whenever possible. But I don’t see an inherent contradiction between the two because religion and science, to me, operate in completely different realms. The two systems can rarely, if ever, relate to each other successfully in each other’s paradigm. Religion, at its best, can provide the basis for ethical systems and philosophical understandings — the indescribable, spiritual underpinnings of existence. Science can teach us the physical basis of existence and improve our daily lives through technology.
Ne’er the twain shall meet, and they do not need to. Whenever religion attempts to enroach upon science, religion places itself in peril. The myths of religion are not science — they are metaphors that teach ethical, personal and societal precepts.