Three Reasons a Godless Universe Doesn’t Actually Add Up
- Debra Hodges
- 2 days ago
- 4 min read
Introduction
Richard Dawkins, a prominent British biologist and atheist, believes that complex things appear to be designed for a purpose, but are not. [1] Authors such as Dr. Steven C. Meyer (Return of the God Hypothesis), Professor John Lennox (Cosmic Chemistry: Do God and Science Mix?), and Dr. James Tour, et all (Mystery of Life’s Origin) have written books providing ample scientific and philosophical evidence that complex things are, in fact, genuinely designed by an intelligent designer, not just appearing to be so.
When and how did science replace God?
Before science offered “real explanations” of how life began and evolved to its present state, humanity relied on belief in God. As knowledge grew, God became unnecessary. How did this happen?
The earliest pioneers of modern science didn’t see their work as a replacement for God. Modern science was not born in opposition to belief in God; the pioneers of modern science saw their work as revealing Him.
Isaac Newton, who is regarded as one of the greatest scientists in history, believed the order of the universe reflected divine intelligence:
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. [2]
Robert Boyle, one of the founders of modern chemistry and a pioneer of the scientific method, saw science as a means to honor God:
The study of nature is a duty we owe to God. [3]
These early scientists believed nature was understandable and discoverable only because it was created by an intelligent, rational mind. Their faith inspired their work rather than hindering it. As science advanced during the scientific revolution, its success led many thinkers to assume that material explanations were sufficient for everything.
In his book cited above, Dr. Meyer explains how this philosophical shift occurred:
The success of mechanistic explanations led many scientists to assume that matter and energy alone could explain all of reality. [4]
In other words, the existence of God wasn’t disproven by scientists; His existence was simply deemed unnecessary. This assumption took root in scientific circles during the Enlightenment and shaped modern materialism.
Challenges to the assumption that “Science has explained God away.”
The following three recent scientific discoveries undermine this assumption. Philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer discusses these discoveries and their implications in his book Return of the God Hypothesis.
1. The universe had a beginning. The Big Bang confirmed that the universe is not eternal. The discovery that space, time, matter, and energy all came into existence at a definite point in the past counters the idea of an eternal, unchanging cosmos, suggesting a transcendent cause.
2. Life exists only because the universe is governed by precise, physical laws, making chance explanations highly implausible.
3. The complex information in DNA points to a conscious mind. Naturalistic mechanisms alone cannot adequately explain how complex biological information arose. We have never observed information arise from purely material processes without the involvement of a mind. [5]
Inference to the Best Explanation
Using philosophical reasoning, Dr. Meyer argues that the God hypothesis — a personal, intelligent Designer — is the best metaphysical explanation for what we see. An all-powerful, intelligent, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and personal Creator is a far more coherent explanation of life than materialistic alternatives.
The central thesis in his book is that scientific data doesn’t undermine belief in God; rather, as scientific knowledge and understanding deepen, theism becomes a stronger and more plausible explanation for why the universe exists as it does.
As mathematician and philosopher John Lennox explains, biological systems do not merely show complexity; they show language (which always comes from a mind). In his discussions and books, he emphasizes that human reason and the intelligible nature of the universe (e.g., mathematical laws) are consistent with the belief in a Creator who designed a universe that can be studied and understood.
Science explains how things work; it does not explain why they exist. [6]
Like Dr. Meyer, Professor Lennox argues that chance lacks creative power! He insists that a purely materialistic worldview struggles to account for the coherence and order we observe. He asserts that theism provides a framework that makes sense of both scientific knowledge and the deeper questions of meaning and purpose.
Self-creation is logically impossible. Something cannot create itself. [7]
Conclusion
Life contains coded instructions, best explained by intelligent design. Faith and reason can be reunited by explaining reality in terms of both how and why God, as the mind behind DNA, explains both order and intelligence.
A personal, intelligent, purposeful Creator revealed in the God of the Bible uniquely explains:
Creation from nothing
Order and rationality
Moral meaning and human dignity
Belief in the God of the Bible is not a relic of the past. It is increasingly consistent with the best scientific evidence we have. Science hasn’t disproved the God hypothesis; on the contrary, it has brought it back with a profound force.
Resources
Wikipedia contributors. (2025, December 17). The blind watchmaker. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker
Isaac Newton, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica
Robert Boyle, The Christian Virtuoso
Stephen C. Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis (HarperOne)
https://www.harpercollins.com/products/return-of-the-god-hypothesis-stephen-c-meyer
Stephen C. Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis
John C. Lennox, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (Lion Hudson)
John Lennox, God’s Undertaker
Comments