In about a 1,000 words I want to show that science has done nothing remotely like that, and to make you aware of some of the arguments - particularly about evolution.
For the last 100 years, atheists have been promoting the myth that Christian belief and science must always be in conflict. Colin Russell, Professor of the History of Science and Technology at the Open University, calls this ' a grotesque caricature' and questions how such a ludicrous idea has come to be so widely and readily accepted. Indeed, the impression left by those who write or appear in the media is that no true scientist could be a Christian, that science (given time) will uncover all the secrets of the universe - and of life itself - and therefore has removed any need for the idea of God.
In fact there have
always been and continue to be scientists who are 
convinced Christians. The brilliant astronomer and mathematician Kepler was a
Christian, and so were Michael Faraday*, Isaac Newton, Pascal, Robert Boyle,
Francis Bacon, Joseph Lister (the pioneer of anaesthetic surgery), Louis Pasteur
and James Maxwell.
(*Asked on his death-bed what had been his greatest achievement, Faraday replied that his discovery of Jesus Christ had been the greatest thing in his life.)
The pattern continues today. In the booklet 'God and the Scientists' (ISBN 1-901796-02-7) by Mike Poole, 10 top modern scientists write briefly about their faith in the context of their science. They are Sir Robert Boyd CBE FRS Emeritus Professor of Physics at University College London; Malcolm Jeeves CBE President of the Royal Society of Edinburgh; George Kinoti Professor of Zoology at The University of Nairobi; Gareth Jones Professor of Anatomy and Structural Biology at the University of Otago, New Zealand; Sir John Houghton CBE FRS one-time Professor of Atmospheric Physics at Oxford and Director of the Appleton Laboratory; Owen Gingerich, Professor of Astronomy and the History of Science at Harvard; Professor Sir Ghillean Prance FRS Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, in Kew, England; R.J. (Sam) Berry Professor of Genetics at University College London; Margaret Hodson FRCP Professor of Respiratory Medicine at Imperial College London; and Colin Russell - already referred to.
These scientists and 1000's more of lesser fame, hold to a thoughtful but convinced Christian faith. The British organisation 'Christians in Science' has 1,500 members and affiliates: the American equivalent has 7,000. In 1996 a survey of American scientists showed that about 40% believed in a personal God. So let's have an end to this lie (because that is what it is) that there are no serious scientists who are Christians.
On the positive
side, there is no doubt that science is a very exciting field to be in. 
And we have all greatly benefited from the discoveries of science, particularly
in medical treatment. We are grateful. But it has to be said that in
popularising science for the media, there is an unfortunate tendency to
over-claim the significance of its findings. Fairly frequently we are told that
scientists have gone a great step further in discovering, for instance, the
origin of the universe or the creation of life in a test tube. When actually
they are miles, or decades, away from doing any such thing. But it keeps
alive in people's minds that science is going to answer everything.
But currently the big issue between science and Christianity is undoubtedly the question of how things began. Is the universe and world we know the work of an intelligent designer God, or is it the result of random chance? Is the theory of evolution right or is Genesis right to say that God created everything from nothing?
Incidentally, there are two types of evolution. 'Micro-evolution' means development within a species: we wouldn't want to quarrel with that. We all know, for instance, that we are generally taller than previous generations (at least some of us are).
But the type which challenges the existence of God is 'Macro-evolution'. This proposes that random chance originally produced life, and that species have changed into one another by a hugely-long series of small random mutations over a very long period - perhaps billions of years. The supposed evolution of apes into humans is the prime example of this. But despite the assumption in scientific circles that evolution is true, and that it is taught in our schools as fact, it remains an unproven propositional theory. Moreover, there are some very serious problems with it, which evolutionists try to ignore, but won't go away.
In 1992 Phillip E. Johnson, a professor of Law specialising in the logic of argument, publishing his devastating critique 'Darwin on Trial'. From many serious criticisms he makes (which are shared by other scientists) I want to mention three problems to which evolutionists currently have no answers: 1. the problem of complex organs 2. no proof of evolutionary changes 3. the extremely low likelihood of life starting by chance.
First then, the
problem of complex organs. Evolution is supposed to have worked by the survival
of the fittest. But the development of complex organs like the eye or the bird's
wing in small stages over millions of years 
could not have ensured the survival of the creature until the entire organ was
functioning. For example, an eye with a lens but no retina
would not have made the
creature the fittest to survive to ensure the progression to a creature with a
complete eye! The same criticism may be levelled for the development of the
bird's wing. Furthermore, there is reason to think that Darwin regarded the cell
as the smallest building block of life. But science since his day has shown that
the cell itself is also a complex organism. How did it evolve?
Secondly, Johnson points out while there are structural and molecular similarities between species, there is no proof of the evolutionist view that that means that the lower life form has evolved into a higher life form by a process of random chance. Look at the development of the car, he says. We can observe what appears to be a similar evolutionary progression from the earliest car to the modern model. There are certainly molecular and structural similarities, but no way has it happened by random chance - but only by careful intelligent design.
Johnson further observes that in the 140 years since Darwin, the fossil record has failed to provide a single convincing example of an intermediate creature between two species. Darwin himself worried about this in his own observations, but assumed that over time something would appear - well it hasn't. If evolutionary theory is correct mightn't we have found myriads of examples by now?
Thirdly and finally, on the subject of the likelihood of life appearing by chance; all attempts to calculate the probability of it happening have produced infinitesimal figures. One estimate, assuming huge amounts of protein on every square foot of the earth which was renewed each year for billions of years, produced a probability of 1 in 80 billion. Another (calculated by an evolutionist) came to 1 in 10 to the power of 340 million! That the scientist who calculated this remains an evolutionist demonstrates the tenacity with which some evolutionists stick to the theory despite the uncertain evidence for it.
What I am trying to
make you aware of is, that these and other criticisms
of evolution make it much
more doubtful and implausible than many are willing to admit. One Nobel prize
winner, desperate to overcome the low probability problem has seriously
suggested that perhaps life come to our planet on a space ship! It would seem
that some are desperate to keep God out.
One famous non-Christian astronomer has said ' The idea that life was put together by random shuffling of constituent molecules can be shown (in the words of Sir Fred Hoyle) to be as ridiculous and improbable as the proposition that a tornado blowing through a junk yard may assemble a Boeing 747. The aircraft had a creator and so might life.' The story is told that one day a fellow scientist who was an atheist, visited Isaac Newton in his study. On his desk Newton had a beautiful geographical globe and just before leaving, his visitor asked who had made it. Newton replied that no one had made it, but that one day pieces of it flew through the window and it just assembled itself on his desk. His visitor went away in deep thought.
Among Christians who believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God (as I do), there are different interpretations of the Genesis account. Some believe in the literal 6 days but this faces some issues about what the language of Gen.1 means us to understand. Others hold that it is an allegory cleverly proclaiming God to be creator and man His special creation. The problem with the allegorical line is to ask how long allegory persists in Genesis - is Abraham allegorical? Surely not. Some have suggested that perhaps God did His creation by evolution. But the purposefulness of God in Genesis does not sit well with the randomness that evolution demands. What is certain is that the description of creation in Genesis 1 means us to understand that God's creative act was structured and orderly and under His control - and that's how He wants us to think about it: not a random process as scientists propose. The fact that they cannot see any order doesn't mean its not there, but that they are not looking properly. All Christians agree, however, that man must be a special creation, beyond the order of animals.
But one thing we
cannot ignore, and it is evident to us all, scientists or not, is that the
universe as we observe it, shouts 'design' at us. Stephen
Hawking - a genius but ardent
atheist - has observed that if one second after the big-bang the density of the
universe had been greater or smaller by one part in a thousand billion, then
either it would have flown off into space never to be seen again, or it would
have collapsed into a single lump. So are we really speaking of design or random
chance?
Moreover, we need to take serious note of what St Paul says in Romans 1:18-20 ' The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.'
Science cannot cope with the idea of the supernatural, because it is only concerned with the natural material universe. That is not a criticism, that's the way it is. Science's instruments cannot measure the spiritual world. The God of the Bible is not the 'god of the gaps' whose very existence is being whittled away as science progresses. And while we can understand that those immersed in the material world see only that and believe that all the answers are within it, what science must not do is to say there is nothing else.
Science cannot speak to the deepest needs of the human heart - to our moral dilemmas or to loneliness or grief. Has anyone heard of someone on their death-bed sending for a scientist? Only God can speak to those needs - and He does it through Jesus Christ.
Recommended book: 'In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis' by Henri Blocher, IVP, Downers Grove, 1984.
END