Introduction
1. “Science can’t disprove God” ≠ evidence for God
This is the authors’ foundational sleight of hand.
They claim that because science cannot disprove God, divine creation must remain a “logical conclusion.” But that’s not how reasoning works.
- Absence of disproof isn’t proof. You can’t prove the nonexistence of unicorns, Zeus, or leprechauns either.
- The
burden of proof lies with whoever asserts existence, not with skeptics to disprove it.
- Science doesn’t deal in untestable metaphysical entities. Its inability to “disprove” them says nothing about their likelihood.
The argument simply repackages the old “God of the gaps” move: wherever we lack full explanation, insert the divine. History shows that every such gap eventually closes.
2. “Materialism is full of holes” is a strawman
Bolloré and Bonnassies caricature “materialism” as if scientists claim every mystery is solved and every law understood.
That’s false. Science is methodological naturalism: it investigates what can be tested and observed. It doesn’t pretend to answer every metaphysical question.
Calling this humility a “hole” is dishonest. It’s like calling “I don’t know yet” a weakness instead of a strength.
3. The Big Bang does not point to a deity
Their favorite trick is to say: the universe had a beginning, so it must have a cause, therefore—God.
But that’s pure assertion.
- The Big Bang describes the
expansion of spacetime, not creation “from nothing.” “Before” the Big Bang may be meaningless; time itself began there.
- Invoking a timeless mind as a “cause” outside time is not science—it’s theology.
- Modern cosmology entertains natural hypotheses: quantum fluctuations, cyclic models, multiverse inflation, or emergent spacetime. None requires a deity.
When they claim “nothing is infinite,” they ignore that the math of cosmology doesn’t demand a personal cause—only that initial conditions exist.
4. Fine-tuning arguments misuse probability
The authors insist that because physical constants appear “finely tuned,” intelligence must be behind them.
That collapses under scrutiny:
- To call something improbable, you need to know the
probability distribution—but we don’t.
- “Improbable” relative to what? If there’s even a multiverse or differing cosmological constants, our existence is a selection effect, not proof of design.
- A designer hypothesis explains nothing; it just replaces physics with intent. Who fine-tuned the tuner?
Fine-tuning is philosophy disguised as math—emotionally satisfying, but scientifically empty.
5. The “origin of life is too improbable” fallacy
Bolloré and Bonnassies cite DNA’s complexity as proof of design.
Yet improbability arguments collapse once you consider incremental processes: chemistry doesn’t jump from inert soup to full genomes in one miracle step.
Life likely arose through
progressive self-organization—a long chain of chemical iterations. We don’t yet know every detail, but invoking a supernatural coder isn’t an explanation. It’s surrender.
When they claim DNA is “40 trillion times denser than computers,” that’s poetic fluff, not science. Complexity doesn’t equal divinity.
6. The authors conflate “unknown cause” with “uncaused cause”
They leap from “we don’t know the cause of the Big Bang” to “therefore an external mind caused it.”
That’s a
category error.
Causality as we understand it applies within spacetime; extending it “before” time itself is meaningless.
If you insist that “everything needs a cause,” you must also ask: What caused God?
If God needs no cause, then the universe could likewise exist as a brute fact.
7. “Science requires faith” is rhetorical misdirection
Their claim: believers in God and believers in science both rely on faith.
False equivalence.
Scientific “faith” is trust built on evidence, replication, and predictive success. Theological faith is belief without evidence.
Comparing the two is like equating confidence in gravity with confidence in astrology.
8. “We checked with scientists” doesn’t make theology scientific
Having experts review your physics chapters doesn’t turn metaphysical speculation into data.
The methods of science—controlled observation, falsifiable hypotheses, predictive models—are absent here.
The book’s thesis is philosophical, not empirical, no matter how many equations it quotes.
9. “If the universe had a beginning, we must ask who began it” is an anthropomorphic trap
“Who” presupposes intent, agency, and mind—human categories projected onto the cosmos.
Physics shows that things happen according to laws; they don’t require intentions.
To ask “who” created the universe is to mistake a human mental frame for a universal rule.
That’s anthropocentrism dressed in metaphysics.
10. The “rational reasons to believe in God” are not scientific
The authors frame belief as rational because logic led them there.
But logic only yields valid conclusions when the premises are sound. Their premises—“the universe must have a cause,” “complexity implies design,” “fine-tuning implies intent”—are all unproven assumptions.
Logical rigor built on faulty premises produces confident nonsense.
11. Borrowing authority from physicists doesn’t save bad reasoning
Citing Robert Wilson or other scientists as sympathetic doesn’t make the conclusion true.
Wilson himself explicitly said he didn’t find the argument satisfying—only coherent. Coherence is cheap; so is a story that fits the data.
Many myths are coherent. That’s not evidence.
12. “We just want a debate” masks the evangelical subtext
The authors protest that they aren’t proselytizing. But the entire exercise is framed to re-enchant modernity with faith through scientific vocabulary.
If you insist on treating divine creation as a “scientific hypothesis,” then it must meet the same evidentiary standards as any other hypothesis—and it doesn’t.
13. The “two-scales” metaphor—comparing belief in God and belief in matter—is dishonest
Bolloré says, “You can compare both sides of the scale.”
Yet only one side produces testable predictions, technologies, and consistent evidence. The other produces ancient stories and unmeasurable assertions.
That isn’t a balanced scale; it’s a stage illusion pretending to be philosophy.
14. Philosophical naturalism isn’t arrogance—it’s restraint
Science doesn’t say “God doesn’t exist.” It says “We have no empirical reason to include that hypothesis.”
The difference matters.
Declining to assume what can’t be tested isn’t arrogance—it’s intellectual honesty.
Every supernatural claim ever made—from lightning to disease—has yielded to natural explanation. The track record speaks louder than wishful metaphysics.
15. The “meaning of life” question isn’t evidence of God
They close by asking whether we are “just chance and necessity.”
That’s an existential question, not a scientific one. Meaning is a human construct; invoking a cosmic parent doesn’t solve it—it defers it.
We create meaning through consciousness, empathy, and purpose—not through metaphysical wish-fulfillment.
Conclusion
God, the Science, and the Evidence doesn’t reveal a “great reversal.” It recycles the same argument that’s been trotted out since Newton: wherever science pauses, God begins.
But every generation’s “unexplainable” shrinks under investigation. The God-hypothesis remains exactly as it has always been—unsupported, unfalsifiable, and unnecessary.
Science does not need God to make sense of the universe.
Faith can coexist with curiosity—but it cannot masquerade as evidence.
Why This Matters
Arguments like Bolloré and Bonnassies’ don’t advance science; they exploit its mysteries to smuggle metaphysics back through the laboratory door. Respecting both reason and belief requires keeping them in their proper domains.
A mystery is not proof of magic. Ignorance is not evidence of intelligence. And wonder loses nothing when we admit that truth stands on observation, not revelation.
References
Barbour, I. G. (1997). Religion and science: Historical and contemporary issues. HarperCollins.
Bolloré, M.-Y., & Bonnassies, O. (2024). God, the science, and the evidence. Palomar.
Carroll, S. M. (2016). The big picture: On the origins of life, meaning, and the universe itself. Dutton.
Dawkins, R. (2006). The God delusion. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Dennett, D. C. (2006). Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon. Viking.
Krauss, L. M. (2012). A universe from nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing. Free Press.
Rovelli, C. (2018). The order of time. Riverhead Books.
Sagan, C. (1996). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. Random House.
Stenger, V. J. (2011). The fallacy of fine-tuning: Why the universe is not designed for us. Prometheus Books.
Wilson, R. W. (2024). Foreword. In M.-Y. Bolloré & O. Bonnassies, God, the science, and the evidence (pp. ix–xii). Palomar.
Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Routledge.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this post are opinions of the author for educational and commentary purposes only. They are not statements of fact about any individual or organization, and should not be construed as legal, medical, or financial advice. References to public figures and institutions are based on publicly available sources cited in the article. Any resemblance beyond these references is coincidental.
