Tag: Faith vs. Science

Chapter 1 Rebuttal: The God of the Gaps and the Apologetics of Evasion

This post is part of an ongoing series at The God Question blog, critically responding to Mark Clark’s apologetics book, The Problem of God. In each entry, we analyze Clark’s claims one section at a time—and offer an honest, evidence-based rebuttal rooted in presence, reason, and clarity. This response covers Chapter 1 (pp. 23–39), where Clark tackles the so-called “problem of science.”

What Mark Clark Claims

Chapter 1 of The Problem of God aims to counter what Clark calls the “myth” of conflict between science and faith. He accuses atheists of misunderstanding both and argues that:

  • Science and Christianity are not only compatible, but Christianity is the best foundation for science.
  • Many of the most important scientific discoveries were made by Christians.
  • Atheism requires more faith than belief in God, especially when it comes to the origin of the universe and the fine-tuning of physical constants.
  • The “new atheists” misrepresent science and push an agenda of moral relativism and meaninglessness.

Clark frames science as a tool that points to God, insists that materialism can’t explain consciousness or morality, and positions Christianity as the most reasonable worldview.

What the Evidence Actually Shows

While Clark’s tone is confident, his arguments crumble under scrutiny.

1. He misrepresents both science and atheism.

Clark routinely builds strawman versions of secular thinkers. He caricatures atheists as arrogant, meaning-denying nihilists and paints science as a neutral enterprise that is most “at home” in a Christian worldview. This is revisionist apologetics, not honest engagement.

2. His “Christian roots of science” argument is irrelevant.

Yes, many early scientists were religious—but that proves nothing about the truth of Christianity. Most were religious because that was the dominant culture, not because Christianity produced scientific thinking. In fact, science advanced most when it began challenging church dogma, not submitting to it.

3. He relies heavily on the “God of the gaps” fallacy.

Clark argues that because science doesn’t (yet) fully explain the origin of the universe, consciousness, or morality, God must be the best explanation. This is classic “God of the gaps” reasoning: plug in a deity wherever knowledge is incomplete. It’s not only intellectually lazy—it’s dangerous. It turns faith into a placeholder for ignorance.

4. He misuses “faith” as a rhetorical weapon.

Clark claims atheists have “faith” in materialism or science. But this is a false equivalency. Scientific models are provisional, based on evidence, and subject to revision. That’s the opposite of religious faith, which demands belief despite a lack of evidence—or in defiance of it.

5. He ignores the actual history of science-religion conflict.

Clark waves away centuries of religious opposition to scientific discovery—from Galileo to Darwin—as irrelevant or misunderstood. But these weren’t small bumps. They were structural confrontations between revealed dogma and evidence-based inquiry. To claim otherwise is to whitewash history.

The God Question Perspective

Chapter 1 of The Problem of God ultimately reveals more about Clark’s strategy than about science. He’s not trying to present a rigorous case—he’s trying to reassure Christians who feel threatened by science. He offers the illusion of intellectual safety without doing the hard work of real intellectual honesty.

But The God Question is not afraid of complexity.

We affirm that:

  • Wonder doesn’t require worship.
  • Beauty doesn’t require a creator.
  • Morality doesn’t require commandments.
  • Consciousness doesn’t require a soul.

And when we allow science to speak for itself—without shoving in a God—we begin to see reality more clearly. We begin to grow up.

📚 In Case You Missed It: Section-by-Section Responses

  • The Plantinga Effect: When Apologists Dress Up in Lab Coats
  • Whose Faith Is Blind?
  • The Science That Didn’t Say What He Said It Said
  • Faith, Proof, and the Apologetics of Misdirection

⏭️ Coming Up: Chapter 2 – The Problem of God’s Existence

In the next chapter, Clark tackles the big one: Does God even exist? Unsurprisingly, his answers rely more on emotional appeal and tired apologetics than honest inquiry. But don’t take my word for it—come see for yourself.

The Godless Future That Wasn’t — and the Boundaries Science Never Crossed

This blog post is part of our ongoing series responding to The Problem of God by Mark Clark—a book widely promoted in Christian circles as a thoughtful defense of faith. Here at The God Question, we examine Clark’s arguments critically, engaging each section with honesty, clarity, and presence. Our goal is not to deconvert anyone, but to challenge assumptions, sharpen thinking, and invite deeper reflection. This post addresses the final sections of Chapter 1, pages 37-39: “The Myth of the Secular Society” and “The NOMA Principle.”

🛰 “Star Trek Got It Wrong”: A Straw Man Secularism

Clark opens with a familiar tale: the confident prediction that modernity would erase God. His example? The original Star Trek series—a future imagined without faith, where science had seemingly made religion obsolete. He contrasts this with The Next Generation, where some characters express spirituality.

The point he wants to make is that secularism didn’t win—and perhaps it never truly had the upper hand. But what’s missing here is nuance.

Yes, some futurists once imagined that religion would wither. Yes, belief in God remains widespread. But the assumption that scientific progress ought to lead to a rejection of God is itself a caricature—not a serious secular argument. Most critical thinkers today don’t argue that science automatically eliminates religion. They argue that science offers a better, evidence-based process for understanding the world—and that many religious claims fail under its scrutiny.

The “myth” here isn’t secularism; it’s the straw man version Clark has created. He reduces complex sociological trends to an oversimplified failure of prophecy, as if disproving one cultural prediction somehow validates theological truth.

🔬 The NOMA Principle: A Line in the Sand

Clark then tackles Stephen Jay Gould’s well-known concept of NOMA—Non-Overlapping Magisteria—the idea that science and religion occupy distinct domains. Science handles the natural world; religion deals with morality, meaning, and metaphysics.

Clark doesn’t attack NOMA directly so much as work around it. He says, essentially: sure, science can’t disprove God, but it can still point us toward him. He quotes scientists and theologians who believe the complexity of the universe suggests design, and he appeals to Paul’s letter to the Romans as evidence that the real issue is not a lack of evidence, but a willful suppression of the truth.

This is where Clark doubles down on his theme: people don’t reject God because the evidence is weak—they reject him because their hearts are darkened. They see the signs, but prefer to believe something else.

But let’s be clear: this is not an argument. It’s a psychological accusation. It bypasses any meaningful engagement with the critiques raised by science or secular thought and instead assumes what it needs to prove—that God exists, that his signs are everywhere, and that disbelief is rebellion.

🧠 Science Isn’t Silent — It’s Honest

Clark’s treatment of science is selective. He quotes Allan Rex Sandage, the Christian astronomer, to suggest that the greatest minds are driven to belief. But he glosses over the fact that most leading scientists—especially in fields like evolutionary biology and cosmology—are not theists. Even when he mentions that belief is higher among natural scientists than among social scientists, he stops short of reckoning with why that distinction might exist, or what kind of “God” is being affirmed.

And while he rightly notes that science can’t disprove God, he misses the larger point: science doesn’t need to. It simply withholds belief until evidence emerges. That’s not rebellion—it’s integrity.

What Clark ultimately reveals is the apologetic impulse to reframe science as not only compatible with faith but actually confirmatory of it—to use its discoveries as indirect evidence for a divine mind. But in doing so, he avoids addressing why so many scientific findings undermine traditional religious claims: a young Earth, a literal Adam and Eve, a global flood, and even the special creation of humans all collapse under the weight of evidence.

📌 The Real Problem: Not a Lack of Evidence, But a Lack of Honesty About the Evidence

Clark ends with Paul’s words in Romans: “For although they knew God… they became futile in their thinking.” He says the real issue is suppression, not skepticism.

But the real issue is this: Science has changed our understanding of the universe in profound ways. And for many of us, the gods of ancient texts no longer fit that universe. It’s not that we suppress the evidence—it’s that the evidence leads us elsewhere.

We didn’t darken our hearts.

We opened our eyes.