Why Mark Clark’s View of Science Fails the Test of Curiosity
This post concludes our multi-part response to Chapter 2 of Mark Clark’s The Problem of God. In this chapter, Clark tackles “The Problem of Science,” arguing that science not only points to the existence of God but fails to function meaningfully without him. Below is a recap of our critiques and key takeaways, analyzed through The God Question’s core philosophy: we don’t begin with belief—we begin with curiosity.
Clark’s Main Argument
Clark opens Chapter 2 by setting up a false choice between atheism and a divinely created universe. He claims that modern science is not only compatible with Christianity but actually supports it—pointing to Big Bang cosmology, the design of the universe, and the structure of DNA as evidence for a divine designer. Relying heavily on quotes from Christian scientists like Francis Collins and William Lane Craig, he builds a cumulative case that science, properly understood, leads naturally to belief in the Christian God.
Our Critique
1. Science is Misrepresented as Religious Support
Clark repeatedly assumes that invoking mystery or complexity in nature (e.g. the Big Bang, DNA) justifies inserting a divine agent. In reality, this is a textbook example of the God of the Gaps fallacy—an argument from ignorance rather than evidence.
2. Methodological Naturalism ≠ Philosophical Atheism
Clark conflates the scientific method (which limits itself to natural explanations) with a worldview of atheism. But scientists can—and do—hold a wide range of personal beliefs while still using a shared, naturalistic method. The method isn’t atheistic; it’s functional.
3. Design Is Assumed, Not Demonstrated
Rather than offering new evidence of design, Clark simply asserts that complexity = intention. But complexity doesn’t require a mind, and biological evolution already explains how intricate systems can emerge naturally. The analogy of DNA to “language” is poetic but not proof of divine authorship.
4. The Real Problem: Circular Reasoning
Ultimately, Clark’s argument assumes what it sets out to prove. He quotes scientists like Collins and builds theological meaning into scientific observations—but only by assuming that God must be the source of meaning in the first place.
Closing Reflection
Science doesn’t need a supernatural safety net. Its beauty lies in its humility—its willingness to admit what we don’t yet know, and to follow the evidence where it leads. If your god can’t survive honest questions, perhaps it’s not the truth you’re defending—but a tradition.
God or Delusion? 