Do God and science conflict with one another?

We had this notion that it had to be either God or science. On the one hand, we claim that what science has taught us essentially refutes and makes sense of God. On the other hand, we argue that we don't believe in God anymore. I'm going just sort of to disregard everything that science has taught us over the past 500 years because, well, science is probably just incorrect. The issue, in my opinion, is not whether this one or that one is the only one; instead, it is that we believe there must be only one or the other.

Consider creating a physical universe even if you were a super-intelligent non-physical being. First, you would need the materials to make it from, then you would need to figure out how all of those materials would combine to build things, and then you would probably do it in a way that is organized and makes sense or in other words, you would need to develop science. Therefore, the question would no longer be, "Is it just this one or that one?," but rather, "What other signs of intent and rationality order mind in the science or not?"

A few caveats: I'm not a scientist or Catholic, so I can't speak for other religions. I'll just mention a few things, and then I'll add some support from actual scientists below, so you may check it out if you like. Now that I know what a few of you may think, let me start by putting a few things straight. We believe the Earth is billions of years old and is spherical, revolving around the Sun. Take a deep breath; the Bible is not a science textbook. One more thing: I'm not trying to convince you or myself that God exists; we're comfortable with evolution in the Big Bang to a certain extent, which I'll explain later. It is not intended to be a scientific inquiry but rather to demonstrate that science cannot obstruct God or the truth.

It only takes roughly 30 digits to explain the existence of our entire universe as well as everything inside it. These numbers, as I understand them, are fixed values of a fundamental physical state we find in our universe, such as the force of gravity or the rate of the universe's expansion, all the way down to the subatomic, such as the mass of a proton or electromagnetic energy. Physics experts refer to these as physical constants. Here's the astounding part: each of these numbers is so flawlessly accurate and harmoniously balanced that there could be no life as well as no universe if even the slightest deviation from the mean occurred. In certain circumstances, this deviation occurs literally by this much. For instance, the early universe's stars would have been too hot or cold to produce any elements necessary for life.

Similarly, if the electromagnetic force had been just a hair stronger or weaker, atoms could have formed into molecules, and the entire universe would have been a vast cloud of subatomic particles. There wouldn't be any hydrogen, which means there wouldn't be any hydrogen stars, which means there wouldn't be any stars that could produce carbon and oxygen, essentially indicating there wouldn't be any water and no life. Therefore, most physicists seem to disagree that the cosmos has been precisely tuned for one thing from the beginning.

Now, physicists confess and concur that they have no concept of how these numbers ended up being so exact. To believe that everything happened by accident would be illogical. Accordingly, there are only two plausible explanations: either these numbers were determined by a super intellect, or they happened organically in one universe among countless other universes that we would never know exist right now. Both require a gigantic because there isn't enough scientific proof to back one of them.

To run Google, a gigantic empire of computers and data centers dispersed across the globe, over 25,000 engineers must write roughly two billion lines of original handwritten code. To run you a considerably more complicated and superior system than all of Google, it needs over three billion letters of unique genetic code organized in a precise specific manner inscribed inside a cell weighing less than a few thousand millionths of a gram. Imagine looking at all that Google code and then hearing from me that it all somehow just sort of grew together.

As I previously stated, Catholics are happy with evolution as long as it pertains to the formation of our physical bodies, and it seems logical to me that the Creator of the universe would pick the environment in which we must survive and thrive to create our physical bodies. The Bible explains it that way, but evolution offers no explanations for the origins of life or why we evolved from all other species on Earth at some point. What makes more sense, that life and intelligence and the capacity for love come from something that has life and intelligence and things and loves, or that it comes from these two—thinking, speaking, writing, artistically creating, imagining, worshiping, reflecting self-aware reasonable creatures? We're okay with it because a Catholic priest thought of Big Bang. Even if you subscribe to the multiverse theory, most physicists concur that the cosmos had to have a beginning. The big question is: How did we get from here to there?