Science has disproved the need for God.

Two confusions run through this objection. (1) Category mistake: science investigates secondary causes within a law-governed universe. It does not and cannot address why there is a universe at all, why it is governed by mathematical laws, or why those laws are intelligible to rational minds. Those are metaphysical questions, not empirical ones. Asking science to disprove God is like asking a microscope to locate an author. (2) The gaps have not all closed; in several cases they have widened. Before 1929 most scientists assumed an eternal universe; Big Bang cosmology and the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem (2003) show any universe with average expansion greater than zero must have a finite past. Fine-tuning: roughly 30 physical constants (cosmological constant, ratio of electromagnetic to gravitational force, proton-neutron mass difference, etc.) are calibrated within life-permitting windows so narrow that Martin Rees, Roger Penrose, and Leonard Susskind - none Christians - call the precision staggering. Origin of information in DNA (Meyer, Signature in the Cell): we know by repeated experience that specified information traces to mind. Hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers, Nagel): no amount of neurochemistry explains why any physical process should be accompanied by subjective experience. Historically, the founders of modern science - Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Maxwell - were theists who believed nature was ordered precisely because it had an Orderer. Today ~50 percent of working scientists are religious believers (Pew 2009). The conflict thesis (Draper 1874, White 1896) is rejected by contemporary historians of science (Lindberg, Numbers, Harrison).