For example, since the 1930s we have a growing body of data which show that the universe is expanding in a way which implies that everything in it came from a single point and an enormous burst of energy. Thus, it convincingly looks like our universe had a beginning and that something outside of this universe started it. Sound like God? Sure, and Christians can point to Genesis 1:1 and other verses as confirming this interpretation.
But if science is restricted to only providing naturalistic answers to explain what we see, then no hypothesis can include God. Therefore, scientists must postulate “imaginary time,” or “a multiverse,” or some kind of preexistent “nothing” that somehow has the laws of physics embedded in it. Many only consider it “science” as long as the answer is strictly naturalistic.
And it is not only the universe’s beginning which is startling. Our universe just happens to have the right size, density, chemical composition, and balance of forces to make life possible anywhere in it. The same applies to planet Earth. Secular scientists today describe Earth as “rare” and “lucky” that it has precisely the right balance of size, mass, composition, spin, sister planets, and a friendly sun to make complex life possible on it. The more exoplanets we discover, the more our earth and solar system look like an incredibly lucky throw of the dice. … John Bloom, “What Science Is Really Teaching Us” at Desiring God
Naturalism is actually rotting the sciences now. It becomes impossible to discuss what we really see (consciousness is an evolved illusion anyway) and imperative to keep fronting unlikely ideas (dark photons?)
Hat tip: Ken Francis
See also: The Big Bang: Put simply,the facts are wrong.
What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?