In an age when we have the resources to discover new things every day, the topic of science versus religion gains more and more heat. For some reason, a lot of people have the impression that this increase in scientific discoveries disproves the beliefs of Christianity. However, “science versus faith” is a false dichotomy. If Christians believe in a God who intentionally created every detail of our world, then how could any scientific finding invalidate any of what they believe?

Back in May, former network anchor Katie Couric appeared on the "Late Show with Stephen Colbert" and discussed her experience meeting Pope Francis. She mentioned a scientific conference at the Vatican and “thought it was actually very progressive of the Catholic church to want to understand science.” Couric’s statement proves that so many people today wrongly assume a disregard of science in the Catholic faith.

Science isn’t “new” to the Catholic church. Rather, the Catholic church has always been at the forefront of scientific discovery. Galileo was a Catholic when he discovered that the Earth rotated around the sun rather than the other way around and stuck firmly to his faith in God, although his findings were different than what the Church (and the rest of the world) believed at the time.

Isaac Newton, the founder of countless laws of calculus and physics, including the concept of gravity, was a Christian. His discoveries were centered around his belief of a “masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.”

Gregor Mendel, known as the father of genetics, was a Catholic monk. His research was even conducted at his monastery. Georges Lemaitre was the first to propose the idea of the expansion of the universe, a major component of the Big Bang theory. He was not only a Catholic priest, but was educated at a Catholic university. So, it’s safe to say that the Catholic church has been “progressive” for quite some time.

Only a small number of Christians believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis (how the Earth was created). That means that the majority of Christians nowadays won’t deny that things like the Big Bang and that evolution likely occurred. The difference between science and religion in these areas is the questions they address. Science answers how and religion answers why. If the world is run entirely on natural selection, then what is the survival purpose of unique human qualities such as love and a sense of ethics?

Scientists still don’t know the exact reason why we fall in love and it’s not a secret that love often causes humans to make decisions that are not in our best interest. If we did develop those things by chance and we still haven’t evolved out of these traits, then out of the estimated 8.7 million species on Earth, the odds are strongly against only one species possessing them. Christianity is able to explain the presence of these traits by maintaining that God is love and that He created mankind in love, so the love that we feel is a result of His desire to have humans feel the fulfillment that He does.

Atheists argue that since there is no clear scientific evidence that proves the existence of God, then God must not exist. However, Christians contend that there is also no evidence that proves that God does not exist. If God is the creator of the universe, then science is simply just a system of knowledge containing truths about His creation.

A scientific and nonreligious perspective of the world is incomplete. Science answers material questions, but is unable to say anything about purpose, meaning, or value outside of tangible reality. On the other hand, a solely religious and nonscientific perspective would answer philosophical questions, but often would not match up with the reality that we face.

The combination of science and religion is the only fulfilling way to view the world, answering how and why the universe exists as it does. In this way, atheism requires more faith than Christianity does.