How Much Are Science and Religion at Odds?
Is there a way to reconcile the natural with the supernatural?
In the Genesis passage (Genesis 2:7 – “Then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”), the holy book revered by the religious people claims that God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.
I've met trained scientists who are religious. How can we explain the fact that a scientist, who is trained in rigorous logical thinking and is focused on seeking validation through empirical evidence, is still in agreement with the rather fantastic claim that the first human being was made of dust from the ground by the supernatural person, after which that supernatural person breathed into the nostrils of the first human the breath of life? The two worldviews (the supernatural and the natural) seem to clash, and I am having difficulty reconciling the fact that a single person could hold in their head the idea of a supernatural creation together with the idea of gradual, evolutionary development governed by heredity and the pressures of natural selection.
Let’s delve into some possible explanations of that phenomenon.
Short answer up front: there’s no one single “scientist’s” response -- many scientists who also hold religious beliefs reconcile Genesis and evolution in several intellectually respectable ways. They do this by (a) reading Genesis as theological/poetic rather than a scientific report, (b) treating evolution as the material mechanism God used, or (c) making a careful distinction between empirical methods and metaphysical commitments. Below I’ll unpack how that works, why it isn’t necessarily irrational, and how we can talk about it with someone who holds both views.
1) What the Genesis text actually says (and what it doesn’t)
Two short biblical/linguistic points matter a lot for interpretation:
Genesis 2:7 uses Hebrew images: ʿāphār (often “dust” or “earth”) and ruach (breath/wind/spirit). The verse says God “formed the man of the dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath (or spirit) of life, and the man became a living being.”
That language is ancient Near Eastern, symbolic, and theological: it emphasizes humans’ origin from the earth and a special divine giving of life/personhood. It does not, by itself, give a modern recipe of cellular, genetic, or paleontological processes.
Because of the literary genre (poetic/etiological origin account), many interpreters don’t treat Genesis as a step-by-step natural history.
2) Methodological naturalism vs. metaphysical naturalism
This distinction is key to understanding how a scientist can also be religious.
Methodological naturalism: science, as a method, seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena and tests them empirically. It’s a rule of practice, not a metaphysical claim.
Metaphysical naturalism: the view that only natural things exist and nothing supernatural does.
A scientist can practice methodological naturalism (do honest empirical science) while personally accepting metaphysical beliefs (e.g., God exists). Those are different domains of claim and evidence. So scientific training doesn’t automatically force metaphysical atheism.
3) Common ways scientist-believers reconcile the two
Here are the major coherent positions we’ll encounter among religious scientists:
A. Theistic evolution (evolutionary creation)
God created the world and used the natural process of evolution to produce life and humans.
Gen 2:7 describes the theological truth -- that humans are grounded in the earth and uniquely given life by God -- while evolution explains how the biological forms arose.
Many see the “breath of life” as God’s gift of personhood, consciousness, moral awareness, or being made in God’s image to some hominin population at a point in history.
B. Non-literal / poetic reading of Genesis
Genesis is read as theology, not science. It communicates who we are and why we matter rather than how the atoms and genes came together.
In that reading, no contradiction exists: Genesis provides meaning; science provides mechanism.
C. Concordism (partial harmonization)
Some attempt to map elements of Genesis to scientific stages (e.g., “day” = long age), though this can be tricky and contested. Many scientist-believers prefer looser concordism or reject literal 24-hour readings.
D. Special-creation positions
(A minority among scientists) Some accept the scientific data but limit divine intervention to moments (e.g., direct creation of Adam). Others reject evolutionary accounts for humans altogether. This is less common among professional biologists.
E. Dual-aspect views of humans
Physically humans evolved; God gives the immaterial aspect (soul, relationality). Philosophers and theologians vary on how to describe that (emergentism, non-reductive physicalism, substance dualism, etc.).
4) Why this is intellectually plausible (not just psychological)
Different kinds of evidence: Empirical evidence supports evolution. Religious conviction often rests on revelation, personal experience, communal tradition, philosophical arguments (cosmological, moral), and existential commitments. Rational people can weigh different kinds of evidence for different claims.
Non-overlap of methods: If someone’s claim is “evolution happened,” that’s testable. If someone’s claim is “God is the ultimate source of meaning and personhood,” that’s a metaphysical/theological claim outside empirical testing. Treating them as answering different questions avoids category mistakes.
Philosophical modesty: Science builds models and provisional explanations. Many scientist-theists see no contradiction in thinking science explains proximal mechanisms while God explains ultimate purpose.
5) Psychological and social mechanisms (how people actually hold both)
Compartmentalization doesn’t mean irrationality. People often use different cognitive frameworks for different domains (work/journal-club vs. worship/community). That can be deliberate and intellectually reflective, not mere blind inconsistency.
Integration is common. Many people develop a coherent integrated worldview (e.g., the “God who acts through nature” view) rather than strict compartments.
Cultural identity and community matter -- many scientist-believers are also rigorous about evidential claims in the lab.
6) Examples (types, not a list of named people)
We’ll meet scientists who are devout and accept mainstream biology because they interpret biblical texts theologically rather than scientifically.
We’ll meet others who are literalists and reject evolutionary explanations for humans.
We’ll also meet scientists who explicitly argue for a theistic evolutionary account, claiming that evolutionary mechanisms are the means God used.
7) How to discuss this with a scientist who is religious
If we want to understand their view, try asking open, nonconfrontational questions like:
“When you read Genesis 1–2, do you read it literally, metaphorically, or theologically?”
“How do you understand the phrase ‘breath of life’? As biological life, personhood, or something else?”
“Do you accept the scientific consensus on human origins? If so, how do you connect that with your faith?”
These questions get to the heart of how they reconcile the texts with science without assuming they are being irrational.
8) Final thought -- different questions, different answers
Genesis and evolutionary science can appear to clash only if we force both into answering the exact same question. Genesis is primarily answering Who are we? and why do we matter? Science is answering Which processes produced this biological complexity and how do they work? Many thoughtful people -- including many scientists -- find it coherent to hold that evolution is the mechanism and that Genesis gives theological meaning to that biological story.