"This town ain't big enough for the two of us", said science to Christianity. At least, such is the scenario that typically plays out when atheists are the ones holding the toy cowboys. In reality, science and Christianity are great friends, it's just that atheists do not fully grasp either concept. When... if... they read the Bible, they do so with certain erroneous presuppositions, often specifically designed to make the Bible seem silly. On the flip side, they see science as some kind of replacement to faith in general. What we once attributed to some god or another, we now know the natural reason for. Thus, ironically, science becomes synonymous with Naturalism, one of the most anti-scientific philosophies mankind ever made up.
What is science?
Before correcting the record of whether or not science and Christianity are in conflict, we first have to explain what science actually is. Atheists typically see it as synonymous with Naturalism, and thus the antithesis of Theism or other supernatural claims. It is also what they see as the answer to all things; if a thing can be "proven" scientifically, it is true, and if it can't, it may be in the future, as long as we discard any and all "superstition". At least, what they regard as superstition.
But the atheistic view is deliberately set up that way. Real science is simply the study of the natural world via the scientific method, i.e. formulating hypotheses, making predictions, and performing repeatable experiments. Because science is the study of the natural world, it cannot comment on whether or not the supernatural exists, nor was it really designed to. Think of it as the difference between studying a plane and studying the Wright Brothers. No plane, not even the Wright Flier I, can tell you much about the Wright Brothers. Neither do you necessarily have to believe in the Wright Brothers to make, repair, study, fly, or otherwise benefit from planes.
In the same way, the natural world, being a product of God, is naturally distinct from Him. When we study science, we are not studying God, but His creation. Furthermore, although it is technically dependent upon Him, it is also "automated". There is no curtain you can pull back to reveal God peddling with all His might in order to turn every cog.
Of course, there are certain times when God does take manual control of the world. These events are called "miracles". Interestingly, another word for miracle is "sign". This is because they are not supposed to be commonplace. They are signs precisely because they are unusual. Thus, atheists are being particularly silly when they say things like "science proves miracles can't happen". That is literally the entire point of miracles! Scientifically, they can't happen, therefore the fact that they did happen is proof that they come from God. Science cannot disprove miracles because science is required for miracles. It's like emptying our prison system because the laws these people broke exist.
Scientific errors in the Bible
But miracles are not the only deviation from science atheists love to talk about. Apparently, the Bible is riddled with scientific errors. Claims about the natural world that we can now conclusively say are not true. By far the most popular example is the Bible's cosmology. Atheists can't make up their mind what they think the Bible says the Earth looks like, but they love to claim flat earth geocentrism is rife throughout Scripture.
By far the most common example, other than various quotes from the Psalms (which I'll get to later) seems to be Joshua's long day. Joshua 10:13 twice states that the sun stood still in the sky, so obviously the Bible wants us to believe the sun really is a relatively small light ball orbiting the Earth. Right?
But we should never afford grace to our own culture that we are not willing to grant another. See, much like any other language, classical Hebrew employed the use of the "language of appearance". That is, the sacrifice of technical accuracy for sake of efficient communication, describing a phenomena by how it appears, rather than correctly describing every minuscule detail.
Even NASA does this! Take, for example, this random extract from their article "Sunrise to Sunset aboard the Space Station": "The International Space Station orbits 354 kilometers (220 miles) above the Earth, completing one trip around the globe every 92 minutes. Cruising along at 27,700 km (17,200 miles) per hour, the astronauts experience 15 or 16 sunrises and sets every day." To really drive this point home, consider the warning at the top of the page from which this was taken: "This page contains archived content and is no longer being updated. At the time of publication, it represented the best available science." (Emphasis mine).
Here, we actually have two examples of the language of appearance. The first is telling us how high the International Space Station is "above" the Earth. Technically, there is no "up" or "down" in space. It's a matter of perspective. Second, the words sunrise and sunset are both used, with the word "rise" literally being a part of the word. Now, if NASA, representing "the best available science" of that time, can use the language of appearance without being accused of flat earth geocentrism, why can Joshua not say "the sun stood still in the sky" without literally meaning the sun stood still in the sky? Why must we expect him to distract from his narrative by describing every little detail of what would really have happened to make it appear that way?
Atheists, therefore, really need to learn the difference between an error and an inaccuracy. The former is a failed attempt to avoid the latter, whereas the latter may well be intentional. It is vital to note that the Bible is a book of theology, not science, and therefore perfect scientific accuracy is never required. Therefore, it is rarely used, and in fact I can think of no situation in which it is supposed to be. Therefore, scientific inaccuracies in Scripture do not make the slightest dent in the infallibility thereof. It is accurate when it needs to be, and doesn't waste time with unnecessary, and often distracting accuracy.
The Psalms
A particular hotbed for such inaccuracies is the Psalms, a commonly cited book of scientific "errors". However, a simple key to the fact that this is not the case is that Psalm literally means "hymn". Psalms are often addressed to choirmasters, and set to various instruments. It is asinine to appeal to "metaphor" every time the Bible says something difficult, but it is equally absurd to look at the Psalms, arguably the most obviously figurative book in the entire Bible, and insist on wooden literalism. No, we don't believe God is literally steadying the pillars of the Earth (Psalm 75:3), just as we do not literally believe rivers clap their hands (Psalm 98:8), if indeed they can be said to have hands. That's not a scientific error, nor even a scientific inaccuracy; it's a metaphor.
Of course, even metaphors have a literal truth behind them. At least, good metaphors do. Thus, although the Psalms are not often literal, and are certainly not designed to give scientific insight, that does not mean it is entirely out of their scope. God, after all, is a highly skilled writer, and His word is layered in ways we could never hope to understand.
When we try, however, we get great men of science like Matthew Maury. Typing in "father of oceanography" to Google or similar search engine will bring him up, as his work in the field was quite substantial. A plaque dedicated to him, in his home state of Virginia, reads "Every mariner for countless ages as he takes his chart to shape his course across the seas will think of thee."
Another notable thing about that plaque, however, is that it readily acknowledges the Bible as a source of inspiration for Maury. Specifically, it notes Psalm 8, 107, and Ecclesiastes 1 as his inspiration. Using these Scriptures, Maury was able to study the ocean, and make major contributions to the practice of marine navigation.
Scientific anachronisms in Scripture
At this point, we can point out a certain irony in the atheistic approach to Biblical science. Where they find any kind of inaccuracy, you can be sure they will exploit it. "Ha! The Bible says the bat is a bird!" No, it says the bat is an owph, which literally means "owner of a wing". We translate it as "bird" because the majority of what the Hebrews called owph are birds. "But it says the Earth has four corners!" No, it says it has four quarters; North, East, South, and West. "But Jesus saw the whole Earth from the top of a high mountain!" No, "world" does not have to refer to the whole planet; it can, and often does, refer to a region. This is why Caesar Augustus was able to call a census of "all the world", knowing full well he had no authority to register citizens outside of his jurisdiction.
You see how simple the answers are to many alleged "errors" in the Bible. Yet atheists continue to exploit them. By contrast, there are plenty of examples of the Bible being far ahead of its own time, scientifically speaking, yet these same atheists will suggest that these "rare" moments of scientific accuracy in Scripture are to be expected. After all, as much as they belittle these "bronze age goat herders", they are, when it suits them, willing to admit there is a difference between stupidity and a lack of education.
This is particularly the case with Jewish cleanliness laws. These laws, while not impressive in our day, have historically shielded the Jewish community from some horrible situations. Our culture made many mistakes. Blood letting, for example, is now known to be medically useless, and frankly rather dangerous. The Jews, however, viewed blood as sacred, being the very life of the body. Similarly, whereas our culture had no issue letting doctors perform autopsies before delivering babies (with unwashed hands, no less), the Jews considered contact with a dead body "unclean", and Numbers 19 even describes "water of purification" that was to be used to clean those who had touched a dead body. In the simplest terms, antibacterial soap.
"But this is just coincidence!", the atheist claims. After all, Moses and his nation didn't have the first clue about germ theory. So they were really just being superstitious, and by sheer coincidence, it became an effective hygiene strategy that still holds up in today's world. So, to sum up the atheist view, when the Bible isn't trying to be scientifically accurate, that's because it was written by a band of pea brained numbskulls in a time when thunder was believed to be God's farts. But when it does say something accurate, it doesn't matter that the surrounding cultures often believed the exact opposite, whereas the Jews consistently got the right answer, it's just a "coincidence", or maybe something anyone back then would have known.
But to loosely quote one atheist I recently debated, "it doesn't contain any important laws of physics". Whenever I hear this kind of argument, my default response is neither does a cook book. How annoying is it when you look up a cooking recipe, you wind up on some blog somewhere, and it gives you endless back story about the origins of the recipe, what it means to the author, weird and wonderful trivia about the cultures that produce the ingredients etc.? There are literally memes about the simple fact that deviation from recipes is a problem on cooking blogs.
Just as you do not go to a cook book for "important laws of physics", so also do you not go to the Bible. This isn't because the Bible isn't a reliable source of truth, it's because it's a reliable source of certain kinds of truth. Primarily, the Bible was not designed to tell us about the creation, but the Creator. It speaks very aggressively against confusing the two.
Origins
Of course, although the Bible doesn't tell us vast amounts about the creation, it does tell us some things. Particularly, what our role is within it. This includes where we came from. Typically, although not all atheists subscribe to Evolution, the vast majority of them hold to it. In fact, they claim Evolution is science, even going as far as to call it "one of the key themes in science", or "the backbone of biology". If you were to ask a group of atheists to name one way in which the Bible contradicts science, Evolution would probably top the list.
Now, science does allow us to make a few inferences about Evolution. For example, from observation, we know about the process of Natural Selection. Often erroneously seen as synonymous with Evolution, Natural Selection is actually the very reason Evolution cannot happen. Therefore, we can conclude that under the currently known laws of nature, Evolution is impossible. That being said, origins is not now, nor has it ever been, a matter of science.
The key to the unique success of science at producing true knowledge is “The Scientific Method”, which, on the standard account, involves formulating hypotheses, making predictions, and then going into the laboratory to perform the crucial experiment. In contrast, the work of many evolutionary biologists involves the reconstruction of the past. The methods they use do not conform to the standard view of “The Scientific Method”.
The above paragraph is not a claim I have plucked from the air. Indeed, it is not even my own words. Rather, I have used a tactic I call the "silent quote", wherein I appear to be using my own words, but really I'm quoting a different source. The original quote is by the National Center for Science Education, who were lamenting the fact that students "naively" fail to "understand" and accept the "fact" of Evolution. In other words, the National Center for Science Education readily admits that Evolution does not conform to the scientific method, which involves controlled experiments with repeatable results, but instead attempts to reconstruct the past, lamenting the fact that many students see through their con as a result.
Therefore, we can conclusively say that Evolution, far from being a fact of science, is actually a myth about history. Christianity has always had the stronger historical narrative of our origins.
Interestingly, not only is Christianity better at explaining our origins, but also the origins of science itself. Several centuries have gone by since the scientific revolution, to the extent where literally anyone can do science without giving much thought to the philosophy behind it. However, in the past, science was practically exclusive to Christianity.
Of course, just as atheists brush off scientific insight in Scripture as a coincidence, they also chalk Christianity's rich history within science as simply great men being a product of their times. The founders of almost every major field were Christian to some degree or another, though atheists love to argue they wouldn't be if they lived today (in spite of how many great Christian scientists do live today).
But is this really a coincidence, or is it more like atheists are digging in our gold mine? You need not take my word for it; any competent historian, regardless of their religious affiliation, will admit that science is a product of the Christian faith! My go-to example is Evolutionary anthropologist Loren Eilsley. Eilsley was, by no means, a Christian, yet in "Darwin's Century: Evolution and the men who discovered it", he swallowed his pride for a moment and admitted "It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."
Of course, as a Christian, I would argue that it is no more a paradox than a coincidence. Christians started studying science as an act of worship, believing, as the Bible repeatedly affirms, that the creation has a lot to say about its Creator, even to the extent of calling nature "general revelation".
Science and total depravity
Sadly, a key fact revealed to us in Scripture is that every aspect of the human existence is tainted by sin. That means we're not just limited in our abilities to gain scientific knowledge, but that we actually twist and pervert it to our own selfish ends. Not content to simply sin, and admit we are sinners, we try to justify our sin, seeking even to find a scientific reason to deny God exists.
This sorry state of affairs is described perfectly in Romans 1, which tells us how we, as a species, instinctively know God from His creation, yet we instead worship the creation instead of the Creator. As a result, He gives us up to the very lusts that drive us away from Him. We either follow Him and walk in His light, or we deny Him, and become foolish in the resulting darkness.
Ultimately, God prefers the former, rejoicing over every penitent sinner. Death is the penalty for sin, but life is the gift God brings us, even paying the highest price for it: The life of His own Son. One man, Jesus, the Son of God, walked this Earth without ever sinning. He never lied. He never twisted science for His own ends. He didn't even abuse His own equality with the Creator for His own ends. Instead, when He was persecuted, even when He was murdered, He sought the forgiveness of His murderers, for "they know not what they do".
By dying like a sinner, though He was innocent, Jesus may declare us innocent, though we are all guilty. There is a single condition: Faith. Those who confess Jesus as Lord, believing He rose from the dead, will become "new creations", receiving an inheritance in Christ's everlasting Kingdom. I invite you, therefore, to discover His truth, and one day, when this world is gone, you will spend forever studying new things in Heaven.