Science and theology occupy different, although complementary, positions regarding evidence and faith.

Bridging the Divide: Science, Theology, and the Debate on Creation

Science and theology occupy different, although complementary, positions regarding evidence and faith. As Fedotov noted, faith encompasses those questions that cannot be subjected to standard scientific testing methods, while criticism, on the other hand, applies to claims related to sensory experience and historical facts. He writes that "faith concerns those matters that are not subject to the judgment of science," and everything that occurs "in space and time" can be examined both from the standpoint of faith and objective knowledge (source: link txt).

On the other hand, modern scientific practice often distances itself from using the terms "creation" and "Creator." The source states that "for the past 150 years, the terms creation and Creator have been practically unused in science, as they threaten the scientific reputation of the speaker." It is also noted that some scientists, despite established norms, are willing to acknowledge alternative explanations if experimental data supports them—even if those explanations are based on the concept of creation (source: link txt).

Thus, when it comes to evidence and faith, theology defines its realm by addressing issues that are inaccessible to empirical verification, while science focuses on facts and data that are observable through experience and observation. Nonetheless, critical evaluation can serve as a bridge between these approaches, allowing different perspectives to complement one another when analyzing historical or empirical facts.

Supporting citation(s):
"Fedotov showed that faith and criticism not only do not hinder each other, but should organically complement one another. Faith addresses those matters that are not subject to scientific judgment. In this regard, tradition and legend are free from the conclusions of criticism. However, criticism 'enters its rights whenever tradition speaks of a fact, a word, or an event limited by space and time. Everything that occurs in space and time—that is or was accessible to sensory experience—can be the subject not only of faith but also of knowledge. If science remains silent on the mystery of the Trinity or the divine life of Christ, then it can provide a comprehensive answer regarding the authenticity of Konstantin’s gift (once recognized in the East), the attribution of a work to one or another father, the historical circumstances of Christian persecutions, or the activities of the ecumenical councils. As for "hypercriticism," Fedotov emphasized that it is generally driven not by objective scientific considerations, but by certain ideological assumptions." (source: link txt)

"However, it must be noted that for the past 150 years the terms creation and Creator in science have been practically unused, as they threaten the scientific reputation of the speaker.

The complexity of the situation for scientists daring to follow their own logic is evident from the reflections of a professor of physics at Manchester University: 'If living matter did not arise as a result of the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, then how did everything come into existence?

There is another theory, currently not held in high regard, based on Lamarckian ideas: if an organism requires improvement, it develops it and passes it on to its offspring. I think we should move beyond that and acknowledge that creation is the only acceptable explanation. I know that this is anathema for a physicist—as it is for me—but we should not reject a theory we dislike, if the experimental data supports it.'" (source: link txt)