It’s this idea that God created the universe. As shocking as it may sound, not everyone believes that God even exists. And since non-existence would normally be an impediment to creative pursuits, they also deny that God created the universe.

In recent years there has been much hullabaloo about “Intelligent Design,” a collection of theories that posit an intelligent designer as the source of the life, the universe, and everything. Promoted by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design was the subject of the 2005 US District Court case “Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,” where the Dover, Pennsylvania, school board unsuccessfully argued that Intelligent Design should be appropriate material for public school science courses.

I myself am not a supporter of Intelligent Design, leaning instead toward a theory known as Progressive Creationism. But the recent court case and its associated public debate does raise interesting questions about what constitutes science.

“Science” comes from a Latin word for “knowledge,” so why we don’t just call it “knowledge” is a mystery to me. But we call it science, and more specifically, we link science closely to those things that can be learned and tested using the scientific method or similar research activities. Science loves the physical world; if it can be touched, or experienced by the five senses, or examined through man-devised equipment, it is fodder for scientific exploration. And that’s where the controversy concerning Intelligent Design and God comes in. God cannot be touched, at least not repeatedly in the physical sense of the word. While many claim to have experienced God, the inconsistent ability to detect him through sight, sound, smell, touch, or even taste reduces the interest of the typical scientist. And just try putting God under a microscope.

Because of God’s ability to exist outside of space-time, and his seeming preference to do so, science has declared God to be unscientific. Also, any “supernatural” actions by God are laid aside where science is concerned. But is that right? If God created the universe, then he also developed the physical laws and guiding principles on which our universe—and science for that matter—is based. If there is a possibility that God might exist, and that he might have built our universe in his laboratory, should science automatically dismiss all attempts to examine his presence or participation in life or its universe-shaped holding tank?

Consider a scenario where God suddenly appears to all six billion people on earth this afternoon at 3:00pm Pacific Standard time? Using a simultaneous translation system of his own design, he declares, “No time to chat, but I just wanted to let you know that I did create the universe about 13 billion years ago using a Big Bang, and that for life I used a Progressive Creation model. Gotta scoot.”

While such a scenario is fanciful, consider what would happen if God’s creative character was, somehow, accepted as an established principle. What would that do to the sciences as we know them? How would they change, if at all? Would God’s creative acts still be considered unscientific because they lie outside the testable limits of the scientific method? Would scientists try to create models and frameworks that described the “how” of God’s creative acts?

While I do not speak for scientists worldwide, I expect that in light of God’s declaration of his creative acts, science would still call God unscientific. It’s not that they wouldn’t believe in God. They would make their decision based on the inflexibility of “science” as an area of study. God is not physical, and to expect that he could be subjected to physical scrutiny is absurd. Scientists understand this, and therefore appropriately place God outside of the scientist’s area of expertise. Despite my belief in a creative God, I still see this exclusion as perfectly valid.

It is my firm belief that God would never allow himself to be proved 100%, at least outside of the realms of heaven. If the world were given absolute proof of God’s existence, what use would we have for faith? Faith is unnecessary in a world where all elements are known and provable. But God works not only in the firm areas of knowledge and research, but in the softer areas of relationships and emotion. It is through communication and love, and not through Bunsen burners and test tubes, that God is experienced and proved. To say otherwise would be unscientific.