We’ve all been there, you’re at work and someone starts what they think is a highbrow argument about the infallibility of science and arrogantly scoffs at those who “believe the Bible instead.” They usually talk so much no one can get a word in edgewise and by the time their rant is over, no one wants to comment anyway. You, a firm believer, don’t want to let it go but you don’t want to appear as the “ignorant” straw man your coworker was just describing. After all, you still have to work with these people. What do you do?

Start with this: “I think you misunderstand the argument.” This will get everyone’s attention, especially the big talker. Until he (or she) knows where you are going with the argument they have to listen. Continue: “I don’t know anyone who believes the Bible that disregards science. They question some of science’s assumptions, but that isn’t the same as having to choose science or the Bible.” This sets up the crux of tearing down the strawman.

If the coworker tries to interject, keep talking: “Remember the 1969 moon landing? The lander had really long legs and the astronauts had to descend using a ladder. Did you ever wonder why? Scientists believed that if the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old, then the moon would have accumulated several feet of dust. Those long legs were supposed to sink through the dust to solid ground. In reality, there was very little dust. If we had never gone to the moon we’d still believe it was covered in several feet of dust. Not every hypothesis is going to pan out. Science is all about proving or disproving ideas through observation and repeatable tests.”

If the person tries to reply, it will probably be an attempt to change the topic to something they are familiar with, or to try and explain that the earth isn’t 6,000 years old, or other common arguments. Don’t address it. Whether they have something to say or not, it’s time for the close: “My point is that it’s not a choice between science or the Bible at all. Most people who believe the Bible believe science too. It’s really a clash between two competing mythologies about the origin of the universe and life on earth. Some people believe it occurred naturally, others supernaturally. Science can be used to support arguments on either side, but since the original events cannot be observed, tested or repeated the questions are not scientific. The question might be historical in nature, or philosophical, or even religious but they don’t meet the requirements to be science.”

Don’t debate any further. It’s time to get back to work, and probably everyone will agree with that. The important thing is that you have represented your belief well, taken down a spurious claim against God’s word, and given your coworker reason to think twice before raising a public hearing on the topic again. All wins.

Of course it may not go this smoothly, depending on the circumstance. Don’t get flustered. You don’t need to answer every objection or argument. Stick to your point. Science can only address that which is observable, testable and repeatable so anything that says its science but doesn’t meet those requirements is no science at all and open to debate among intelligent people. You don’t need to answer every argument a person has against the Bible or for the Big Bang theory or evolution. You don’t need to be scientist or a genius. You just have to push the point that, if we are being intellectually honest, the questions raised against the Bible are not scientific in nature even if science is used to answer those questions.