At the beginning of the 20th century the belief of many scientists was that the universe had always been as it is now, and would continue to be so into the infinite future. Albert Einstein was one of those scientists.
Then the big bang theory was first introduced. Many of these same scientists fought against accepting this theory due to its advancing that there was a beginning, before which the universe did not exist.
But evidence built up over the years in support of the big bang theory. The speed at which entire galaxies were moving, the clumping of galaxies together like material that had been fired from a certain area, as well as observations through extremely powerful telescopes which showed the light given off by events which occurred very shortly after the big bang eventually caused them to accept that there had been a definite beginning rather than an infinite constancy to the universe.
But this posed another problem which Albert Einstein recognized, and which changed his belief system. Prior to this he had claimed to be an atheist. God wasn't necessary in order for anything to happen, because what was happening now in the universe was nothing more than what had happened going back into the infinite past. But his own theory that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction countered this belief. He saw the beginning of the universe not only as an action, but also as a reaction to something, or someone, that existed before that beginning of the universe, and whose action had set the whole thing in motion.
Also the acceptance that there had been a finite length of time in which all that was created came into being presented problems to those who didn't want a divine intelligence involved in the universe's creation. Some argued that the universe had previously contracted to the point where the big bang happened, and this was due to a previous big bang that became a big crunch after billions of years. But the math didn't support this. The universe had begun at a certain time, and prior to that time had not existed in any form. That was the decision of mathematicians, not theologians (Stephen Hawking came up with a mathematical formula which enabled the universe to expand and contract, but it was merely an exercise on his part in which he had used the number 'square root of -1', which number is irrational, in order to get it to work).
Others who didn't want to permit a divine being to have credit for a universe where life can live and thrive came up with the idea of parallel universes. Alongside this universe, visible to us, were other universes which we could not perceive. Because so many universes were being 'cranked out' by this 'universe machine', there was bound to be one that could support life as we know it. Quite frankly, it would take more faith to accept an infinite number of universes all huddled together than it would for me to accept the direction of a divine being in this universe's beginning and continuation.
We may not be able to prove that there is a divine being we call 'God' so clearly that scientists can no longer fight against it, but certain scientists have gone to great lengths in order to come up with their own theories that could exclude him from the ongoing process of the universe's continuation. This tells me that it is more than merely a belief that science has proven that he doesn't exist. It tells me that the people themselves are attempting to rationalize their own nonbelief by using science as a smokescreen.
As for the Bible's no longer being relevant, that statement could only come from someone who either has never read it, or who wants us to accept his own 'pet' philosophy rather than accepting Scripture.
Even those who have chosen not to accept the divinity of Christ can see the relevance of Scripture to the world around us. For example, the Bible tells us that the emotions which we need to rein in are those which lead to destruction. Hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; these are all emotions which we are to see as contrary to Christian belief and not to be tolerated. They are also the emotions which, 2000 years later, are all classified as 'negative emotions', causing strife and discord in families and societies, as well as actual illness in some cases.
Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control; these are all emotions which Scripture tells us we are to welcome and nurture in our lives. They are also the emotions which, 2000 years later, doctors tell us are examples of 'positive emotions' promoting a healthy lifestyle for us and all those around us. (You can find these lists of negative and positive emotions in Galatians 5:16-26).
And how does Scripture tell us that we are to show our faith? We are to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, welcome the stranger, comfort the sick, and visit those imprisoned. Scripture gives clrear evidence that Christianity is not to be seen as a pietistic religion promoting elitism and judgementalism. Instead, it's to be seen as a religion which teaches that we are to show our compassion for others through giving practical aid to those who are suffering. (Matthew 25:31-46 tells us that Jesus Christ himself expects those who would follow him to perform these acts of kindness to others).
Not only is Scripture not irrelevant, but it is as relevant today as it was when it was written 2,000 years ago. Just as there was suffering then, there is suffering now, and Scripture tells us quite plainly that when we see that suffering we are expected to alleviate it. There are to be no excuses or rationalizations given in order to 'dance around' our responsibility; the task is there for us to perform, and if we choose not to do it, then it is not the Bible that is irrelevant, but we ourselves as Christians.
