Explore

Feedback archiveFeedback 2022

The scientific method has nothing to do with faith!

Dan M. from the USA commented on an article by CMI’s Gavin Cox about Premier Christian Broadcaster Justin Brierley’s interview with Francis Collins and Richard Dawkins. Dan’s comments (shown below in full) are then interspersed with Gavin’s reply:

NIH.gov (public domain) / Shane Pope/Wikimediacollins-dawkins
Francis Collins, (retired) Director of the National Institutes of Health (left) / Richard Dawkins is a retired Oxford professor author and atheist (right).

Dan states:

“how science can be compatible with faith”. This statement points to the unobservable secular assumption and thinking that Christians can’t be scientists, while historical observations points to just the opposite. The scientific method has nothing to do with faith! Faith is hope (Rom 8:24-25) for things not seen, and science is observation and testing of the natural world that is seen. Although Science can reveal aspects of the creation that only makes sense if there is a creator God, theistic evolution, and evolution itself is an unsolvable Rubik’s cube of the mind. Things just don’t line up, so they cheat and color in the proper alignment, (constantly changing rules). Considering all his own illogical arguments of evolutionary faith in naturalism only, I give Richard Dawkin’s’ credit for seeing the fallacy in theistic evolution. But I can’t understand why he can’t see the very same conundrum of pure evolutionary thought. [Francis] Collins is just another compromiser that is either afraid to stand for or is confused about the truth of the matter. When convinced of a matter, I would never compromise my stance. I will listen to others and consider their point of view but will stand in the truth no matter what. And if you prove me wrong, I will change my thinking like I have ever since I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior. It’s called courage and character. And with the help of creationist organizations such as CMI, I have come to realize any brand of evolutionary thinking is just more of the same old rebellion of mankind. His handywork is clearly seen (Rom 1:20). Evolutionary thought as it pertains to origins, in any form, is just physically impossible and those who believe in it are in denial. Compromise is how we got to this sociological sorry condition in the first place.

Thanks for your comment, Dan, and so glad to hear CMI has helped encourage and equip you! You state the following, quoting part of my article:

“‘… how ‘science can be compatible with faith.” This statement points to the unobservable secular assumption and thinking that Christians can’t be scientists, while historical observations points to just the opposite.

The full quote is: “In his 2006 book The Language of God: a scientist presents evidence for belief [Francis Collins] explained from a theistic-evolutionary perspective why he believes in God, and how ‘science can be compatible with faith.’”

I am sure you agree, that when Collins uses the word ‘science’, it is a loaded term. He means ‘evolutionary science’, in which case Collins is practicing syncretism—the amalgamation or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought. Biblical faith cannot be mixed with an ideology (theistic evolution) that is contradictory to the plain meaning of the Bible. While it is true, some outspoken atheists state creationists cannot be true scientists (the chief example being Dawkins) the opposite is true, many creationists have had successful, high level careers in the sciences. I am not so sure many secularists would say “Christians” per se cannot be scientists, for instance, Francis Collins is very public about his ‘Christian beliefs’, and I am sure no secularist would doubt his credentials, just because he professes ‘Christian faith’. As you allude, history tells of the founding of science by creationist Christians who believed in the Creator God of the Bible.

The scientific method has nothing to do with faith! Faith is hope (Rom 8:24-25) for things not seen, and science is observation and testing of the natural world that is seen.

Regarding your point about the scientific method having “nothing to do with faith”, I have to disagree. The ‘scientific method’ itself was formulated by Francis Bacon, himself a creationist. Science as an enterprise was birthed out of the Christian worldview, and has faith built in at a presuppositional level. I suggest taking a look at Jonathan Sarfati’s article: The biblical roots of modern science. Sarfati states: “The historical basis of modern science depended on the assumption that the universe was made by a rational Creator.” That Creator, the God of the Bible is the rational law giver, and He made humans in His Image for a relationship with Him. Therefore, what we observe, test and measure is real, consistent, and not imaginary. All these things are accepted by faith. It is the materialists who claim, “the scientific method has nothing to do with faith”, whereas even a materialist needs faith to believe that what he observes is real, and that he is not, for instance, a brain in a vat dreaming his observations are real. The problem is people try to separate faith from reality.

Regarding the Bible’s definition of “faith”, we need to turn to Hebrews 11:1 which tells us “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Here the Greek word for “substance” is hupostasis, which includes the meaning of “that which has foundation, is firm” and the Greek for “evidence” is elegchos, which means “a proof, something tested, conviction”. The Hebrew writer then tells us: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” This verse is very pertinent to the creation vs evolution debate—observational science and the scientific method requires Biblical faith to work. Furthermore, even pure logic, requires faith. Merrill Collaway states:

“In 1931 Kurt Gödel [German mathematician] proved a seminal theorem in formal logic that has far reaching ramifications in all systems based on axioms or assumptions. One of the most important conclusions of Gödel’s proof is that faith (a non-self-evident axiom) is a necessary precondition if any such system is to maintain consistency, and if it is consistent, it must necessarily be incomplete [without faith].”

Although Science can reveal aspects of the creation that only make sense if there is a creator God, theistic evolution, and evolution itself is an unsolvable Rubik’s cube of the mind. Things just don’t line up, so they cheat and color in the proper alignment, (constantly changing rules). Considering all his own illogical arguments of evolutionary faith in naturalism only, I give Richard Dawkins’s’ credit for seeing the fallacy in theistic evolution. But I can’t understand why he can’t see the very same conundrum of pure evolutionary thought.

I agree Dan. Dawkins is a strict materialist and is locked into a very small box when it comes to his thinking. Therefore, any talk of the supernatural for Dawkins is contradictory to ‘science’, which he defines as being ‘naturalism’, i.e., God is ruled out of court from the beginning.

Collins is just another compromiser that is either afraid to stand for or is confused about the truth of the matter.

Indeed. Collins elevates the thinking of men ‘science’ over Scripture, which he reinterprets to fit with secular, materialistic thinking. He is also the founder of Biologos, a theistic evolutionary organization that has been steadily influencing the church worldwide. See It’s not Christianity! So he has a low-view of Scripture, and probably a very shallow understanding of it. You are right to call this kind of thinking ‘compromise’—for that is exactly what it is. The edifice of theistic evolution is an affront to the Bible’s authority. The Reformation under Martin Luther (1517) divested the Catholic Pope and his officials of their supposed divine authority, and re-focused Christendom’s attention back to the Bible as the final authority. In Collins’s case, he is part of a new ‘Reformation’ (I’d call it the New Defamation) and a new ‘priesthood’ whose thinking attempts to supersede the plain meaning of Scripture when it comes to the doctrines laid out in the first 11 chapters of the Bible: of Creation, the Fall, the Flood, the tower of Babel. Collins and theistic evolutionists like him have reversed the Reformation and placed themselves in the position of authority to reinterpret the Bible to their followers.

When convinced of a matter, I would never compromise my stance. I will listen to others and consider their point of view but will stand in the truth no matter what. And if you prove me wrong, I will change my thinking like I have ever since I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior. It’s called courage and character.

Bravo sir, I encourage you to continue to make your courageous stand against the secular forces that ravage our nations, and sadly the modern Church.

And with the help of creationist organizations such as CMI, I have come to realize any brand of evolutionary thinking is just more of the same old rebellion of mankind.

That’s so good to hear Dan, we are always encouraged when people write in to express their thanks for CMI’s ministry, and how they have been equipped and encouraged by our materials.

His handiwork is clearly seen (Rom 1:20). Evolutionary thought as it pertains to origins, in any form, is just physically impossible and those who believe in it are in denial.

Yes, indeed. CMI has published many articles on the physical impossibility of evolution, which requires faith for it to work. For instance, world leading plant geneticist John Sanford, or information specialist Werner Gitt, or the impossibility of getting life started in the first place: see the chirality problem, the polymerization problem, or the instability of those supposed building blocks.

Compromise is how we got to this sociological sorry condition in the first place.

I couldn’t agree more, and CMI has been charting the decline in the compromised church for decades. See for instance: unbelief ushers in unattendance, clergyman warns against compromise, especially amongst church youth.

Thanks for writing in Dan, and may I be so bold as to encourage you (if you are not already) to keep equipped and up-to-date with Creation magazine, and if you are wanting more in-depth research, our digital peer review Journal of Creation. These are CMI’s flagships when it comes to getting the message out with cutting edge, biblically affirming, and encouraging information.

Published: 7 January 2023