A story is told of a Christian convert who came to faith after learning of scientific evidence related to the gradual shrinkage of the sun. This evidence implied the age of the earth was comparable to what is indicated in the Bible .[1] The same man subsequently gave up his faith after an acquaintance convinced him that the argument for the shrinking sun was unsound. However, creationists subsequently presented further evidence which implied that the sun was indeed shrinking, albeit at a slower rate than previously thought. Based on this, should the man have regained his faith? And if still further evidence emerged that contradicted the preceding evidence, should the man again reject Christianity? Otherwise put, should a person allow themselves to be whipsawed in and out of faith depending on the emergence of new scientific evidence?
The answer is no. The unstable belief of this particular man resulted from a failure to interpret evidence through the lens of the Bible. Instead, the man followed the reverse approach—interpreting the Bible in the light of ever-changing scientific evidence—which is the secular humanist approach. This cautionary tale highlights the importance of “renewing our minds” (Romans 12:2) by including biblical presuppositions in our thinking. Christianity, we reiterate, is a revelatory belief system, with a coherent set of presuppositions revealed in the Bible. A theology based primarily on scientific evidence might all have to be walked back when the scientific evidence is updated. Thus, a Christian ought to be very cautious in modifying their basic worldview simply because a new piece of scientific evidence is published. A secular humanist may not necessarily change their stance either when new scientific evidence appears to contradict their worldview.
This has practical applications for Christians engaging with the origins debate. If a Christian were asked a question along the lines of “Would you give up your faith if …?” and the questioner cited seemingly impressive evidence such as scientists successfully creating life in the lab from inanimate matter, a mature Christian should answer in the negative.[2] We are called to evaluate scientific claims in light of biblical truth, and not the other way around.
This is why worldviews matter. As we approach the origins debate, with its various evidences, it is presuppositions, or worldviews, that determine how that evidence is interpreted.
[1] Wieland, 1991.
[2] If a scientist were to create life in a test-tube in the future, this would demonstrate that creating life requires processes directed by an intelligence, rather than purely random processes. As such, this feat would strongly support creationism, not secular origins theories. See creation.com/synthetic-life-by-venter for further details.