Jump to Why am I writing?, The value of intellectual humility, Key debates among Christian apologists, or Hubris versus humility.

“Who is this who darkens the divine plan
By words without knowledge?
Now tighten the belt on your waist like a man,
And I shall ask you, and you inform Me!
Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?”
Job 38:1b-4a (NASB)

Why am I writing?

There are people who have invested a lot of time into Christian apologetics - the intellectual defense of the Christian faith - which includes reconciling science and Christianity. In fact, some people have even made it a major focus of their careers. For example, my colleague Neil Shenvi, who comes from a similar educational and religious background, has written an apologetics book. I have not done anything close to that. I’ve read some books and heard some speakers in college and graduate school and have occasionally kept up with some developments over the years. Still, as I have been a scientist for my whole career and an active participant in evangelical churches for most of my life, I may have something valuable to add.

Last month, I came across a blog post exploring why many young people who grow up in the church “deconvert”. One reason is that many young people want to go into STEM careers. When they go to college and “interact with professors whom they likely admire and respect” who ridicule young-earth creationism and Christianity, it feeds doubts about the faith. I’d like to think that I am a professor whom at least some people admire and respect, and I have something to offer besides ridicule.

On the same day, I also had two brief conversations at church which inspired me to write something about this. One was with the youth pastor. He mentioned that he personally believes in young earth creationism but agrees that Christians can hold other views. He said that he encourages the youth at church to do their research, even on the internet (gasp!), and to come to their own conclusions. I also spoke with a friend who recommended Stephen Meyer. Spoiler alert: I (currently) do not. If one person reads this post and it encourages them spiritually and helps them navigate the world of Christian apologetics, then it will be worth it. Another reason that I am writing is to clarify my own thoughts about the issue.

The value of intellectual humility

Intellectual humility is the willingness to recognize that you don’t know everything and to admit when you are wrong. I believe that it is an important value in both science and Christianity.

Intellectual humility as a value in science

“Wait,” you might ask yourself, “Does science even have values? Science is objective and values are subjective.” I would agree that science is based on objective facts. I would add that it is practiced by people, and that people have values. The scientific community may come from many demographic backgrounds, but we are unified in our desire to advance knowledge and learn the truth. We celebrate and honor those who make major discoveries. On the other hand, we ostracize people who commit fraud, retracting their papers and withholding financial support.

There are many differences between great scientists and frauds, but I believe that a key distinction is intellectual humility. A great scientist looks at confusing data and tries to understand it. They wonder if they did the experiment correctly. They consider explanations other than their initial hypothesis. And sometimes they uncover such explanations and confirm it with additional data. On the other hand, a fraud looks at confusing data and ignores it. Even worse, they may change it to meet their expectations or simply make up data that fits their hypotheses. Of course, there is a range of behavior in between. My key point is that in the long run, the scientific community values the former over the latter.

Intellectual humilty as a value in Christianity

Not every Christian practices intellectual humility, but I believe it is taught in the Bible. The prophet Isaiah wrote,

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,”
declares the Lord.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts than your thoughts.”
Isaiah 55:8-9 (NASB)

Even the most intelligent and educated of us mere humans cannot come close to thinking as God thinks and understanding what God understands.

The book of Job is about a man who goes through much suffering. His friends come to comfort him and they all start debating whether he is simply getting what he deserves. When God finally responds, he doesn’t answer all the questions. Rather he rebukes Job with the rhetorical questions I quoted at the beginnong of this post. Primarily, the rebuke is for feigning to know more than he does. God then illustrates the point by talking about creation, as poetically elaborated for the rest of chapter 38 and through chapter 39. Chapter 38 focuses on the physical world. Chapter 39 focuses on life. These are the main axes of disagreement among Christian apologists.

Key debates among Christian apologists

The two main debates that I see among Christian apologists are about the age of the universe and about evolution. Genesis 1 refers to seven days of creation. Christians who believe in a young earth say that these are 24 hour periods, and thus the age of the earth can be measured in thousands of years. Others say that the days refer to periods of time and that the universe is, as most scientists currently believe, billions of years old. The other disagreement that I see is about whether the origin of species was through special acts of God or though a process of Darwinian evolution, as most scientists currently believe.

Different apologists take different positions on these issues. One group of apologists adheres to creationism, in which life forms are believed to have originated through special acts of God. Evolution is acknowledged as an ongoing process but not as the origin of life. Young earth creationism (YEC) also incorporates the belief that the universe was created in seven 24 hour periods. In old earth creationism (OEC), the universe is believed to be billions of years old. In theistic evolution, it is believed that God created life by the process of evolution. I don’t think anybody adheres to young earth evolution.

Apologists from different positions often use arguments from intelligent design (ID), the idea that the universe and life did not emerge from natural processes but through intervention of an intelligent designer (who may or may not be God described in the Bible). Usually ID is based on an old universe. Its proponents point to the unlikeliness of life in the universe as demonstrated by the fine-tuning of physical constants and the complexity of biological systems as evidence for intelligent design. Both of these (fine-tuning and biological complexity) are generally accepted by scientists, but we debate the explainations of the improbable events.

A common criticism of ID is that it is an example of “God of the Gaps” thinking - the assumption that if science does not understand how a phenomenon arises through natural processes, it must have occurred through divine intervention. However, it is possible that increased scientific understanding of natural processes can explain how specific phenomena arise. A noteworthy counterpoint is that the “God of the Gaps” argument against ID is faith in future science opposed to faith in God. In the 1950s, Stanley Miller performed experiments which showed that under certain conditions the building blocks of life can emerge from inorganic materials that may have been present in the early earth. These experiments are a staple of biology textbooks. Many people believed that the scientific question of the origin of life would soon be resolved (by future science), but a naturalistic explanation of life’s origins is as elusive now as before. While science has been steadily advancing, assuming that future science will explain an improbable phenomenon can require as much faith as believing in divine intervention.

Hubris versus humility

The opposite of intellectual humilty is intellectual hubris, the assertion that your position is correct and always will be. Contrary evidence and alternative explanations are ignored or dismissed. I believe that most Christian apologists have good intentions, but some fail to heed the rebuke of Job. They may not be defending the Bible as much as their interpretation of the Bible. They risk following the tradition of the Galileo affair, in which the revolutionary scientist was persected for contradicting a Biblical interpretation that essentially nobody subscribes to today.

An especially hubristic example is from the YEC web site Answers in Genesis (AiG), which focuses on providing simple and Biblically-based answers to frequently asked questions about the first book of the Bible. It was founded by Ken Ham and is associated with the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter in Kentucky. AiG interprets scientific facts based on the Bible. In their own words (accessed April 2024),

AiG teaches that “facts” don’t speak for themselves: they must be interpreted through the lens of underlying assumptions. That is, there aren’t separate sets of “evidence” for evolution and creation—we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. The Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eyewitness account of the beginning of all things and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world.

At a first glance, their approach sounds like what faithful Christians should do: use the Bible to make sense of the world. In practice, however, it is based on the assumption that a specific interpretation of the Bible, YEC, is correct. AiG asserts that other Christians who have different interpretations of the Bible are mixing “the Word of God with another belief system”, leading to “doctrines that deviate from the Bible’s clear teachings.”. This is intellectual hubris.

A more subtle example of hubris is from ID proponent Stephen Meyer, who unfortunately oversimplifies and misrepresents science. I have not read Meyer’s books, but a friend pointed me to a discussion that he participated in. Strangely, the discussion centering around biology lacked anybody with actual education in biology. This would not be an issue if the subject were discussed from an informed position. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. Starting at 9 minutes, the discussion centers around a quote (from a computer science professor), “What does generating new forms of life entail? Many biologists agree that generating a new shape of protein is the essence of it… And inventing a new protein means inventing a new gene”. This is incorrect; many different forms of life have the very similar proteins and genes. This similarity allows biologists to study fruit flies and nematodes and mice to develop understanding of biological processes that generally apply to many species, including humans. Rather than correcting this statement, Meyer then elaborates on the improbability of coming up with a correct specific gene by random chance. Mathematically, this is simple because the number of possible sequences is 20**N, where N is the length of the amino acid sequence. However, the mathematical argument is a straw man for two reasons. Evolutionary biologists do not propose that protein sequences arose from a uniform random distribution, but by mutation of previous sequences. Second, a protein does not have to have a precise sequence to have the same function. Proteins with as little as 40% sequence identity can have essentially the same structure. Accounting for these factors significantly increases the probability of evolving a protein. While the probability could argubly still be low, the simplification overstates the case and undermines the credibility of its proponents. These factors would be known to any trained biochemist who could have been consulted any time before writing multiple books and presenting oneself as an expert. Failing to consider them appears to be willful ignorance.

In contrast to these cases, this blog post from Fazele Rana illustrates intellectual humility. He admits that in 2005, he did not believe that humans and Neanderthals interbred. However, as contrary evidence started to emerge from genetics, he was willing to let go of this belief. He then adjusted both his explanation of scientific evidence and interpretation of the Bible in order to accomodate the evidence. This is intellectual humility, an example that I believe both Christians and scientists should aspire to.