Written by Jan F. Dudt |
Monday, May 9, 2022
In essence, what these people were saying is that Francis Collins is such a good scientist because you can hardly tell he is a Christian from his work. As a much younger biology professor at the time, I was aghast at this. A Christian has separated his religious views from his personal life. Why is that a good thing?

There is always a dilemma for Christians in best handling and reacting to the positions and counsel of Christian leaders. Often these are people we have grown to trust and respect as followers of Christ. Their convictions at times are consistent with Christian principles and biblical wisdom. They champion appropriate positions and defend causes from a historically Christian perspective. They gain traction and respect even among cultural, political, and religious opponents because of the internally consistent strength of their arguments and their winsome and gracious demeanor.
And yet, it is impossible for any fallen and sinful person to be right all the time. Similarly, it is quite possible—and regularly demonstrated—that the unregenerate are not always wrong.
As a case in point, contrast Dr. Francis Collins and President Donald Trump.
Trump, not convincingly a born-again Christian, became president in large measure because he promised to represent conservative Christians and their concerns. His appointing of originalist judges to federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as his attendance at events like the annual March for Life while he was in office (this was unprecedented for a president), were encouragements to many Christians. Yet his demeanor was consistently characterized as non-Christian. Such may well have cost him re-election. Christians and conservative political analysts will debate for decades whether he was a net positive or negative influence on America. Clearly, both cases can be made. Different Christian voices have weighed in on the matter. Many Christians, even conservatives, felt that Trump used them for his personal gain and prestige.
In certain notable ways, a case could be made that the Francis Collins’ situation at times echoes the debate over Donald Trump among Christians.
Dr. Francis Collins, the famous geneticist, was and is vocally Christian. He has clearly identified as such, and he has taken heat for it. For example, in the summer of 2009, after his nomination as director of NIH by President Barack Obama, outspoken atheist Sam Harris attacked Collins in the New York Times as unfit for the job because of his religious convictions.
Collins became known to many Americans during his direction of the Human Genome Project through the 1990s. In February 1998, Scientific American profiled Dr. Collins with the headline “Where Science and Religion meet: The U.S. head of the Human Genome Project, Francis S. Collins, stives to keep his Christianity from interfering with his science and politics.” That article quoted Dr. Collins saying he is “intensely uncomfortable with abortion.” He said that he does not advocate changing the law and is “very careful” to ensure his personal feelings on abortion do not affect his political stance. The article went on to say: “researchers and academics familiar with Collins’ work agree that he has separated his private religious views from his professional life. He shows no influence of religious beliefs on his work other than a generalized sensitivity to ethics issues in genetics.”
In essence, what these people were saying is that Francis Collins is such a good scientist because you can hardly tell he is a Christian from his work.
As a much younger biology professor at the time, I was aghast at this. A Christian has separated his religious views from his personal life. Why is that a good thing?
I emailed Dr. Collins at the time, asking him if Scientific American had it right. Maybe the article misunderstood Collins? My email was never answered. Not that I expected that it would be, given my obscurity and his standing and responsibilities. Still, the article troubled me, as I was always left with the lingering question.
Dr. Collins went on to launch the BioLogos Foundation, a Christian/science interface organization that advocates for the reconciliation of modern science and Christianity. The idea is that nature and scripture are both from God and ultimately are not in conflict. This reflects Dr. Collins’ Christian convictions and his love of science, the study of God’s physical world. Give Dr. Collins credit for leveraging his popularity, leadership qualities, and obvious pastoral instincts for the noble cause.
Ultimately, I met Dr. Collins several years ago at a conference and heard him speak. There is no reason he would remember our quick contact in an elevator any more than he would remember my email. However, one cannot help but be impressed by his genuine humility and his concern for the spiritual health of the people around him. He has made it clear that he believes that Jesus Christ is incarnate and divine and that humans are made in the image of God (although he rejects the historic Adam), and that salvation is real.
Yet, inconsistencies remain. Dr. Collins seems to allow his science to inordinately arbitrate over biblical truth, or at least when the two are portrayed as in conflict. As his professional life has unfolded, it has become clear that the Scientific American article had gotten a lot right. It is fair to say that he has remained uncertain about when human life begins. He concedes that the fertilized egg is alive at conception, but believes that maybe it is not quite human. Consequently, in his 2010 book, The Language of Life, he advocated for experimentation using excess human embryos from in vitro fertilization (IVF) that are stuck in cryo-storage with uncertain futures, “so that some good could come from them.” He has never publicly disavowed human embryonic research because he sees its potential fruitfulness. In fact, as late as last summer, experiments involving human embryonic cells and mice was supported by NIH funding at the University of Pittsburgh.
There are ongoing ramifications of Dr. Collins’ acceptance of abortion as the law of the land. The Scientific American article in 1998 mentioned that Dr. Collins was concerned that embryonic genetic testing might lead to abortions of fetuses that have conditions that are less than disastrous. The article did not suggest what he would consider “less than disastrous.” For instance, would my great-nephew’s Downs syndrome condition be considered less than a disaster? Princeton bioethicist and legal scholar, Dr. Robert George, made a clearer case in his 1998 address to the American Political Science Association Convention, stating, “once I was a child, once I was an infant, once I was an embryo, I cannot say I was once an egg or a sperm.” However, it is clear that the viable sperm and egg are quite alive. Also, it is good to remember what we say in the Apostle’s Creed. “He was conceived … born … suffered … died … and … rose again.”
What human is not on that trajectory of life and death? The Bible teaches that we all are.
This leaves many conservative Christians convinced that Dr. Collins would rather come down on the side of a quote from his old boss, President Barack Obama. In March 2009, Obama signed an executive order that lifted President George W. Bush’s 2001 ban on federal funding of human embryonic research. “Today … we will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research,” stated Obama. “We will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield.” Obama continued, “Promoting science isn’t just about providing resources—it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and … that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”
Obama insisted that “I’m going to let scientists do science. I’m going to remove politics, religion, and ideology from that.”
Of course, the reality is that such a thing cannot be done. The president’s own politics and ideology were clearly stated and inserted.
One would hope that Dr. Collins would be more comfortable with the principles articulated in President George W. Bush’s 2006 State of the Union Address. “A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical corners, and that recognize the matchless value of every life,” stated Bush. “Tonight, I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research—human cloning in all its forms … creating or implanting embryos for experiments … creating human-animal hybrids … and buying, selling, or patenting human embryos. Human life is a gift from our Creator—and that gift should never be discarded, devalued, or put up for sale.”
These are all ethical issues that have confronted Dr. Francis Collins as a man of science and of faith. The issues more recently included COVID mask and vaccine mandates. To many in the evangelical community, the prolife appeals he made for the mandates have rung increasingly hollow, and his seeming inconsistencies have been bothersome.
Os Guinness, in his book, The Magna Carta of Humanity, brings out a principle that every intentional Christian should keep in mind: “The notion of arguing on behalf of the true, the right, and the good lies behind the Biblical principle of corrigibility.” Guinness quotes Jewish Hebrew scholar Jonathan Sacks, “We are all open to challenge. No one is above criticism, no one is too junior to administer it, if done with due grace and humility.”
This requires knowing scripture and applying its logical conclusions, consistently. Otherwise, our ability to be salt and light is diminished, and we can be played. Francis Collins needs to add salt and light. Many of us have admired him, and we expect more from him in his Christian witness to science.
Dr. Jan Dudt is a professor of biology at Grove City College and fellow for medical ethics with the Institute for Faith & Freedom. He teaches as part of college’s required core course Studies in Science, Faith and Technology wherein students, among other things, study all the major origins theories and are asked to measure them in the light of biblical authority. Used with permission.

Related Posts:

When we get it right and walk in the joy of the Lord with our eyes firmly fixed on Christ it will always be in submission to Him and all those around us. Pride is banished. Meekness rules. This is what we do when we abide in Christ (John 15). We can only serve the Lord on these terms. Outside of these terms, we are on our own and that is an ugly, inconsistent, casual place to be. It is devoid of the joy of the Lord and we will find that our worship here is all emotion with no substance. On the other hand, when we are working out our salvation with fear and trembling we will have the joy of the Lord no matter what our circumstances. We will have success at the altar and, therefore, success in the field as did Able.

19 Then Joshua said to the people, “You will not be able to serve Yahweh, for He is a holy God. He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgression or your sins. 20 If you forsake Yahweh and serve foreign gods, then He will turn and do you harm and consume you after He has done good to you.” Joshua 24:19-20 (LSB)
One of the products of the growing apostasy of the Church in our time that is especially tragic is the loss of the understanding of God’s Holiness. Several years ago I wrote a post about our great need to walk in fear of God. Some of the comments I received on that post were heart breaking. Some insisted that Jesus was their buddy or their homeboy or their ‘bro’ and he loved them so much that it really did not matter how they lived. My brethren God has not changed. He is immutable and perfect. He neither changes nor has any need to do so. 
The lie that has inundated and corrupted the Church causing this casual and carnal approach to being a professing Christian goes something like this, “God is love and by His grace we do not have to worry about offending His Holiness now that we are on this side of the Cross…” The concept is that God’s Love, mercy (not receiving the judgment you deserve), and grace (receiving good things you do not deserve) trump God’s Holiness, Righteousness, and, Justice. Since Christians are saved by grace then there is no need to be concerned about that… This is a lie my brethren. If it was true then why have all of the exhortations and commands all through the New Testament for Christians to live holy and pure lives?
When Joshua told the Israelites (above), “You will not be able to serve the Lord, for He is a holy God.” he was not being peevish nor was he stating something that is only Old Testament for God has not changed. His point is that serving a holy and jealous God cannot be done casually or without divine assistance. What does it mean that God will not forgive the transgressions or the sins of those who fail to serve the LORD as He has commanded? This isn’t talking about an exception to God’s mercy, but is talking about the reality of apostasy. When apostasy reigns in the midst of those who are called by God’s name then the reality is that those in unbelief and rebellion within have crossed a line of no return. This is true because no one can walk in repentance and faith outside of the grace of God and when He withholds His grace then all that those who have forsaken Him have to look forward to is God turning to do them harm and to consume them.
19 Then He struck down some of the men of Beth-shemesh because they had looked into the ark of Yahweh. He struck down of all the people, 50,070 men, and the people mourned because Yahweh had struck the people with a great slaughter. 20 And the men of Beth-shemesh said, “Who is able to stand before Yahweh, this holy God? And to whom shall He go up from us?” 21 So they sent messengers to the inhabitants of Kiriath-jearim, saying, “The Philistines have brought back the ark of Yahweh; come down and take it up to you.” 1 Samuel 6:19-21 (LSB)
The Philistines captured the Ark of the Covenant in battle. Plagues came upon them until they realized that they were dealing with the Holy God of the Israelites. They sent the Ark back to the Israelites on a cart pulled by two cows. When the men of Beth-shemesh discovered it, they rejoiced until some of them opened it to look inside.
Read More
Related Posts:

In all that we do, God calls us to seek the Scriptures for guiding directives for what we may or may not write online. Scripture and Scripture alone should bind our consciences. This is especially so with regard to what God requires of us in our stewardship of the internet. If we engage others online, we should do so acknowledging the many dangers that we will have to navigate. We should be slow to listen to the loudest voices, as they are often driven by impulsive zeal and an inflated sense of self-importance. 

There is something innate in the fallen hearts of men that gives them an insatiable desire to seek to bind the consciences of others on just about every given matter. Whether it is food preferences, education, parenting, or environmental considerations, most people love to bind the consciences of others to that to which their own consciences are bound. This is most notably seen in the way in which people assert their opinions about what others should be doing in a pandemic. It has also manifested itself in much of the social commentary about perceived social injustices. In all these things, it is right for believers to appeal to Scripture as the only rule of faith and life. For good reason, Protestants have long found Martin Luther’s bold declaration at the Diet of Worms to resonate powerfully in their souls. When commanded to recant his teaching, Luther famously stated,
“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.”
Conscience Binding
However, the notion of conscience binding is often more subtle among believers than it was in the day of the Reformer’s contentions with the Roman Catholic Church. Today, believers who adhere faithfully to the teaching of Scripture on biblical sexual ethics or socio-political theories frequently seek to bind the consciences of other believers who faithfully adhere to the same teaching of Scripture on these matters. Now, it is no longer enough that one confesses to believe the Scriptures about its teaching on sexual sin and racial unity in Christ. If one does not speak out as loudly, vehemently, and consistently as another online he is excoriated as not have true “convictions” about these matters. It usually plays out in the following way:
A vocal opponent of various forms of compromise and falsehood calls other believers to action. However, the action is generally unspecified. It is packaged with rhetoric about “courage,” “boldness,” or “taking a stand.” It riles up a certain group of individuals who then begin to echo the rally cry of a pressure group. It manifests itself through individuals in just about every denomination. What it often amounts to, however, is a self-admiring attempt to bind the consciences of other believers to speak out in the same way and to the same degree as said individual is speaking out on a social media platform or in a blog post. Under the auspice of “courage,” the rally cry goes out with as much conscience binding force as can be mustered.
This raises several important questions. Do we really grasp the nature of media ecology? Does God expect every believer to take to social media to bodily proclaim opposition to every unbiblical ideology and movement? Is it a lack of biblical conviction that leads others to avoid contention in our interactions with others online? What biblical principles ought to be guiding Christians in the way in which they write and speak publicly about these matters? How should Scripture govern the spirit with which we interact online on significant yet controversial issues that affect both the church and society? These are not easy questions to answer but they are worthy of our reflection.
Media Ecology
Most of us have not adequately reflected on the nature of media ecology. We have ideas and opinions about social media. We employ rhetorical figures of speech such as “dumpster fire” or “train wreck” when speaking about social media. We acknowledge the snare of being drawn into controversy with people we don’t really know and who would not have been, in bygone generations, without the sphere of our moral proximity. We understand the way in which social media can monopolize our time and energy; however, we have not yet fully grasped the “interplay between humans, technology, media, and the environment, with the aim of increasing awareness of mutual effects” (Oxford Bibliographies). I am not sure that any of us will fully have grasped the phenomenon of social media before we die. It is a lightening-fast moving, decentralized, ocean of media evolution and social interaction. Recognizing this should, at least, give us pause about what, when, how, and why we may say something online.
In 2006 Greg Reynolds wrote what is arguably the most careful treatment of media ecology at that time from a thoroughly Christian and Reformed perspective, The Word is Worth a Thousand Pictures. A look back at that work in 2022 is a fascinating sociological exercise. Reynolds wrote his book on the internet frontier. Facebook was in its early stages of development and Twitter did not yet exist. It was a different time. Chatrooms existed, but many us us quickly realized that we did not have the time or interest to jump into the fray of debate in them. The most heated contentions online were usually those found in the comment sections of a blog post. To look back at how much social media has changed the landscape of our world is worthy of deep reflection, expecially as it relates to our use of it in regard to engagement in theological controversy.
What, if any, responsibility do Christians have to make use of online platforms for the propagation and defense of the truth? What does God require of them? This question may sound strange, coming from someone who has spent 15 years writing and publishing articles, blog posts, podcasts, and social media content online. In short, I do not believe that God requires anyone to have a social media account, let alone to have to publish their convictions and opinions about anything in that forum–especially not in response to conscience binding calls to “courageous stands for truth.” Does God call us to take courageous stand for truth? Absolutely. Does he require us to do it on a social media feed or in a blog post? Absolutely not.
Read More