Does the Bible Make Our Research Void?

Hi hi! Had a quick question for you folks... I use your website all the time when I’m researching for debates on forums, and one of the questions I keep being asked, or that constantly comes up, is that because you all are Christians and believe in the Bible and all that, that effects how you guys find your answers. They say you are biased and that it effects your scientists and outcomes as well... I personally know this is not true, but how could I prove this to them? I have already used the Statement of Accountability to no avail. Thanks a million! :D God bless you all!

—L.P., U.S.

Hi hi! Had a quick question for you folks... I use your website all the time when I'm researching for debates on forums

I’m pleased to hear it. That is what our website is for. We have a very good search engine so that you can find your way through the thousands of articles on our site. Sometimes you could find yourself searching through our site for a long time, but, hey! A day is like a thousand years ...

and one of the questions I keep being asked, or that constantly comes up, is that because you all are Christians and believe in the Bible and all that, that effects how you guys find your answers. They say you are biased and that it effects your scientists and outcomes as well...

We are all Christians, and we do indeed believe in the Bible. To that extent, it might be correct to say that we are biased. Of course, that was the position of many great scientific discoverers of both the past and present.

However, let us look at the alternative. The Bible claims to be the authoritative word of God. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16) Evolutionary scientists want us to argue our creationist case without the Bible—indeed, Richard Dawkins recently complained, during a radio debate with me that I kept referring back to the Bible. (But is this a fair and reasonable thing to expect?) Yet analyse his own position:

I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe.1

You will note that his position here is one of belief. Moreover, he wrote this comment, in response to the question: “What Do You Believe Is True Even Though You Cannot Prove It?” The force of his argument is that evolution is true and there is no god, because, if there were a god, he would have to have evolved like anything else. In other words, Dawkins presupposes evolution—in order to prove evolution. This is an example of the logical fallacy, known as Begging the Question. The importance of this admission cannot be overstated. Dawkins’s position—like that of other evolutionary scientists—is one of presupposition, not neutrality. Therefore, the idea that it is only creationists who are biased is not correct. A statement of scientific principles, which does not mention God, is not neutral, but is, rather, biased towards a secular worldview—a worldview that would not have been shared by the pioneers of the modern scientific era.

I personally know this is not true, but how could I prove this to them? I have already used the Statement of Accountability to no avail. Thanks a million! :D God bless you all!

Thank you for your support. Sometimes, in our arguments, logic is not enough. I fear that, even if you use the arguments that I have outlined, your views may still not be accepted, for the reason the apostle Paul gives below:

But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. (2 Corinthians 4:3–4)

May God bless you too.