What is the Road to Wisdom?

Starting with Scripture, Unlike Collins

The most egregious element of this supposed book on wisdom is its barely there interaction with Scripture.

The most egregious element of this supposed book on wisdom is its barely there interaction with Scripture. Collins’ writing displays, time after time, that it is the modern scientific consensus (hereafter termed Science™) that controls his interpretation of Scripture. Scripture is clear that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Psalm 111:10; cf. Job 28:28; Proverbs 1:7, 9:10, 15:33) and that wisdom for a lighted path comes through the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:15–17; Psalm 119:97–105). Collins attempts to justify belief in Christianity because he is a scientist who came to faith, which would apparently prove that the two are not in conflict. However, it is science that rests on biblical assumptions like God being a God of order, not of chaos (1 Corinthians 14:33), and part of humanity’s dominion of creation is studying it.

Truth

The Bible is clear that God himself, specifically what he has revealed to us in his Word, is our standard for truth (John 14:6, 17:17), and God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19). So as believers, we should also tell the truth (Ephesians 4:25; Leviticus 19:11). One of the things people who reject God are condemned for is that they “exchanged the truth about God for a lie” (Romans 1:25). So when we speak about truth, the most important thing to get right is the truth about God and his Word.

Does Collins not understand this? His entire chapter about truth has not one reference to Scripture. Someone might object that Collins is writing to a general audience, not just Christians, and so is speaking to them in terms they may find more acceptable. However, he is comfortable offending people who do not share his scientific priorities, so he should also be bold about using Scripture if he truly stands on a biblical foundation. As it is, he certainly seems to lack any sort of biblical basis for what truth is.

Collins begins his section about truth by mentioning flat-earthers, who are one example of people who have to deny a lot of objective evidence to come to their conclusions. You can read many articles and a couple of books published by Answers in Genesis for evidence that the earth is not flat: see AnswersInGenesis.org/astronomy/earth/is-the-earth-flat/.

Collins suggests some things we can all agree on: “Let us agree, then, that there is an external reality, and that truth really matters to humanity” (p. 33). Someone grounded in Scripture actually has a reason to believe this, but Collins cites not Scripture but a long line of philosophers who have come to that same conclusion. But someone could say, “Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, morons!” They were wrong about a lot of things, and their moral foundation is contrary to Scripture in some areas—why trust them regarding reality itself?

The problem for Collins is that he has given no foundation for knowledge or understanding at all. Having eschewed Scripture as his starting point, he struggles to even define reasonable. He asks, “Who decides the standard for reasonableness?” (p. 37). It is a question he does not answer. In effect, Collins has become Pilate, asking, “What is truth?” (John 18:38). For a man who claims to be a believer, this seems a very odd question to be asking, especially given his later insistence on objective truth in some areas over postmodernism.

Perhaps because he cannot define what is reasonable, Collins mixes categories of knowledge. He combines geographical, observable facts—like country borders and historical events like the Norman Conquest—with interpretations of climate change data, and he claims that we can be equally confident in all three (pp. 36–37). This is simply absurd. It is possible to be 100% confident about the location of the Canadian-American border, simply by walking to the boundary or consulting a survey. There are good historical records that verify the Norman conquest, but, because it is history, details cannot be proved with complete certainty. Climate change is another matter: there are layers of assumptions and biases involved from methodology to data collection to data analysis to data interpretation, etc. Collins is promoting an interpretation of data, not just data. The Canadian-American border is hard data. Claiming that this year was generally warmer than last year in some particular areas is data, but claiming that the earth is warming at a dangerous rate and extrapolating that to make predictions about the future is an interpretation.

Collins points out that postmodernism casts doubt on the existence of objective facts, and to his credit, he actually pushes back against this and insists that objective truth exists despite previous statements. However, his go-to source for objective truth seems to be the findings of science, again not the Bible (p. 42). But this is not how science works. Scientific experiments do not provide truth, per se. Instead, experimental results are interpreted probabilistically. A good experimental result is the one most likely to explain the data. Alternative explanations cannot be completely ruled out. What this means is that science does not make truth statements. It makes probabilistic statements that then must be interpreted to fit a given model. And specifically, Collins seems to favor the talking points of science-influencers more than science itself. He also conflates facts and their interpretation, especially when he speaks about climate change. He accuses people who disagree with the “climate change consensus” of denying reality (p. 44) instead of acknowledging their different interpretations of the data and disagreement about what we should do in response.

He also falls prey to credentialism, believing that people who have had a formal education automatically have greater standing than those without it. Of course, this would eliminate Darwin from speaking about evolution (his only formal training was theology). But even so-called “experts” speak outside their narrow specializations to advance social talking points.

A rather telling illustration of his view of truth is a web illustration of things he believes are true with the most important at the center. The truth of the resurrection was at the very center, but only about a millimeter away was the statement “climate change is real.” In his view, the Bible and Science™ appear to be equivalent sources of authority. Taking such a position is absolutely incongruous with Sola Scriptura. One wonders if Collins believes Jesus was born of a virgin since Science™ says that cannot happen.

Science

Creationist scientists are proponents of real science, which over and over confirms the Bible’s history: for instance, geological confirmation that catastrophic events can shape the earth’s surface very rapidly and that fossilized creatures were buried quickly, fast enough in some cases to preserve soft tissue. However, Collins uses the chapter on science to pit the Bible’s history against Science™.

Collins begins his chapter on science by recounting his personal scientific journey from an impactful school science experiment to his college education and professional achievements. He draws the conclusion from the human genome data that humans are all one family, a rare point of agreement with Answers in Genesis! Of course, we got there from Scripture and were there before the Human Genome Project ever started. Collins only seems to say so because Science™ says so. Further, Francis Collins believes our common family was a group of individuals who migrated from Africa around 150,000 years ago and were descended from nonhuman ancestors, not Adam and Eve, the first pair of humans God created around 6,000 years ago.

Collins uses his involvement in the Human Genome Project to take over a page to push a DEI agenda. Apparently, a simple web-based test convinced Collins he was harboring internal racism (p. 77), so he proceeded to institute broad DEI action within the NIH.1 Whether Collins knew it or not, DEI is a Marxist Trojan horse designed to destroy liberty.

Collins recounts the life-changing medical advancements genetic research made possible for people who have cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia. However, he notes that less than a third of US adults trust scientists to act in the public’s best interest (p. 91). It’s a strange pivot—why should anyone particularly trust a scientist, who is a fallen human being with their own foibles and motivations, especially with a rising crisis of falsified scientific data? This is especially true since DEI calls for reparations to oppressed groups which, in science, takes the form of favoring one “racial” group over another. Why should anyone who believes in DEI be expected to do science in an unbiased way? Even without the DEI issue, junk science is a massive issue. A recent article revealed that AI-generated junk science is flooding Google Scholar,2 and a 2023 article admitted, “Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common.”3 Even government-backed health advice, like the food pyramid of the 1990s that encouraged overconsumption of processed grains, can turn out to be flawed.4 Obviously, many scientists are just as appalled as we are at the co-opting of their beloved fields to serve Science™, but unfortunately, their concerns are often ignored in favor of narrative.

Collins blames the lack of public trust in science on bad messaging: “Our communication was not always as clear or as helpful as it could be” (p. 117). Given the rapidly changing messaging around climate change and the years of false predictions,5 it is certainly reasonable that people question the promulgations of Science™. Collins never considers the possibility that people are questioning Science™ not because of bad messaging, but because Science™ (i.e., agenda-driven scientists and the media) tends to be blind to its own shortcomings and biases at best and glaringly dishonest at worst.

Faith

Biblically, faith is only good when it has the correct object—God.

Biblically, faith is only good when it has the correct object—God. God is eminently worthy of our faith because his faithfulness and steadfast love are revealed among God’s core attributes (Exodus 34:6; Deuteronomy 7:9; Psalm 25:10). God is able to keep his promises because he is the all-powerful Creator of the world. This understanding of faith is absent from Collins’ chapter.

Collins has a dim view of Christians, anecdotally noting fearful and distrustful attitudes in one particular church, which is then generalized to the whole of America. Then he goes on to address various types of unbelievers with notably more empathy and understanding than his fellow believers. He recounts his own faith journey that led him to Christianity.

His scientific colleagues didn’t understand how someone could be a scientist and a Christian, and Collins blames young-earth creation: “The idea that the first two books of the Bible (Genesis 1 and 2) are supposed to be taken literally and that the six days of creation are each supposed to be twenty-four hours in duration (even before there was a sun) didn’t seem to me to be required by the actual words in the text, written many centuries ago” (p. 145). Among the many problems of these statements, it might be petty to note that Genesis 1 and 2 are the first two chapters in the Bible (Genesis and Exodus being the first two books) and that Moses edited/wrote the Torah between 1500 and 1450 BC, meaning that Genesis was written about 3,500 years ago, not hundreds—and even an unacceptably late mainstream dating of Genesis places it at around 600 BC, meaning that it is over 2,500 years old. Collins betrays his biblical illiteracy.

He spends a few pages complaining about creationists and saying that the evidence for evolution is undeniable. Here again, he misunderstands (or misrepresents) the difference between data, interpretations, and the many definitions of evolution. Data is evidence. Interpretations of data are not evidence. Notably, he claims that the human genome is too diverse for humans to be descended from one couple and that God may have chosen one couple out of a larger population “for the emergence of humanity” (p. 146) from the nonhuman population. He argues that Cain’s fear of other people shows that he and his family were not the only people around. And he misquotes Augustine as if Augustine were not a creationist (p. 147). All of Collins’ arguments have been dealt with ad nauseam, and had he bothered to read the creationists he blames, he might have come up with more compelling arguments.

Overall, the chapter was weak and unsatisfying. He never explained what faith is or how it relates to the issue he hopes to solve. “Faith” seems to be there just so he can claim to be a genuine Christian who also believes in evolution and Science™.

Trust

It is odd that trust is part of Collins’ book—and separate from the “Faith” chapter. Like faith, trust must have the proper object. First and foremost, Christians trust God and his Word; we trust the work of Jesus to save us and bring us into a right relationship with God. Collins instead points out we need to “figure out what sources to trust—both individually and institutions” (p. 177).

As in previous chapters, if Collins holds the biblical definitions and considerations regarding trust to be important, he doesn’t let that show in the chapter. He recounts an instance where he had to trust someone with a good result and some other instances where his trust was misplaced. When deciding whom to trust, he suggests four criteria: integrity, competence, aligned values, and humility. However, each of these factors depends on judgments that will always be based on limited knowledge and our fallible judgment. Also, he defines each of these in a particular way. Competence equals “agrees with me on the current topic,” and based on his statements in the faith chapter, biblical creationists would be off the list. To illustrate aligned values, he simply recited an instance where he used his profession of Christian faith to persuade people to think like him on a non-faith topic. He laments that people do not trust institutions and science (as defined by him).

A Syncretistic Plea to Trust Science™

The only indication that this is a specifically Christian book is that Collins gives his testimony and occasionally references the Bible. But, sadly, he does not have a Christian worldview—his view of the world was shaped by evolutionary science, and while he came to believe that Jesus died for his sins, it seems that he remains shockingly ignorant of even basic facts about the Bible, such as whether the New Testament documents were written by eyewitnesses. Science™ is what is guiding Collins’ decisions, not Scripture. With that in mind, his funding of murdered baby parts research makes sense.6^,7 He is not interested in advancing the cause of Christ or even some vague form of Christian ethics but in advancing the cause of Science™ and secular consensus.

At no point in the book does Collins challenge scientists and atheists to examine some of their preconceptions in light of Scripture, but instead, he preaches to young-earthers and others who doubt various aspects of Science™. Other reviewers of the book have suggested it was designed to salvage Collins’ reputation after being publicly berated over the numerous scandals he was involved in at the end of his tenure at NIH.8 We, however, would encourage Collins to repent of his involvement in the tragic NIH funding of research on aborted babies and truly seek the only path of truth and wisdom found in the holy Word of God.