What do you think?
Rate this book
Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?
Many believers worry that science undermines the Christian faith. Instead of fearing scientific discovery, Jack Collins believes that Christians should delight in the natural world and study it. God's truth will stand against any challenge and will enrich the very scientific studies that we fear. Collins first defines faith and science, shows their relation, and explains what claims each has concerning truth. Then he applies the biblical teaching on creation to the topics of "conflict" between faith and science, including the age of the earth, evolution, and miracles. He considers what it means to live in a created world. This book is for anyone looking for a Christian engagement with science without technical jargon.
448 pages, Paperback
First published October 15, 2003
20 people are currently reading
270 people want to read
About the author
C. John Collins
34 books34 followersC. JOHN COLLINS (PhD, University of Liverpool) is professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary in St Louis. With degrees from MIT and Faith Evangelical Lutheran Seminary, he pursues such research interests as Hebrew and Greek grammar, science and faith, and biblical theology. He is the author of The God of Miracles.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
June 26, 2024
I deeply enjoyed this book. Collins, who has a PhD in Hebrew Linguistics from the University of Liverpool and a Masters degree in Computer Science and Systems Engineering from MIT weaves his love of science and his love of Scripture together in a very approachable manner. Because of Collins’ skill as an Old Testament scholar, he is able to methodically and clearly break down each passage of Scripture with which he deals.
After finishing the book, I would argue that this is presuppositional apologetics done in reverse. At the end of the book (on page 340) Collins shows that he has actually been engaging in presuppositional apologetics all along… which is to say that he starts with God (and His Word) and He ends with God (and His Word).
Collins’s discussion of Genesis 1-2 is particularly helpful. He shows how the “ordinary day reading” (seven 24-hour days) is not a healthy and faithful literal reading of the text. Collins prefers to not call this interpretation the “literal day reading” because “literal” means interpreting a Biblical text as the author intended, therefore he uses the phrase “ordinary day reading”. To take the Bible literally is to see what the goal, context, intention, setting, language, etc. of a Biblical passage is addressing. Saying “Well, that’s the ‘literal’ interpretation of that passage” by simply pulling one verse out of the Bible out of context and saying, ‘”Look, that’s what it literally says!” is terrible hermeneutics (at best), and intentional unfaithfulness to God and His Word for the set purpose of a predetermined goal (at worst). Genesis 1 and 2 are two different accounts of the creation story, told back-to-back, with Genesis 2 filling out the details of the sixth day of Genesis 1. There is no refrain on Day 7 (Genesis 2:1-3), which is why Genesis, and the rest of Scripture, refers to the present time (today) as being the “Day” of God’s Sabbath Rest (see Hebrews 4). Day 7 was obviously not a 24-hour day, so why would the other days need to be 24-hour days? Collins points out that Genesis 1:1-2 is not a part of the first day; therefore, we do not have to take the “creation week” as the first “week” of the universe. It is Biblical, and for that matter “a literal reading” of the text, to say that the Bible does not bother with telling us the age of the universe. The Bible sets no upper limit on the age of the earth or the age of the universe. If the earth is 100’s of thousands of years old, or the universe is billions and trillions of years old, that’s fine. The fact that Adam would say “At last!” in Genesis 2:23 supports the view that the creation period is longer than an ordinary week. The analogous days in the creation story serve to show how God prepared the earth as the ideal place for humans to live, love, and serve.
Collins’s analysis of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism is particularly helpful; specifically regarding the difficulty that neo-Darwinism has in attempting to explain the origin of mankind.
By remaining faithful to Scripture, Collins is able to show that science and faith are by no means at odds with one another. This is, of course, not a quick read but it is a very worthwhile read.
After finishing the book, I would argue that this is presuppositional apologetics done in reverse. At the end of the book (on page 340) Collins shows that he has actually been engaging in presuppositional apologetics all along… which is to say that he starts with God (and His Word) and He ends with God (and His Word).
Collins’s discussion of Genesis 1-2 is particularly helpful. He shows how the “ordinary day reading” (seven 24-hour days) is not a healthy and faithful literal reading of the text. Collins prefers to not call this interpretation the “literal day reading” because “literal” means interpreting a Biblical text as the author intended, therefore he uses the phrase “ordinary day reading”. To take the Bible literally is to see what the goal, context, intention, setting, language, etc. of a Biblical passage is addressing. Saying “Well, that’s the ‘literal’ interpretation of that passage” by simply pulling one verse out of the Bible out of context and saying, ‘”Look, that’s what it literally says!” is terrible hermeneutics (at best), and intentional unfaithfulness to God and His Word for the set purpose of a predetermined goal (at worst). Genesis 1 and 2 are two different accounts of the creation story, told back-to-back, with Genesis 2 filling out the details of the sixth day of Genesis 1. There is no refrain on Day 7 (Genesis 2:1-3), which is why Genesis, and the rest of Scripture, refers to the present time (today) as being the “Day” of God’s Sabbath Rest (see Hebrews 4). Day 7 was obviously not a 24-hour day, so why would the other days need to be 24-hour days? Collins points out that Genesis 1:1-2 is not a part of the first day; therefore, we do not have to take the “creation week” as the first “week” of the universe. It is Biblical, and for that matter “a literal reading” of the text, to say that the Bible does not bother with telling us the age of the universe. The Bible sets no upper limit on the age of the earth or the age of the universe. If the earth is 100’s of thousands of years old, or the universe is billions and trillions of years old, that’s fine. The fact that Adam would say “At last!” in Genesis 2:23 supports the view that the creation period is longer than an ordinary week. The analogous days in the creation story serve to show how God prepared the earth as the ideal place for humans to live, love, and serve.
Collins’s analysis of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism is particularly helpful; specifically regarding the difficulty that neo-Darwinism has in attempting to explain the origin of mankind.
By remaining faithful to Scripture, Collins is able to show that science and faith are by no means at odds with one another. This is, of course, not a quick read but it is a very worthwhile read.
February 24, 2025
The best survey of Science and Faith out there.
December 17, 2023
Science and Faith - Collins
1. Philosophical Issues
1. Scientific vs non scientific and logical vs non-logical
2. Scientific study of regularities and the scientific study of historical events. One demands a more naturalistic interpretation, whereas one can be more open to supernatural influences
3. Collins advocates for what he calls ‘critical realism’
2. Theological Issues
1. Collins argues for an analogical reading of Gen. 1. Each day highlights the night time (evening and then morning, the order is important). Each nightly rest points forward to the Sabbath. The Sabbath has no ending refrain, and therefore might not be a normal day. Are the other days meant to be abnormal also? Thus, Gen. 1 is a divine work-week, analogous to a Hebrew work-week.
2. “Let there be” is translated “may the Lord be with you” in different parts of the OT.
3. Science and Faith Interact
1. Collins says that the apparent age hypothesis relies on an anti-realist concept of reality. This is at odds with the Bible’s critical realism.
2. Methodological uniformitarianism - a more mild form of uniformitarianism that states that geological processes could have run at different rates at different times in the history of the earth.
4. Conclusions
1. Philosophical Issues
1. Scientific vs non scientific and logical vs non-logical
2. Scientific study of regularities and the scientific study of historical events. One demands a more naturalistic interpretation, whereas one can be more open to supernatural influences
3. Collins advocates for what he calls ‘critical realism’
2. Theological Issues
1. Collins argues for an analogical reading of Gen. 1. Each day highlights the night time (evening and then morning, the order is important). Each nightly rest points forward to the Sabbath. The Sabbath has no ending refrain, and therefore might not be a normal day. Are the other days meant to be abnormal also? Thus, Gen. 1 is a divine work-week, analogous to a Hebrew work-week.
2. “Let there be” is translated “may the Lord be with you” in different parts of the OT.
3. Science and Faith Interact
1. Collins says that the apparent age hypothesis relies on an anti-realist concept of reality. This is at odds with the Bible’s critical realism.
2. Methodological uniformitarianism - a more mild form of uniformitarianism that states that geological processes could have run at different rates at different times in the history of the earth.
4. Conclusions
December 15, 2013
The Author is a qualified Engineer and a qualified Theologian, thus means he knows about both fields, and you can see that in his approach. Rather then homing in on things that Science has gotten wrong, or make Christianity a slave to Science, we have strong views of both Science and Christianity - I like this as I have a Science Degree and am a Pastor :)
I would recommend this to Christians who want to know more about how Science fits in, as well as to sceptics of Christianity. The Author takes a very firm view on the reliability of the Bible, whilst also accepting an Old Earth. He argues well for an analogical approach to Genesis 1, has good arguments for Intelligent Design, and good arguments against Neo-Darwinism.
Even if only a chapter or two are topics you want, then this book is well worth it.
I have enjoyed the other books this Author has written, and hope he plans on many more.
I would recommend this to Christians who want to know more about how Science fits in, as well as to sceptics of Christianity. The Author takes a very firm view on the reliability of the Bible, whilst also accepting an Old Earth. He argues well for an analogical approach to Genesis 1, has good arguments for Intelligent Design, and good arguments against Neo-Darwinism.
Even if only a chapter or two are topics you want, then this book is well worth it.
I have enjoyed the other books this Author has written, and hope he plans on many more.
January 1, 2025
To summarize this book in one word, I would say: Headache. The author's obvious disdain for a young earth view lead to him not truly interacting with many of the arguments made from that position, and when he did try to interpret texts, he would try and sneak in many unproven assumptions about what a text is saying without nuance. I thought his handling of Isaiah 11 was butchery. I think his view of prelapsarian creation is abysmal. I think his idea of making death morally neutral in animals is completely unfounded (one of those large leaps of logics made). A book like "How to be an Atheist" offers far better tools on how to actually interact with scientific theories critically. This book offers essentially no tools. To answer the question: "What takes epistemic priority, our fallen observation of nature that we draw conclusions from or supernatural revelation?" would've been a great feat for this book, and it doesn't do it, but it really hints at man's interpretation of nature taking priority. He gives much credence to modern geological models, despite many problems with the uniformitarian position that I don't feel were addressed adequately. His view of the fall is very low. The quotes from C.S. Lewis serve as a giant red flag: when a supposedly reformed, Westminster affirming theologian primarily quotes from someone who's theology was heterodox in many ways, that sounds alarm bells. He's also bought into the myth of neutrality, despite trying to interact with presuppostions and world-views. Overall, I don't feel this has offered any clarity on the subject but has actually served to obscure the issues. I don't know how I could come to any other conclusion as a faithful presuppositionalist though. On a personal note, the writing did get irritating at times when it felt almost patronizing, but that's not overly relevant to the actual content.
April 9, 2025
Readers often make two mistakes when coming to a book like this. First, they are looking for a silver bullet simply to annihilate the other side. Second, they can only think in terms of "black and white" or "ones and zeroes," that is to say either you believe everything Ken Ham says or everything Richard Dawkins says and there is no in-between. This book is a helpful corrective to both of these common errors. It does not pretend to be a guidebook of how to defeat your enemies nor does it uncritically fall into one extreme of the debate. I would recommend this book to *anyone* curious about how science and faith can interact.
December 9, 2020
A friend from church recommended I read this book to better understand his (and the authors) understanding of the creation narrative in Genesis. Therefore I read that chapter, and the preceding chapters that built up his thinking.
Interesting read.
Interesting read.
February 28, 2022
Wow! This book is thought-provoking and takes you on quite a journey. The book covers philosophical issues, theological issues and how science and faith interact. This book will help anyone to work through issues of science and faith.
July 10, 2024
This was a solid first book for my journey into seeing if I can reconcile my love for science and my new found appreciation of Christianity.
I had a lot of presuppositions about science and what it said about religion.
I had a lot of presuppositions about science and what it said about religion.
May 25, 2020
Great book in helping you to understand origin of life questions.
September 16, 2020
A reasonably argued basic introduction from a conservative viewpoint.
September 2, 2014
Jack Collins is well-equipped to write a book on how science and faith are related. He holds two degrees from MIT, and a Master of Divinity and a PhD in Hebrew. Collins's goal was to write a book that is free of technical jargon. The book has many positive features: the author covers a lot of ground; he writes very clearly; and he is persuasive. On the negative side, the book has a very peculiar system of notes and citations: instead of using footnotes or numbered end notes, there is an appendix that contains some notes for each chapter. Sometimes, he provides proper citations, and other times, he doesn't. It would have been a better book had he settled on using numbered end notes. I don't think many readers who are willing to read a 400-plus-page book are going to be put off by proper citations.
At any rate, throughout the book, Collins stresses the importance of clear thinking and defining terms. He addresses issues such as Genesis 1, the age of the earth, evolution, intelligent design, what the Bible has to say about environmentalism, and many other issues. While I didn't agree with every little point that he made, I think Collins is a clear thinker and writer and this book, along with Vern Poythress's Redeeming Science, are useful books for those who are interested in learning more about how Christianity and science are related.
At any rate, throughout the book, Collins stresses the importance of clear thinking and defining terms. He addresses issues such as Genesis 1, the age of the earth, evolution, intelligent design, what the Bible has to say about environmentalism, and many other issues. While I didn't agree with every little point that he made, I think Collins is a clear thinker and writer and this book, along with Vern Poythress's Redeeming Science, are useful books for those who are interested in learning more about how Christianity and science are related.
April 16, 2012
Really would like to assign no stars to this disorganized mess. I understand what the author is attempting to do, however, his editor failed in the task of shaping and cutting where needed. There are much better books on the topic.
September 8, 2012
Collins gives a theological perspective to the conversation about faith and science. I most enjoyed his reflection of multiple views of the creation story and what it means to be image bearers of God. Also liked the chapter on cosmology and geology as it relates to the age of the earth.
January 1, 2015
Enlightening!
February 19, 2015
Loved this book.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews