The Dirty Little Secret Is Out: Religious Faith and Evolution Are Incompatible

In a recent book review, Jerry Coyne, professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, admitted that the secular worldview of macroevolution (the development of complex life from “simpler” forms) is at odds with Christian faith. Creation scientists have been saying this for decades: Darwinism is not merely science, but a God-rejecting belief system that directly opposes the events recorded in Scripture. This is plainly seen from the stark contrast between the Bible’s assertion “In the beginning, God,” and secular science’s counter “In the beginning, hydrogen.”1

Dr. Coyne is remarkably inclusive in his exclusion of the faithful from the realms of legitimate science:

I am not claiming that all faith is incompatible with science and secular reason….But the vast majority of the faithful—those 90 percent of Americans who believe in a personal God, most Muslims, Jews, and Hindus, and adherents to hundreds of other faiths—fall into the “incompatible” category.2

Coyne said that the “disharmony” between faith and science (which he definitively links with Darwinism) is “a dirty little secret in scientific circles. It is in our personal and professional interest to proclaim that science and religion are perfectly harmonious.” Why would secular scientists who are so opposed to the biblical worldview resort to pretending that Christian faith and evolution are compatible? Coyne provided reasons.

After all, we want our grants funded by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel. This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict. But their main evidence—the existence of religious scientists—is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith.2

Thus, Coyne considers those “religious” people who don’t really believe Genesis as history to be allies, having used them as an effective tactic in his “struggle against creationism.” In fact, he calls the straightforward acceptance of Scripture “the most primitive of JudeoChristian sensibilities.” Given his aggressive hostility to matters of faith, can there be any doubt that these issues of origins—creation or evolution—are fundamentally spiritual, and not purely scientific, in nature?

There certainly are many in the scientific community who are increasingly outspoken regarding their lack of faith in God. However, others—like creation scientists—are open to objectively following the scientific evidence, even when it points to a Creator, such as a Nobel Prize winner who said, “Somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.”3

Indeed, even the late L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, an evolutionary biologist like Coyne, said:

The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory—is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation—both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.4

Although 100 percent empirical proof is unattainable for either faith in God or faith in no God, the evidence in favor of creation is certainly beyond reasonable doubt.5 Because the discoveries from real, operational science are remarkably consistent with biblical revelation, an understanding of God’s Word stands only to gain from science. Spread the news that the truth has finally been openly admitted by an evolutionary scientist: Darwinism contradicts Christianity. Not only is macroevolution irrelevant to science, it is antithetical to a true faith in God.


  1. Morris, H. 1995. In the Beginning, Hydrogen. Acts & Facts. 24 (3).
  2. Coyne, J. A. Seeing and Believing. The New Republic. Posted on February 4, 2009.
  3. Begley, S. Science Finds God. Newsweek, July 20, 1998, 48.
  4. Matthews, L. H. 1971. Introduction. In Darwin, C. Origin of Species. London: J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., ix.
  5. Gish, D. 1981. Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II). Acts & Facts. 10 (5).

* Mr. Sherwin is Senior Science Lecturer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on March 20, 2009.

The Latest
Century-Old Dinosaur Taxonomy Under Investigation
A recent article in New Scientist illustrates how difficult it is to classify various forms of life, such as dinosaurs, into groups.1 The article, based...

The Cambrian Explosion Mystery Deepens
Trilobites (a type of arthropod) appear in sedimentary rocks as part of the Cambrian Explosion.1 In this episode, all the major animal groups first...

Standing Together for Truth
Hello! My name is Kristen Mitrisin, and I’m in the stewardship department at ICR, serving you through charitable gift annuities and saying thank...

Could Designed Systems Explain Green Lizard Blood?
Green blood is not something you see every day. The recent search for why several species of lizards found in New Guinea have green blood assumes an...

Important Climate-Change Realism Paper Published
The greatest point of contention in the debate over “global warming” or “climate change” is not whether or not a significant...