Bruce, If You Don’t Know Much About Science, How Can You Trust It?

good question

Every day, I learn things about science I didn’t know before. I am always learning new stuff, but make no mistake about it, I know very little about science. I know the basics, and I continue to educate myself through reading and listening to podcasts, but I am not, nor will I ever be, an expert. This is what happens when you spend most of your life thinking the King James Bible is a science textbook and the universe as created in six twenty-four hour days, 6,029 years ago. It was not until I deconverted that I read books about biology, cosmology, and evolution.

Since I am not an science expert, I do what I always do; I rely on people who are experts to teach me and explain what I don’t know. This doesn’t mean experts are infallible, but, generally, experts can be trusted to tell us the truth (as they understand it at that moment). I try to check new things I hear against scientific consensus. I learned years ago as a pastor that if I came up with a novel interpretation of the Bible, it was likely that I was wrong. I still live by this principle today.

Sadly, way too many Evangelicals think that they know more than scientists do because the Holy Spirit is their teacher and guide. Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, illustrates this point when he says:

As usual, he [Bruce Gerencser] thinks unbelievers can understand the Bible even though the Bible clearly says they can’t because they do not receive the Spirit of Truth. Everyone needs the Spirit of Truth to find what God is saying and so that everyone gets the same message.

In other words, the vast majority of humans can’t understand the Bible. Regardless of how much education they have, Bible knowledge is impossible for them because they are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit. This is why a man with a Bible college education from an unaccredited college thinks he knows more about the Bible than most unbelieving scholars, even if they have PhDs and extensive knowledge about the Bible.

Sunday after Sunday, Evangelical preachers — many of whom who have no relevant college training in the Bible, particularly the original languages — stand confidently before their congregations and say, THUS SAITH THE LORD. I have heard scores of sermons preached by men who have either no secondary training or have degrees from institutions focused on teaching preachers what to think, instead of how to think. These preachers stand before their congregations, preaching a book that they don’t know much about. Often, they just regurgitate what they heard in church or college. The next time you get a chance, check out the curriculums of several Evangelical Bible colleges. You will quickly learn how little they are taught about the Bible. Most preachers will exit college without comprehensively studying most of the books of the Bible (and survey courses don’t count).

That’s not to say that all Evangelical preachers are uneducated. I know more than a few Evangelicals who have educations from major universities. Why they are still Evangelicals befuddles me, but it would be wrong to judge all preachers by the ignorant hillbillies who comment on this site.

Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Comments

8 responses to “Bruce, If You Don’t Know Much About Science, How Can You Trust It?”

  1. Avatar
    GeoffT

    The title of this post betrays the underlying ignorance of the person posing the question. They begin with their own understanding of their approach to religion and to the bible and then attempt to transpose it on to science, not stopping to consider what science is. Science may result in some astonishing and counterintuitive observations and theories, from the sheer size of the universe to quantum physics, but the starting point is always the same; look at what’s happening, check and see if it happens repeatedly, form a hypothesis, then test it. When I walk our friends’ dog it loves to chase a ball, as do most dogs. It’s discovered that the slope on the beach means if it releases the ball from its mouth then it rolls itself, enabling a little game of chase the ball it can manage itself. That’s science in operation. By a dog. Babies have many similar traits, whereby they come to recognise certain stimuli and react accordingly.

    When it comes to the big picture science I’m not that phased. I understand how a car engine works, and I can see its effects every minute of every day. My intuition tells me that heavy objects fall at a greater speed than lighter objects, but it isn’t true, as Galileo discovered several centuries ago, yet many uneducated people have failed to realise it. There are things I can understand from personal experience, like a car engine or the reality of gravity, but the more exotic things I must rely on scientists to explore. The more exotic the claim then the more I rely on the credibility of those who make it, with some explanation as to how they arrived at their conclusion. It’s why I know that people from the creation institute are entirely lacking credibility, and why I take note of real scientists such as Jerry Coyne, or Sean Carroll, or Professor Dave.

    1. Avatar

      You misspelled your name so your comment went to moderation. I corrected your name. 🤣❤️

      1. Avatar
        GeoffT

        Thanks Bruce. I did wonder why I got a blank screen! 😂

    2. Avatar

      You give a very good explanation. Just for people to know, quantum physics is over 100 years old now. I studied it the first time I was in college. My husband found me a free quantum physics course on-line from MIT. I am trying to re-learn it when I have time. It is very interesting.

      Thank you for teaching so well.

  2. Ignorance tends to breed ignorance, and the Fates know that Derrick Thiessen is as ignorant as they come where matters of science and evidence come into play. He remains an utter hypocrite for enjoying all the fruits of science’s labours, whilst deriding it at every opportunity. If we had accepted a literal Biblical account as the norm, we would have never developed so many of the remarkable and life-enhancing tools we have now. Derrick will focus exclusively on the negative in response.

  3. I fed Thiessen’s post through an AI mechanism to judge its structure and quality. The response was quite interesting:

    🧠 1. Summary of the Argument

    The article’s central claim is:

    Unbelievers (non-Christians) cannot understand the Bible or truth because they lack the Holy Spirit, while Christians—through the Spirit of Truth—possess true understanding. Therefore, secular science and scholarship are unreliable since they are guided by deception rather than divine revelation.

    In other words, the author argues that:

    Only believers can correctly understand Scripture.

    Science and secular scholarship are inherently flawed because they rely on human reasoning, not divine guidance.

    The “truth” is fixed and known through divine revelation, not evolving inquiry.

    ⚖️ 2. Logical and Philosophical Analysis
    A. Circular Reasoning

    The author commits a circular argument:

    “Only those who have the Spirit can know the truth — and we know we have the Spirit because we know the truth.”

    This structure prevents falsification or external verification. It assumes what it sets out to prove, which makes it logically closed and unpersuasive to anyone outside the author’s theological framework.

    B. False Dichotomy

    The essay frames the issue as truth (Bible believers) versus falsehood (scientists/unbelievers), as if no middle ground exists.
    In reality, many Christian scholars and scientists (e.g., Francis Collins, Deborah Haarsma, Alister McGrath) integrate faith and science without rejecting empirical inquiry.

    C. Misunderstanding of Science

    Science isn’t about “absolute truth” in the metaphysical sense—it’s about building testable, provisional models that describe natural phenomena. The fact that scientific understanding evolves doesn’t make it “false”; it shows it is self-correcting.

    Claiming that science is “useless because it changes” misunderstands how scientific progress works. Newtonian physics wasn’t “false” because relativity came later; it was refined to explain more complex conditions.

    D. Strawman of Scientific Work

    The author caricatures scientists as if they:

    “Never observe evolution,”

    “Use present-day conditions to test ancient processes,” and

    “Only care about their reputations.”

    These points misrepresent both the methodology and ethics of modern science. Evolutionary processes have been observed (e.g., bacterial resistance, ring species, fruit fly genetics), and reputational bias exists in every field—including theology.

    📖 3. Theological Considerations
    A. Spirit of Truth (John 14:16–17)

    The passage refers specifically to the Holy Spirit as given to the disciples. Christian theologians disagree on whether this means only believers can understand Scripture.

    Many traditions (e.g., Catholic, Orthodox, and mainline Protestant) believe nonbelievers can grasp Scripture’s meaning intellectually even if they lack spiritual insight or faith response.

    The author collapses spiritual discernment and cognitive understanding, which simplifies a complex theological distinction.

    B. Creation and “Science vs. Theology”

    The author treats creation as purely theological and non-scientific. However, most Christian theologians (even conservative ones) accept that theology and science address different layers of causation—theological why vs. scientific how—rather than existing in direct conflict.

    C. Anti-intellectualism

    The tone is anti-intellectual: it equates faith with truth and reason with deception. Yet Christianity historically birthed universities, the scientific method, and biblical scholarship through rational inquiry. This anti-reason stance diverges from classical Christian thought (Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, etc.), which saw faith and reason as complementary.

    🗣️ 4. Rhetorical and Stylistic Evaluation

    Tone: Confrontational, dismissive, and accusatory. Phrases like “babbling idiots” and “unbelieving scientists are trapped in darkness” show rhetorical aggression, not persuasion.

    Audience: The writing assumes a sympathetic Christian audience already convinced that secular science is hostile to truth.

    Method: It uses assertion and ridicule rather than evidence or engagement with opposing arguments.

  4. Avatar
    Barbara Jackson

    Thank you for making this analysis. I studied physics the first time I was in college although I did not get good enough grades to get into graduate school. One of the best points is science keeps learning and is self-correcting. Now I try not to have complex discussions with people who disagree with me. Sometimes I fail and give complex answers about electrons in an atom.

  5. Avatar
    Asphalt-Type Person

    If we need god’s help to understand god, then what does that say about god?

Want to Respond to Bruce? Fire Away! If You Are a First Time Commenter, Please Read the Comment Policy Located at the Top of the Page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading