By Greg Bentley and Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic
Doctor Francis Collins is a world renowned physician-geneticist specializing in biomedical science. In 2009, Dr. Collins was appointed Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and is the supervisor of Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Not only is Dr. Collins a famous scientist, he is a self-professed Evangelical Christian having a conversion experience while reading the C.S. Lewis novel Mere Christianity, which has long been regarded a classic exposition of the Christian faith. Oddly enough, not one Bible verse is quoted in the first half of the book and only three partial verses are found in the latter half. There are no Bible references in the entire book. Now, how can we present Christianity without its foundation – the Word of God? In fact, it is precisely because of his extremely low view of Scripture that C.S. Lewis has been a bridge to Rome.
Moreover, his novel is a cornerstone credited for the conversion of other famous ecumenical figures such as the late Charles Colson. Mr. Colson saw the light in Mere Christianity during a jail house conversion while serving time for the Watergate scandal of the 1970’s. He went on to form Prison Fellowship International and in 1994, he drove a stake into the heart of the Evangelical Church by orchestrating Evangelicals and Catholic Together (ECT) for the sake of political ecumenism and the demise of the Protestant Reformation. In essence he went from Watergate to the Wide gate.
C.S. Lewis would have no doubt been very proud of his disciple Colson, given that Lewis congratulated himself for having helped to bridge the chasm between Protestant denominations and Roman Catholicism. An apple evidently does not fall too far from the tree, and as we are about to show, Dr. Francis Collins much like Charles Colson followed in the footsteps of his spiritual father C.S. Lewis. Both C.S. Lewis and Dr. Collins in fact share three things in common which are utterly destructive of true Evangelical Christianity – rejection of Scripture inerrancy, commitment to ecumenism and Darwin’s evolutionary theory. And, since the Whore of Rome will waste no ally, it is not in the least surprising that the Pope in 2009 appointed Dr. Francis Collins to the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
Collins had been active in orchestrating a form of scientific ecumenism by forming BioLogos with funding from the Templeton Foundation. The same foundation just awarded Collins the $1.3 million Templeton prize boasting, “his endeavors to encourage religious communities to embrace the latest discoveries of genetics and the biomedical sciences as insights to enrich and enlarge their faith.” The Templeton foundation is world renowned for its embrace of evolutionary theodicy derived from Carmelite monastic tradition. Many may not be aware but the Roman Catholic Church affirms evolution.
Accordingly, the current Jesuit Pope tells us that it is very easy to misinterpret the creation in which God created Heaven and Earth in six days and rested on the seventh:
“When we read the creation story in Genesis we run the risk of imagining that God was a magician, with a magic wand which is able to do everything.” [emphasis ours]
It appears quite plain that in the opinion of Pope Francis, Genesis chapter 1 is a story, not history!
In his best-selling book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (2006), Collins therefore speaks the very language of Rome when he argues for the compatibility of Darwin’s theory of natural selection with the existence of a creator God. Rejecting both creationism and intelligent design, Collins espoused “theistic evolution” as an explanation for the existence of the universe and life.” Moreover, consistent with his scientific ecumenism, “Dr. Collins urges believers to trust more in the power of science, saying that it answers the “how?” questions, while Christianity answers the “why?” questions.” Dr. Collins thus says we should trust the science-falsely-so-called according to which God did not really mean what He said when He declared that He created the world and all the plant and animal life as well as the first human couple in six literal days (Genesis 1:3-31). Dr. Collins here speaks the very same language of the serpent, “Yea, hath God said. . .?” (Genesis 3:1).
Further, according to Dr. Collins, God was evidently mistaken when He “saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). But how could everything be “very good” when Dr. Collins and his ilk say that death, decay and disease entered the world billions of years before there ever was a man! Moreover, that first man allegedly evolved from an ape-like ancestor and was thus no more than a highly evolved animal and hence not a unique creature created in the image of God as the Bible affirms (Genesis 1:26-27).
Dr. Collins’ spiritual mentor C.S. Lewis likewise had no objection to the notion that “man is physically descended from animals.” And according to BioLogos, he “was not even committed to the most basic element of a belief in a literal Adam and Eve, namely, that it was precisely two humans who fell and from whence our species came. He writes, “We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state.”
We beg to digress here from both C.S. Lewis and BioLogos; maybe they do not know how many humans God originally made, but we do know because the Bible most plainly tells us it was only two (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:7, 18, 21-22), and we believe it! And while we can only guess whom C.S. Lewis had in mind when he said “we do not know. . .”, yet one thing is certain, he had not spoken here as a representative of true Evangelical Christianity because we who consider ourselves as legitimate Evangelicals (rather than Romanist apostates) never appointed him.
Now, Dr. Collins’ associates at BioLogos do realize that their commitment to the evolutionary theory brings them in conflict with the “traditional reading of the Fall.” In attempting to reconcile the existence of animal death due to carnivorousness in the pre-human period of Earth’s history with God’s judgment of His creation as “very good”, they however offer us no solution but simply state the matter remains an open question – “The question of how we should understand the violence of the pre-human evolutionary process remains an open one.” The Bible however does not regard this question as “an open one” but as thoroughly closed and settled – there was no carnivorousness and no animal death before the Fall because in the beginning, to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, God gave every green herb for meat (Genesis 1:30). It seems then that the “science” that Dr. Collins urges us to trust does not agree at all with the Bible and we should then just replace the Bible with the theories of modern science! In fact, according to Professor Pete Enns, who is the Professor of Biblical Studies at Eastern University and a contributor for Dr. Collins’ brainchild BioLogos, most Christians already understand that, “even though the Bible assumes a certain way of looking at the cosmos, from a scientific point of view the Bible is wrong.” [emphasis his] Now, this man who unabashedly ascribes errancy to the Word of God has the impudent audacity to claim that his is “The Only God-Ordained Podcast on the Internet.”
C.S. Lewis would certainly have agreed with Professor Enns and with the Pope in maintaining that the Bible is not scientifically authoritative, which is why BioLogos so often invokes and defends his fundamental heresies, including the idea that death pre-existed humanity:
“In The Problem of Pain, Lewis discusses the problem of non-human animal pain prior to the fall. [emphasis ours] If evolution happened, it means that throughout millions of years non-human creatures experienced vast amounts of suffering that had nothing to do with human sin. Lewis recognized this: “The origin of animal suffering could be traced, by earlier generations [i.e., those that unlike Lewis and Collins’ believed in the inerrancy of the Bible], to the Fall of man—the whole world was infected by the uncreated rebellion of Adam. This is now impossible, for we have good reason to believe that animals existed long [i.e., millions and millions of years] before men. Carnivorousness, with all that it entails, is older than humanity.” [emphasis ours]
We are very grateful to BioLogos for actually acknowledging that there is a problem with the thesis that animal death and suffering predated the Fall. According to BioLogos’ founder however, we can apparently safely ignore that problem and “trust more in the power of science.” However we cannot but wonder – if the Bible is so fatally wrong on such fundamental issues such as the origin of life and the account of creation, what else is it wrong about? And if we cannot trust the Biblical record concerning the first Adam, why should we trust what it says about the second Adam, that is Christ?
If Dr. Collins and his fellows at BioLogos are truly Christians they would have avoided “profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called” (1 Timothy 6:20), for had they done so they would not have “erred concerning the faith” (1 Timothy 6:21). Dear reader, if the Bible is not inerrant then it is not the Word of God, and if it errs on the first page we may as well throw out all the rest! Now such an outcome would certainly please Popery who appointed Collins to its own Scientific Pontifical Academy! For as long as in the minds of men the Bible has predominant sway, Popery cannot have her diabolical tyrannical way!
It is no wonder then that Rome saw most fit to make peace with Darwin’s theory, for Darwin with his Origins of Species in one single blow achieved that which Rome strove for centuries – he undermined the Bible’s authority transculturally and globally. Popery is indeed a symbiotic parasite that will ally itself with anyone or anything that can help fulfill her megalomaniacal and insatiable ambition for global dominion over the minds and the souls of nations and peoples. And more often than not, she paves her hellish way with most noble intentions, telling us that, “science can purify religion from superstition” [emphasis ours] – especially, as we gather, those of the Protestant kind such as our stubborn belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures and the literal interpretation of the Genesis 1-2 account of creation. And here again BioLogos (and C.S. Lewis) come faithfully to the aid of Popery in endorsing the modern Biblical textual critics – or more accurately – utter and plain heretics – according to whom the first three chapters of Genesis are clearly and simply a regurgitation and amalgamation of other ancient pagan creation myths and traditions!!
“Ever since George Smith discovered and published the ancient Babylonian creation story, Enuma Elish, in 1876, theologians, biblical scholars and informed laypeople have been aware of the fact that the book of Genesis was not written in a literary or cultural vacuum. As other ancient Near Eastern creation stories have been brought to light we have come to know a lot more about the intellectual, cultural, theological, and literary milieu within which Genesis was written, giving us an unprecedented opportunity to assess just what sort of text Genesis is [emphasis ours]. Taking all of this new evidence onboard, the majority report among contemporary biblical scholars is that the ancient texts which Genesis chapters 1-3 resemble the most are ancient Near Eastern myths—an observation which suggests that that is probably the best way to read Genesis, as well. In fact, most mainstream biblical scholarship today would understand Genesis to be an Israelite revision or version of prior mythical creation stories.
This critical consensus had more or less already been settled within mainstream scholarship by Lewis’s day, and Lewis directly addresses these matters in chapter XI of Reflections on the Psalms. He begins by dispelling the misperception that he believes “that every sentence of the Old Testament has historical scientific truth.”. . .Lewis was perfectly happy to grant the emerging scholarly consensus about the genre and origins of Genesis. He writes, “I have therefore no difficulty in accepting, say, the view of those scholars who tell us that the account of Creation in Genesis is derived from earlier Semitic stories which were Pagan and mythical. . .Lewis’s belief that Genesis, as we presently have it, was fashioned out of an extended, divinely guided oral and written tradition of telling, modifying, and retelling “earlier Semitic stories which were Pagan and mythical” and that Genesis itself is “mythical” fits squarely within Lewis’s incarnational and sacramental understanding of Scripture.” [emphasis ours]
Do you see then dear reader that evolutionary scientism eventually leads all the way back to the gross superstitions of Romanism?
Further, in anticipating the obvious objection to the aforecited heretical proposition, BioLogos skillfully attempts a copout:
“It should be clear by now that for Lewis “myth” is not a bad word [we beg to differ!]. It does not necessarily carry connotations of falsehood or contrivance or deception or muddle-headedness. Being a “myth” or a “folktale” does not, for Lewis, disqualify Genesis as the most sublime articulation of the doctrine of creation found anywhere. . .For Lewis, “myth” hardly means false. Lewis had no trouble calling Genesis mythological, not because he had a low view of Genesis, but because he had a high view of mythology. . .So, what follows from this for our understanding of what Lewis means when he says that Genesis 1-3 is myth? Two things are clear: First, Lewis is not using the word “myth” as a loose term of opprobrium, connoting falsehood or silliness or any such thing. Rather, he means by “myth” a very specific literary genre, which he takes to be the genre of the stories of Orpheus and Eurydice, of Narcissus and the pool, of Icarus and Daedalus, and also of Adam and Eve.”
We see then that according to C.S. Lewis and his attorney BioLogos, the notion of Genesis being a myth of the likes of Greek myths ought not in the least upset us, for after all, Lewis had a “high view of mythology”! And so, if he calls Genesis a myth, supposedly he is paying the Bible a great compliment!!
Nonetheless, BioLogos digs even deeper into absurdity to rescue and legitimize not only C.S. Lewis’ but also theirown commitment to non-literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation:
“Moreover, Lewis makes it quite clear that Christianity, mere Christianity, depends ultimately on the miracle of the Incarnation, which Lewis takes to be the fundamental Fact at the core of human history. So there is no reason whatsoever to think that if Lewis takes Genesis to be myth, he is on a slippery slope towards taking the whole Bible to be myth as well. That’s a silly argument and people need to stop making it, whether they agree with Lewis or not.”
Now, whether, as we in fact do maintain, rejecting the authenticity of one part of the Bible leads eventually to rejecting essentially the authenticity of the whole Bible is a silly argument or not we shall examine presently. And perhaps it is best to address this question with another question – namely, how would you dear reader describe a man who:
- Rejected the inerrancy of the Scriptures;
- Did not confine his religious views to the Bible but recognized God’s revelation “in literary masterpieces, in other religions, in ancient world myths, and through human reason and intuition”;
- Was of the opinion that the Apostle John did almost as well as James Boswell in getting the facts straight, and that the Gospel of John was either a reportage, “pretty close up to the facts”, though undoubtedly containing errors, or, the product of a “novelistic realistic narrative” by some unknown writer of the 2nd century;
- Characterized some of the Psalms as “fatal confusion,” “devilish,” “diabolical,” “contemptible,” petty and vulgar;
- Maintained that: “Naivety, error, contradiction, even (as in the cursing Psalms) wickedness are not removed. The total result is not ‘the Word of God’ in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history”;
- Rejected one of the cardinal doctrines of the Gospel – the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement;
- Defended Popery’s utterly superstitious blasphemy of transubstantiation;
- Believed in his own peculiar version of Purgatory and in praying for the dead;
- Believed that sincere and good-willed pagans who never heard of Christ could be saved (as did also John Wesley, Billy Graham and as does Rome to this day – in fact, this is the official teaching of the Catholic Church);
- And last but certainly not the least, he maintained that certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible is Mark 13:30 – Christ’s own personal utterance:
“Despite his pious words about Christ being the true word of God, Lewis rejected the Biblical view of both Christ and the Bible. In fact, he asserted that Christ, as well as the Scriptures, erred. Lewis referred to Mark 13:30, “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place,” as “certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.” He continued: “The one exhibition of error and the one confession of ignorance [Mark 13:32] grow side by side. That they stood thus in the mouth of Jesus himself, and were not merely placed thus by the reporter, we surely need not doubt. . .The facts, then, are these: that Jesus professed himself (in some sense) ignorant, and within a moment showed that he really was so.” [emphasis ours]
It appears then, from the facts of the case, safe to say that C.S. Lewis was a perfect example of how a little leaven leavens the whole lump (1 Corinthians 5:6). For as “the serpent, wherever she gets in her head, she will wriggle in her whole body, sting and all”, so also, if one gives to erroneous and compromising principles but the least admission, soon enough all that such principles logically carry along with them will also have to be swallowed.
We would therefore ask again the reader to judge for himself from here whether or not rejecting the inerrancy of Genesis logically leads to the rejection of the inerrancy of the Bible as a whole. BioLogos would have us think otherwise. With all due respect, we maintain that what they propose is plain hogwash and the facts prove it so to be whether they are willing to admit it or no. The Scripture is an organic whole, and therefore, Answers in Genesis is most correct in pointing out that if one essentially takes Genesis as a myth they will likewise take the New Testament as a myth also. For our blessed Lord and Savior Himself stated that if one does not believe Moses, neither will they believe Him. The case of Lewis proves Christ’s judgment impeccably correct, and of course, this could not be otherwise, let the textual critics and religious hypocrites say what they will, they are the ones which justify themselves before men; but God knows their hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among them is most abominable in His sight (Luke 16:15).
“In John 5:45–47, Jesus says, “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” In this passage, Jesus makes it clear that one must believe what Moses wrote.” [emphasis ours; of course we should here expect another copout by BioLogos along the lines of – but modern textual criticism gives strong support to the idea that Moses was not the author of Genesis!]
“Now, one might argue that a person can still go to Heaven even though he disbelieves portions of the Bible and rejects the doctrine of verbal inerrancy. The authors of the Westminster Confession seem to disagree, saying, “By this [saving] faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein. . .” They reject the notion that the Apostle John made errors, that some of the Psalms are diabolical, that there are contradictions between Biblical statements, and that mythology is part of the Old Testament.” [emphasis ours]
Those therefore who have been truly renewed by the Spirit of regeneration believe that Truth is whatsoever in the Bible is written, for they believe by the faith which is not of man’s “free-willed” machination but that which is of God’s own effectual operation (Ephesians 1:19; Ephesians 2:1, 4-5, 8; Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 2:5). And while it is certainly true that none of us were born again with a perfect understanding of Scripture, and many of us in fact began our new life in Christ as theistic evolutionists, yet, the Spirit of Truth guides Christ’s own sheep in all Truth (John 16:13), and none that are truly born of Him will ever have such a disdain for His Word so as to regard any part of it as a mere myth.
Have therefore nothing to do with the unfruitful works of darkness (Ephesians 5:11) of religious hypocrites: evolutionists and textual critics, for they are but blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch (Matthew 15:14).
“The fundamental question of how we know anything accurate about Christ apart from an unerring, revealed Scripture is not a question that Lewis considers.” [And we may add: nor does BioLogos.]
It seems then that both C.S. Lewis with his Mere Christianity and Dr. Collins with his BioLogos stand as very useful servants of Romish religious harlotry, since they were both able to make a good case for a kind of “Christianity” that is wholly divested of Biblical authority!
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. – Isaiah 8:20.
Other than discrediting the historical credibility of the Bible, Dr. Collins has also been very busy in discrediting its moral authority. For example, working through BioLogos, he has made great strides in assuaging evangelical fears of the horrors of experimenting with aborted babies. His pioneering research has and continues to involve the use of fetal tissue and he is strongly in favor of therapeutic human cloning. “Collins, the Obama-appointed director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) says that human fetal tissue from elective abortions “will continue to be the mainstay” for federal research.”
Moreover, according to Dr. Collins, “There is strong evidence that scientific benefits can come from fetal tissue research, which can be done with an ethical framework” [emphasis ours]. “Even for somebody who is very supportive of the pro-life position, you can make a strong case for this being an ethical stance. . .That if something can be done with these tissues that might save somebody’s life downstream, perhaps that’s a better choice than discarding them.”
Collins’ reasoning here boils down essentially to this: since we already have tons of aborted human embryos readily available, we may as well make some good use of them rather than just wasting them! And while we thus doubt not that fetal tissue research can indeed be made perfectly compatible with the humanistic ethical framework, we positively deny that it will ever be consistent with the Biblical ethical framework. One can just imagine the pro-abortionists latching onto this one – hey, it is OK to kill your unborn baby because you may end up saving countless others by advancing medical therapies research that could not be done otherwise!
The idea that “the end justifies the mean” advocated here by Dr. Collins does not belong to the Bible but to the most ethically corrupt, devilish and repugnant of all Roman Catholic religious orders – the society of Jesus, better know as the Jesuits!, which ever used this maxim to justify the most heinous crimes and immoralities ever perpetrated on the face of the Earth in the name of religion – or, as they themselves are fond of saying – for “The Greater glory of God” (Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam).
We can therefore no more agree with Dr. Collins than with ‘St.” Ignatius. Rather, along with Kristian Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America, we believe that, “We should no longer allow abortion vendors to profit from selling the body parts of infants who did not survive a visit to Planned Parenthood. . .A civil society does not traffic in human remains.”
Should this bother you?
Dr. Francis Collins, a known evolutionists and fetal tissue researcher has a different understanding of the origins of life and the precious gift that God has created. The river of evolution and its disregard for human life flows towards genocide. Famous evolutionist of the past such as Margaret Sanger are a testimony to this. There is much more to Dr. Collins than science just as there is more to the Vatican than religion. Collins is a government employee who has control over human life driven by a religious agenda and on the other hand the Vatican is a religion with control over spiritual lives driven by a governmental agenda. Dr. Collins is responsible for mixing Christianity with another religion using biblical and philosophical terminology, he is practicing and promoting syncretism! Dr. Collins has spent the last two decades systematically trying to overturn the outstanding work of solid Evangelical creation ministries. He is a government employee who spends his time at the Vatican and has daily exchanges with known Jesuits of the short robe. He is a deep state operative for the Roman Catholic Church.
It is bad enough that Dr. Collins believes as he does and willingly collaborates with the Vatican all the while pretending to be a Bible believing Christian. What is extremely troubling is the fact that Dr. Francis Collins overseas a multitude of government agencies that are responding to Covid-19 and the development of a world-wide vaccination program. He is intimately involved in Operation Warp Speed which will deploy the U.S. Military in the distribution of the vaccine once it becomes available. Christians of all people should know that their body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. And furthermore, Christians ought to be asking themselves whether or not it is right for them to take the vaccine. To some this question may seem relatively straightforward but in reality this is not at all the case. And in order to answer it properly other questions will need to be addressed, chiefly: Who exactly are the entities that are advocating mass vaccination against Covid-19 and whose interests do they really represent?
 John Hunt, Religious Thought in England From the Reformation to the End of the Last Century, A Contribution to the History of Theology, Volume III, Chapter XV, The Methodists, Strahan & Co., 56 Ludgate Hill, London, 1873, pg. 293-294, available from googlebooks.
 John Owen, A Display of Arminianism, Owen’s Note to the Right Honourable the Lords and Gentlemen of the Committee for Religion, The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1967, available from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, CCEL.
 Susan Berry, The Obama-appointed director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) says that human fetal tissue from elective abortions “will continue to be the mainstay” for federal research, available from breitbart.com.
 Rebecca Ruiz, Living “Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam”, available from ignatianspirituality.com. See also: What distinguishes the Jesuits –The Jesuit Charism, available from blessedsacramenthollywood.org.
 Susan Berry, The Obama-appointed director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) says that human fetal tissue from elective abortions “will continue to be the mainstay” for federal research, available from breitbart.com.