I was convinced that I was called to go to college and become a creation scientist, and I chose to study biology and geology. However, I now realize the futility of empiricism – the best I could do to defend the faith as a scientist is to defeat the theory of evolution using its own flawed methods. And even if scientists overturn the theory of evolution, some evil-minded fool will invent some other anti-biblical theory. I hope you could give me some guidance on this problem.

You have accurately understood my position on scientific arguments: “The best I could do to defend the faith as a scientist is to defeat the theory of evolution using its own flawed methods.” I would not say that no one should be a scientist, or that scientific arguments are completely useless in apologetics. But I would say that science can never arrive at any positive knowledge or justification for any claim, because scientific reasoning is always fallacious, doomed by empiricism, induction, affirming the consequent, and so on.[1] As a scientist, the most that you can do is to employ scientific arguments better than the non-Christians in order to prove them wrong. Scientific arguments can perform only a negative function in apologetics, since it cannot positively prove any claim. Therefore, even if scientific arguments are not always useless, they are always optional.

This is relevant, since in considering whether to become a scientist, it is better to understand the nature and place of science. Many Christians place it almost on the same level with Scripture, and for this reason we must be suspicious of their faith, because it is impossible to serve two masters. Science is not a second revelation from God, but it is man’s own methods and conclusions. To worship both God and science is to worship both God and self. Since God will not share worship with another, this means that to worship both God and science is in fact to worship only the self. Then, many others place science below Scripture to serve as confirmation, but since science cannot prove anything, it cannot even perform this function. It is important to understand this because if you think too much of science, you will expect too much from it, and then you will be disappointed and disillusioned.

Suppose a Christian wonders if he should become a policeman. This career is a legitimate option, and it is possible to honor God in it. However, if the Christian thinks that he can destroy all crimes by becoming a policeman, and that he can even turn people’s hearts toward good, then he has an unrealistic expectation of what this work can do, and he will be disappointed and disillusioned.

Likewise, if you choose to pursue a career in science, you should find a realistic reason for it. Since science cannot prove anything, it cannot provide positive vindication for the biblical worldview, and so it follows that you must not pursue a career in science for this reason. You were planning to pursue a career in science not only because you would be good at it, but you thought by it you could promote and vindicate the Christian faith. However, you thought science was something that it was not, and you thought that it could do something that it could not do. It is better that you realize this now.

There is no need to eliminate science as a career option, but you should also consider other possibilities. You should better define your goals, and then consider how you could achieve them, keeping in mind God’s providence, your interests and abilities, and any practical issues. We are not only talking about apologetics, but a career, and so you need to consider all relevant concerns, such as making a living. You do not have to choose a career that would make a lot of money, but you should understand what you are getting into when you make a decision. You might still want to become a scientist. There is nothing wrong with this as long as you have a realistic view of science.

[1] See Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions, Presuppositional Confrontations, Apologetics in Conversation, and Captive to Reason.