Which is why I wrote…
**Venema and McKnight might have calmed concerns of many readers with personal confessions.**9 They could have explained how and why they personally came to know Him, affirm His Lordship, and believe the Resurrection. Confessing Jesus’ authority over all things, including science (Matt. 28:18-20), might have averted their after-science framing too. From the Empty Tomb, it seems untenable to interpret the Gospels after assuming the solid scientific conclusion that men never rise from the dead. Science is blind to the Resurrection and this blindness declares its limits; science cannot bring us to God or speak of when He acts. Therefore, in view of Jesus, why interpret any Scripture after assuming science?
http://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/06/a-genealogical-adam-and-eve-in-evolution/
`9. ‘When people utter the sentence, “I confess that Jesus is Lord,” they are confessing. They are not stating a fact about Jesus. They are enacting a commitment by speaking. By making the confession, you bind yourself to what you confess.’ Okamoto, Joel (2015) “Making Sense of Confessionalism Today,” Concordia Journal: Vol. 41: No. 1, Article 5. "Making Sense of Confessionalism Today" by Joel Okamoto
I would also add that this is what gave Francis Collins authority when he wrote The Language of God. His book was written to his secular colleagues and included first an extended confession of belief in the Resurrection and of Jesus’ Lordship. It carried authority because of the risk he took in making this confession, not merely because of his rank in science.
Sometimes I think we forgot his example, and turned our message exclusively to the Church, where the Ressurection is inexplicably “assumed.” Spiritual authority comes from taking risks, and the Church does not trust voices that are timid about declaring Jesus. I advocate a return to Dr. Collins example.
We need a generation of confessing scientists.