Why KMPDC must exercise caution in the miracle debate

In recent weeks, Kenya has found itself at the crossroads of faith and medicine, a debate reignited by reports of miraculous healings and the Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council’s (KMPDC) subsequent response. The council’s move to condemn before investigating doctors alleged to have “certified miracles” has stirred controversy, raising questions not only about professional ethics but also about the delicate relationship between faith, healing, and science in our society.

At the heart of the matter lies a fundamental concern, can an institution charged with upholding medical ethics also play the role of a moral and theological arbitrator without having to violate the right to religion under Article 32 of the Constitution? When KMPDC issues sweeping condemnations even before conducting impartial investigations, it undermines both the integrity of its process and public confidence in its fairness. Justice, after all, must not only be done but be seen to be done. Condemnation followed by investigation defeats the very essence of investigation.

The council’s mandate is clear; to regulate the practice of medicine and protect the public from malpractice. The role of KMPDC ends where science itself finds its limits. It should concern itself with whether doctors adhered to professional standards, not whether divine intervention occurred and whether that is believable or not. To attempt the latter is to venture into realms beyond its legal and scientific jurisdiction.

For centuries, faith and healing have coexisted, sometimes in tension, often in harmony. Modern medicine, with all its advancements, does not invalidate faith rather it coexists alongside it, each speaking to different dimensions of the human experience. Faith, science and healing are not mutually exclusive. Many doctors will tell you that hope and belief can contribute significantly to recovery, what science calls the placebo effect may sometimes be faith by another name. Even the most sceptical scientists admit that not every recovery has an explanation. There are limits to what laboratory tests can reveal, to what scans can detect, and to what reason can comprehend. When science encounters the extraordinary, that which it cannot yet explain, humility, not hostility, should be the response.

The lesson? Science advances not by dismissing the unexplained but by approaching it with open-minded curiosity. When it cannot explain, it should surrender. Of course, it surrenders only after verifying that indeed whatever outcome that is impossible in science occurred. Meaning, it became possible in another discipline, religion and faith. Thus, when reports of miraculous healings emerge, the appropriate response is not ridicule or blanket condemnation but a careful, balanced inquiry. Science must investigate, not intimidate with the hope to dislodge faith. Faith as well must inspire truth and not deceit. Between the two lies the possibility of understanding. One always inconveniently surrenders where no explanation exists and its limits have been breached.

Many people handling the current discourse around miracles and medicine do so with an entrenched bias, the belief that science must always have the final word. Yet, science itself teaches that knowledge is provisional, ever-evolving. What we “know” today may be revised tomorrow in light of new evidence. Therefore, science can, and indeed should, give way when its own findings are confronted by realities it cannot withstand. That is not a defeat of science, it is its essence to be open to discovery. Sometimes into the spiritual space of antiquity.

When an event defies established scientific explanation, believers call it a miracle. Scientists might call it an anomaly. But both terms acknowledge the same thing, something extraordinary has happened. The difference is not in the event but in interpretation. Faith calls it divine visitation, science calls it the frontier of the unknown. To recognise this is to understand that miracles and science are not enemies they are, in some ways, partners in the mystery of existence. And their owner is one, the Creator all mankind.

In moments when the visitation of God collides with the boundaries of human knowledge, humility should prevail over hubris. For even the greatest scientists have acknowledged the mystery of the universe as something beyond complete human comprehension. Einstein once said, “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” The two need not cancel each other but rather, they illuminate different aspects of truth. The public lynching approach currently characterising this debate is wrong and dangerous. It reduces a nuanced discussion about faith, healing, and ethics into a spectacle of accusations.

Doctors who have been accused of certifying miracles deserve impartial investigation and not condemnation before inquiry. The assumption that every unexplained recovery must be fraudulent is itself unscientific. KMPDC’s responsibility is to establish whether medical professionals breached ethical standards, not to determine whether miracles exist. To elevate itself into a body that discredits the unexplainable is to stretch its mandate beyond recognition. If a doctor acted in good faith, documented facts accurately, and did not deceive the public, then no ethical line has been crossed.

Science cannot demand loyalty at the expense of truth. The conversation about miracles and science requires maturity. Our society thrives on both empirical rigour and spiritual conviction. To pit the two against each other is to impoverish both. Kenya stands at an important juncture in defining how we handle matters where faith meets science. We must guard against institutions overreaching their mandates and against believers weaponising faith.

Miracles speak where science pauses.