The concept that appears in Gen 1:2 is an abiotic concept of the earth; i.e., Gen 1:2 describes an earth in which there is no life; it presents the absence of life-vegetable, animal, and human.

A review of the book, A Balanced View of Science and Faith. Published in Origins v. 25, n. 2.

I don't have much faith in logic as a solution to the world's problems, but I do want a logical faith. I don't demand that my faith correspond to "scientific logic" as presently conceived, but I do expect it to be consistent throughout.

Modern cosmology, represented by the Big Bang theory, may have its virtues in explaining numerous aspects of the physical, inanimate universe, but that it is a poor model when it comes to explaining everything, and that it leaves too many of our questions unanswered.

This editorial is the Forward for the article, Life: An Evidence of Creation. Published in Origins v. 25, n. 1.

This brief monograph was written to champion the views of a minority in the scientific community. This minority holds that it is possible to accept this ancient report of Earth's creation at face value — and still be a true scientist. But the main purpose is to go a step further. It will be argued that a close examination of life can lead observers to the logical conclusion that life itself is an actual evidence for creation. Published in Origins v. 25, n. 1.

Chapter One of the article, Life: An Evidence for Creation. Published in Origins v. 25, n. 1.

Chapter Two in the article, Life: An Evidence of Creation. Published in Origins v. 25, n. 1.

Chapter Three in the article, Life: An Evidence for Creation. Published in Origins v. 25, n. 1.

Chapter 4 in the article, Life: An Evidence for Creation. Published in Origins v. 25, n. 1.

Chapter 5 in the article, Life: An Evidence for Creation. 1. Everyday experience teaches us that manufactured goods with new functions are made from pre-designed components. 2. Successively more complex levels of our reality with new functions are based on the interactions of simpler forms of matter. This suggests that our complex reality is designed. Published in Origins, v. 25, n. 1.

Newton was an unusual person—absent-minded and generous, sensitive to criticism and modest. He faced a series of psychological crises. He had trouble maintaining good social relations. Yet, he was one of history’s rare giants—a brilliant physicist, a superb astronomer and mathematician, and a natural philosopher.

As a scientist, I frequently find myself taking a polemic stance in defense of creationism. In doing this, I easily lose sight nature as a revealer of its Creator. It is a pleasant change to contemplate my field of scientific interest, looking for insight about the Creator.

Review of the book, Scientific Theology. Published in Origins v. 24, n. 2.

An examination of archaeological evidence, linguistics, and literary traditions shows that a local Mesopotamian river valley flood cannot adequately explain the biblical flood.

An examination of archaeological evidence, linguistics, and literary traditions shows that a local Mesopotamian river valley flood cannot adequately explain the biblical flood.

The seven biblical principles discussed in this article regarding the effect of sin on nature show how the Christian may discern God’s loving character in nature and also the marks of Satan’s activity.

Science and scripture are generally in agreement. Nonetheless, believing scientists will necessarily encounter tension between science and scripture. Ultimately, however, nature is a grand subject for study, and science, guided by scripture, can be an appropriate method for studying it. It is therefore perfectly appropriate, even desirable, for Adventists to participate in science.

While we keep fitting pieces into the puzzle of nature, we should be aware that we are only working on a small corner and that the hope of dropping in the last piece is beyond our grasp.

Frequently press reports describe the finding of bones and fossils of animals that existed millions of years ago. As a Bible-believing Christian and a creationist, my impression is that they can’t be that old. But I’m not sure. How can scientists determine the age of those specimens? How reliable are their dates?