When all is said and done we are forced to answer the question that Yahweh posed to Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?." We are forced to admit that when it comes to origins, the entire human race is ignorant. The only way to pacify our ignorance is by exercising faith. The question is, “In what will you place your faith?”
The concept of a monotheistic God, who is the same yesterday, today and forever, not a plurality of capricious gods, suggested the universality, consistency and coherence of His creation. Among the contingently created beings were humans created in God's own image. This led to "the idea that we lesser rational beings might, by virtue of that Godlike rationality, be able to decipher the laws of nature."
In this discussion I propose to present a scientific and a biblical model of origins and explore how these can be brought into harmony with each other. I also hope to show that the differences between the statements made by these two disciplines are largely a result of differing interpretations based on different paradigms.
Acknowledging the "good" that comes from safe and effective medical products, does this "good" justify the use of animals? Does this "good" demand a moral obligation to use animals for the development of such products?
The purpose of this paper is to discover whether the creation week as portrayed in Genesis 1 concerns only this world or the creation of the whole universe. To accomplish this purpose, we will examine contextually Genesis 1 and some of its significant wordings.
Engineers have the distinguished legacy of following in their Creator's footsteps, thinking God's creative and analytical thoughts after Him. Should we not spend some time reflecting on the Master Engineer as we train engineers to work responsibly in this world?
From a Christian perspective, ethical stewardship of our God-given talents and the technologies that arise from them are essential to the growth of science, to fostering trust in science, and to maximizing beneficence amid the clinical applications of science.
How does one account for bird migrations? Why do they migrate at all? How do they know when it’s time to begin the long journey? What guides their flight path and direction? How do they know their destination, and how do they prepare for the trip?
Historians of science have suggested that the Judea-Christian environment of western Europe and the belief in a monotheistic God were responsible for the development of modem science in that culture. Today students can still see that Christianity and physics are compatible and that similar assumptions underlie both.
Zoology and genetics are required courses for biology majors. Both subjects are usually structured around the theme of the theory of evolution. A careful examination of the scientific basis of these disciplines shows that the evolutionary framework doesn't fit with a lot of their fundamental aspects, however. Some of these topics even constitute strong evidence in favor of intelligent design.
Science and Scripture are built, according to Boyle, on the same epistemological features of revelation, reason, and experience but with different relative contributions from each.
During the last decade, several provocative accounts of "morally significant" behavior in animals have been documented on film and in the print media for the general public.
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.
It must be emphasized that Chemistry, like any other area of scientific knowledge, is neither good nor bad, but like everything else that was marred by the entrance of sin, man's ability to manipulate his environment has led to misuse. Instead of giving in to technicism, where technology sets the agenda for life on planet Earth, the ethics of the Bible should be the basis on which we make decisions on the value of life and on the conduct of life.
Horses gave way to automobiles. Rubber to plastics. Cotton to polyester. What about intelligence? Are computers about to replace human intelligence? Is artificial intelligence a threat to our humanness?
This paper suggests that from its beginning, science has been one of those factors informing the Christian understanding of human and Divine causality. We conclude that the new physics suggests a wide-open universe in which the interaction of a Creator-Sustainer god can be postulated with far less confrontation with rational and scientific views of the natural order than was the case with the older Newtonian worldview.
The basic question of the relationship between the mind and brain has intrigued scientists and psychologists for many years. Beyond these considerations are philosophical questions revolving around the mind-brain relationship which challenge the Christian to consider the human brain from the standpoint of the human person, and the person from the standpoint of God's purposes.
The current scientific picture of the origin of the Universe seems at odds with the Genesis account. Is this a serious problem for those who believe the latter to be reliable? Are there ways to harmonize the two? Or should we be looking for alternatives to the so-called Standard Model for the origin of the Universe? Published in Origins v. 19, n. 1.
The purpose of this paper is to explore some of the areas of contact between human personality theory and the Christian understanding of the image of God.
