Christianity and the Development of Science: Part 3 – Modern Day Believers
While the science culture may have become less receptive to belief today, researchers of faith still contribute to the scientific community.
While the science culture may have become less receptive to belief today, researchers of faith still contribute to the scientific community.
This second part of a series on Christianity and the Development of Science provides additional examples of well-known past scientists whose study of nature came from a desire to know the Creator better. Many of these men were active Christians and held administrative positions in the church. Their study of the Bible led them to view the world in a way that helped them understand nature.
Warfare and conflict are often what come to mind when thinking about the relationship between science and religion. Some of the best known examples are arguably (Gould) the flat earth, the church's resistance to Galileo and his heliocentric system, Darwinian evolution, and the Scope's trial in Dayton, Tennessee.
What does humans suffering have to do with the doctrine of creation?
It matters greatly what model of earth history we adopt. This explains why Jesus carefully worded the first angel’s message to endorse a special creation worldview and a global flood, both so important to the worship of the Creator. How beautifully, then, the name Seventh-day Adventist testifies to the goodness and worship worthiness of our God, the benevolent Creator, who banishes forever the “former things.”
The Adventist faith will not be itself if it accepts theistic evolution. The active God who created by the word of His mouth, who communicated through the prophets, who lived among us, died in our place, was resurrected and ascended to minister for us, who will return the second time to gather us to Himself, who will resurrect the dead and re-create the new earth, and who will finally destroy sin, cannot be worshiped if He does not exist. This article was originally published on Perspective Digest, v. 18/4.
Several invalid arguments have been attributed to creationists, and should be avoided. Lists of such invalid arguments can be found at various creationist websites, including the following: Creation Ministries International We applaud efforts to improve the arguments used by creationists, and provide the following list of invalid arguments to help in this process.Invalid arguments pertaining to…
In the contemporary scientific academy, as is well-known, the word “creationism” derisively refers to a worldview irrevocably rejected by the secular scientific community in general. What may be less well-known is that there are contrastive worldviews generally subsumed under the term “creationism.”
Martin Luther approached the issue of origins from the basic premise that the Bible is the only safe and reliable source of information on that topic, being superior to the writings of philosophers, theologians, astronomers, and scientists.
It is reasonable to assert that Christianity was an essential component of the culture in which modern science developed because it provided a more encouraging worldview for the investigation of nature than did alternative belief systems.
To consider a much more rapid, catastrophic geological past challenges the naturalistic origin of life and of major categories of life forms. Do we want to know if that naturalistic interpretation is really correct or not? As scientists, are we open to consider what really happened in the past, or are we satisfied to limit our explanations to fit a pre-determined set of assumptions?
An unbiased reading of Genesis 6-8 unquestionably demonstrates that Noah’s flood was universal. Reasons for its denial are located in sources from outside the Scriptures, such as scientific arguments and the mythology of the ancient Near East. Published on Adventist World NAD edition, December 2012, p. 42.
In this article I examine the biblical record, selected evidences of science, and the resources of the Spirit of Prophecy in an attempt to answer some of the basic questions regarding the nature of selected curses proclaimed by God on the earth after the Fall.
We are warned in Romans 1:20 that those who observe God’s handiwork yet do not believe “are without excuse.” Before the artist-Creator we must stand in awe.
I suggest that the level of confidence any one person has in the truth of evolutionary history directly reflects the degree of confidence they have that science is the surest way of finding truth in any topic, and/or the confidence they have in the assumption of naturalism.
There is broad agreement among Christian earth scientists who trust the biblical account that the general aspect of the fossil record is catastrophic—one of destruction and death.
To interpret Genesis 2:17 as announcing natural consequences instead of a juridical penalty ignores the overwhelming biblical evidence of how authors used the phrase in question throughout the Old Testament. As such, the natural consequences interpretation seems to establish human arbiters as higher authorities than the text to determine its truthfulness and relevance.
In discussions of science and faith, one often gets the impression that either science or Scripture can be believed—not both. In the secular world, science is by default seen as the true source of knowledge.
For a large part of the 20th century, there was much discussion about evolution’s difficulty in explaining altruism. This was an important, unsolved problem.
Scientists applying the scientific method while using similar equipment to study the same aspect of nature can and do arrive at different conclusions. Why does this occur?