When we are seeking answers, it matters a great deal what questions we ask. That seems obvious, but asking the right questions does not always happen automatically. And one of the important questions is “can I expect to know the answer to this question?” I am especially thinking of questions and answers relating to faith and science: questions about origins and geological history. First of all, consider…

Published in Jiří Moskala, ed., Meeting with God on the Mountains: Essays in Honor of Richard M. Davidson (Berrien Springs, MI: Old Testament Department, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Society, Andrews University, 2016), 683-718.

In 1813, French geologist Alexandre Brongniart published a paper on the mineralogical classification of rocks where he introduced the new name “ophiolite” for a suite of dark rocks rich in the mineral serpentine. The name was coined from the Greek words for “snake” and “rock,” which seemed fitting, given the smooth dark green appearance of ophiolites, vaguely reminiscent of snake-skin.

There is no simple clear definition of what life is. This is appropriate as life is a wonderful, complex, beautiful, enigmatic phenomenon that defies any effort to over-simplify it. Still, most people have no difficulty recognizing living things and differentiating them from non-living things.

The scientific method uses inductive reasoning to generate theories that explain data. Deductive reasoning is used to generate testable hypotheses that must be true if a theory is true. When the hypothesis is tested, it may fit well with the new data generated, thus supporting the theory (but not proving it true). If the hypothesis is inconsistent with data, then the theory is inconsistent with data…

There are still some rules that we have to follow if we are to do any science, including biology. The first is that empirical data is the authoritative test of all ideas in science.

Biology is the scientific study of life. But what is “science?” And what is “life?” Most of us use these words all the time and have a general idea of what we mean by them, however, it is common for scientists themselves to not have a clear understanding of what science is and this is not as surprising as it sounds. Philosophers of science struggle to define their own area of study, with different…

The aim of this article is to use the example of Homo naledi to illustrate the distinction between data and interpretations, and to discuss some of the questions a biblical creationist might have in relation to this new discovery.

Suppose we consider science to be a game. What are the rules of the game, and what difference would this approach make? Published in Origins, n.. 64.

However one defines the scientific method, the role of predictions is of significance. A researcher, from his/her knowledge of a topic, makes a prediction of a phenomenon to be found or verified by future research. Published in Origins, n. 64.

The philosophy of Naturalism dominates scientific thinking, for reasons that can be understood from review of the history of scientific thought. This article evaluates the nature and implications of Naturalism. Published in Origins, n. 64.

This article was originally published as a chapter in the book “The Genesis Creation Account and Its Reverberations in the Old Testament."

This article was originally published as a chapter in the book “The Genesis Creation Account and Its Reverberations in the Old Testament."

Science is not a straight pathway to total reality and truth, but involves numerous tentative conclusions, reversals of opinion, and inherent uncertainty. Its utility is not that it is always true, but that it is useful and leads to further discovery.

Occasionally, the scientific community rejects an idea that was previously widely accepted and replaces it with a new idea, which becomes the current consensus. This rapid change in scientific opinion is known as a “scientific revolution.”

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.

Since its establishment in 1863, Adventism has believed in biblical protology, but valued both the positive outcomes of the Enlightenment and Scriptural authority. The purpose of this essay is to trace how Adventists have maintained their belief in biblical protology since the inception of the church.

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…