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.
The integration of Bible and science is an uphill work that requires careful reading of both the Bible and of scientific data. Because no other natural science has traveled so great a distance down an anti-biblical road, no other science requires this corrective procedure more than biology.
Could not God have used the process of natural selection to create living organisms? What evidence might one use to answer that question? Published in Origins v. 25, n. 2.
A review of the book, Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design. Published in Origins v. 25, n. 2.
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.
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.
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, The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory. Published in Origins v. 24, n. 1.
As biological knowledge has increased, the argument for design has been revived and expressed in more sophisticated ways, such as the argument from “irreducible complexity.” The existence of certain features that could not survive in intermediate stages is evidence of a Designer. It is also evidence of a Designer God who created by special intervention—Creation—and not through a continuous process such as evolution.
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.
Some prominent scientists had educators have declared that creation has failed the test of science and has to be discarded. However, ideas that have been discarded are sometimes found to be true. Creation should not be discarded, because there is no better explanation for design in nature and the origin of life. Published in Origins v. 12, n. 1.
NASA is planning to send a satellite to study Jupiter and take measurements of its atmospheric composition. Published in Origins v. 11, n. 1.
A review of the book, God and the Astronomers. Does the fact that the universe had a beginning point to God? Published in Origins v. 8, n. 1.
Creationists who want to use the scientific method need to develop and test theories based on creation, and not to be satisfied merely to show that some phenomenon is designed. Published in Origins v. 7, n. 1.
Recent planetary exploration by unmanned satellites has expanded significantly our solar system. It was hoped that these explorations would unify the concepts regarding the cosmology of the solar system. The reverse has occurred. Published in Origins v. 7, n. 1.
