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.
The Intelligent Design movement is crucially important for all Adventist educators, especially for those in science, in the integration of faith and learning in their classrooms.
Trilobites are complex, elaborately segmented forms with jointed appendages and swimmerets, antennae, compound eyes, and cephalized, or head-to-tail, nervous systems.
Origins may sometimes be a contentious issue in science and faith because of differing presuppositions about God's relationship to nature. An argument has been presented here that it is eminently reasonable to believe that direct supernatural action was involved in the origins of the universe, life, and humanity, and that a scientific process restricted to observable physical mechanisms is inadequate to discover and explain our origins.
Seventh-day Adventist schools and colleges were founded by a church concerned to provide an
education that did not alienate its children from their Biblical beliefs and Christian worldview. I believe that Adventist educators must become evangelists for Biblical theism.
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.
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.
If the stranglehold of naturalism can be weakened enough for open discussion of the philosophical issues, the resulting open-minded discussion of design vs. chance will be very beneficial to science. There is a great need of this openness in science. Science should be an open-ended search for truth, rather than a closed system that will not consider certain ideas.
Science/religion issues are important because they have to do with ultimate realities, with whether to "worship" the Creator or the creature (creation), with whether a supreme being is above the creation and can supernaturally intervene.
A collection of short commentaries on scientific papers published in 1998, covering topics such as boat-building by Homo erectus, biogeography of baobab trees, dispersal by hurricane, design in the genetic code, molecular machines, the problem of homology, peppered moths, lateral gene transfer, Antarctic fish hemoglobins, mammoth phylogeny, origin of life, diversity of Ordovician fossils, patterns of diversity in fossils, bryozoan carbonates, fossil insects and plants, fossil record of vertebrate tracks, body size in North American mammals, Precambrian sponges, Cambrian traces of dinoflagellates, fossil flowers, fossil bird taphonomy, decay of shrimps, catastrophic burial of dinosaurs, fossil whales, and Adam, death and sin. 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.
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.
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.
The translation of 1781 as the preposition "with" removes the anomaly of the stars being created on the fourth day of the creation week. It follows that the issue of the creation of the stars is not necessarily a specific topic within the horizon of the creation pericope of Gen 1:1-2:4a.
The picture that emerges from all the data that relate to cosmic chronology appears to be one of dynamic physical processes operating over extended periods of time, during the last 4.5 billion years of which discrete entities of the Solar System have been in existence. This suggests the word "earth" in Genesis 1 may refer to the land surface of the planet, and not to the planet itself. Published in Origins v. 8, n. 1.