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.
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.
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.
NASA is planning to send a satellite to study Jupiter and take measurements of its atmospheric composition. Published in Origins v. 11, n. 1.
Does the word "earth" refer a) to the physical material of the earth; b) to the planet earth as a part of our solar system; c) to our earth in the sense of the land upon which life can exist? We will address this question very briefly by reviewing four problems. Published in Origins v. 8, n. 1.
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.
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.
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.
