In spite of some interpretative difficulties with Gen 1:1-3, the main message and intent of the author are clear: God is the Creator of the heavens and earth, i.e., the whole universe and the ultimate source of life. The creation process was done by his special intervention.
To understand how human beings acquire and evaluate knowledge, and how to determine what is true involves consideration of the relationships between data, interpretations, assumptions, and worldviews. All of these contribute to the scholarly search for truth, and none can be safely ignored.
We have no information in Scripture as to how long ago God created the universe as a whole. But there is evidence strongly suggesting that the Creation week described in Genesis was recent, some time in the past several thousand years, and not hundreds of thousands.
The focus of this article is on Genesis 1. The most crucial questions which are persistently raised will be considered, including the relation of v. 1 to the rest of the chapter, the meaning of the terms "deep" (v. 2) and "expanse" (vv. 6-8), and, finally, the creation of light on the first day with the somewhat oblique references to the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day.
While science has been associated with “reason” and thus is expected to be reasonable, creationism has been associated by many with “faith,” and thus seems to be incompatible with anything “reasonable.” But biblical faith, in this case faith in creation, is “reasonable” in the sense that it is not mythical and/or irrational; on the contrary, it presents historical (the Bible is also a historical document), natural and sensible evidence for its claims.
Christianity is a relationship with God and Jesus Christ. It is not an imaginary, contentless relationship, but one based upon knowledge of the “only true God” (John 17:3). If our relationship is with any other deity, it is idolatry. Whether in its Darwinian form that rejects the existence of God, or in its theistic manifestation that claims God as influencer of the evolutionary process, the theory of evolution denies the biblical doctrine of God.
There is a great need for teachers to educate students for evaluation of ideas, problem solving, cultural sensitivity, and interpersonal skills. This educative process will introduce challenging issues and perspectives, some of which may clash with certain students’ personal beliefs. If teachers use appropriate teaching methodologies, these challenges will help their students to understand why there are different perspectives and equip them with the tools to use in evaluating them.
At present, there is an almost absolute exclusion of God from scientific textbooks and journals. Unfortunately, such a closed attitude prevents science from following the data of nature wherever it may lead. Science cannot evaluate evidence for God as long as He is excluded from consideration.
As science develops more complete naturalistic explanations to describe the universe, it may appear that there is less room for God in the picture. And if science ever discovers a “complete” theory, it could be presumed that it would describe a universe without God. I am confident, however, that this conclusion is neither necessary nor valid. Drawing upon examples from physics, my purpose is to show that in developing a more complete picture of the universe, scientists are led to greater evidences for God and His design.
There have been a number of carefully written books and articles arguing that ID has failed to make its case. ID advocates have published responses to these arguments. Which of these lines of argument is most convincing, when compared to what is known about living systems?
Our mission is to prepare people to give account of themselves to a sovereign, yet loving, almighty moral governor and to prepare them for the eschatological restoration of all things which begins at the second coming of Christ in glory. It seems clear that the expulsion of teleology required by Darwinism will be catastrophic to the mission praxis of the Adventist church.
If, in Paradise Regained, it appears that the tree of knowledge has outplayed its peculiar role, that it is not there, or that it is somehow fused to its sister tree, forming an arch over the river of life, we should hesitate to conclude that God will ever be in retreat with respect to the ideology of freedom.
Since both reason and revelation have their ultimate source in God, they should be in complete harmony. Yet reason and revelation appear to conflict when attempting to explain the world around us. This article will discuss some of the factors contributing to the conflict between science and faith and suggest ways in which Christians might choose to deal with it.
The purpose of these notes is twofold: first, to evaluate John H. Sailhamer's argument that Gen 1:14 does not place the creation of the heavenly lights on the fourth day of Creation; and second, to determine whether the term "appointed times" in Gen 1:14 is used to designate annual sacred times or particular rhythms of the natural cycle.