Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Published in Origins n. 55.

We have much study to do before we will truly understand how to fit together all the evidence into a coherent picture. But I as a Christian and a scientist find a three-step process helpful: trust God's communication to us in Scripture; study carefully and seek to recognize human ideas that we have incorrectly read in between the lines in Scripture; and follow up with careful scientific work.

Everyone believes in someone or something. Even scientists have a belief system. In view of this, Christian believers need not be apologetic about their faith system. Instead, when they approach sciences, they should do so with (1) thoughtful respect for the scientific enterprise when it deals with the strictly empirical; and (2) humility and tolerance for other views with evidentiary support in various areas of historical science.

The creation-evolution debate generally takes place at the level of conclusion without taking into account the nature of the processes through which theologians and scientists arrive at their respective beliefs.

Is the epistemological certainty of evolutionary theory so absolute that Christian theologians should feel rationally compelled to accept its conclusions even if they explicitly contradict the teachings of biblical revelation on the origin of life on our planet?

The molecules of life suggest no need for Christians to become sycophants to materialistic philosophy posing as science. On the contrary, science liberated from the artificial constraints of materialism provides an elegant mechanism for study of the creation and logically points to a wonderful Creator.

This paper divides into four sections: (1) Some problems facing evolutionists and biblical creationists. (2) Alternate models for creation held by Bible believing scholars, including views held by some Seventh-day Adventist scholars. (3) The biblical record of creation with a literal week as a necessary basis for Sabbath-keeping. (4) The biblical meaning of the Sabbath as unfolded in biblical history, with its solid basis in the creation account.

Many would say scientists must leave all religious influences out of their scholarly pursuits, because to do otherwise would compromise the search for truth. However, I believe the God of the Bible understands the highest levels of scholarship, not just comforting inspirational themes.

A collection of short commentaries on scientific papers published in 2001, covering topics such as phylogeny of songbirds, theodicy, mutation rates, genetic load, fossilization process, Permian mass extinction, marsupial fossil in Madagascar, Cambrian Explosion, Ediacaran fossils, quality of the fossil record, philosophy of science, radiohalos, speciation in Galapagos finches.

Review of the book, Science and Its Limits. Published in Origins n. 54.

Historical sciences are generally regarded as less rigorous than the experimental sciences, a point that raises objections among scientists in historical disciplines. The discussion of which science is more "scientific" than the others reflects sociological concerns more than interest in scientific discovery. Published in Origins n. 53.

Because it is based on materialism, science implies (at least hypothetically) that everything should be accessible to experiment and empirical validation. Ideally, there shouldn’t be room for faith in a scientific universe, yet the very nature of that universe demands it.

Scientists are fairly confident that they know what they are doing. However, especially in the area of origins, science alone cannot assess the complete database because the scientific approach does not consider the possibility of supernatural involvement in nature and in the history of our Earth. For Christians, the Bible provides a source of information that suggests there is a better way to approach science. Christians expect harmony because they recognize God as the Creator of nature and its scientific “laws.”

Both faith and reason are needed in a complete worldview, and finding a reasonable faith is a continuing process. Reason can suggest to the unbeliever that his worldview doesn't completely fit with reality, and to one who is weighing the evidence that science does not need to stand in the way. For the believer, reason and evidence serve to confirm a faith that is already present.

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.

What kind of relation should exist between science and religion? between nature and revelation? Should it be one of the conflicts or cooperation? The inspired writings present both views.

The story of our origins is a vital part of our understanding of ourselves and our world. Although many details of creation are not well understood, the Genesis story of origins provides the logical foundation for the gospel. Both science and Scripture contain many mysteries, but we can see enough to understand that the creation is the result of intentional, supernatural action by a loving Creator, and we can share this good news with others.

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.

How can a teacher present Christian values to students. Can a Philosophy of Science teacher reveal Christ in an enviromnent of academic pressure, secularism, and an indifference to the Christian worldview?

We should be cautious in seeking, from our human perspective, to place a limit on the person and power of God. We cannot measure or understand God from the standpoint of our inadequacy. Nor can we appreciate fully the role of God in this earth and its history from the limited perspective of our intelligence.