Whenever religion and science have a dispute about some question of fact, religion always loses. So goes a common belief. The implication is that religion should never make any factual claims, as it has no contact with reality. For some religions, such an assertion is irrelevant, as these religions do not make any claims about the physical universe. But for biblical Christianity, such an assertion would be fatal.
Many models have been proposed that tend to blur some of the contrasts between the biblical and naturalistic theories. A number of attempts have been made to develop intermediate models in which elements of the biblical story of creation are mixed with elements of the scientific story of origins. All of these models share the biblical idea that nature is the result of divine purpose and the “scientific” idea of long ages of time, but all suffer from serious scientific problems or are entirely ad hoc and conjectural.
Darwin’s view of God is contrary to the biblical view of God and should give Christians pause before buying into Darwin’s naturalism and attempting to wed it to the supernatural in a theistic evolutionary synthesis.
The goal of this essay is to assess the compatibility of Adventist theology with deep time and the evolutionary reconstruction of the origins of earth history.
The purpose of this article is to examine major interrelated issues that are present in current discussions about the biblical Flood narrative of Gen 6-9.
In the current debate between theology and science, many of the issues seem insoluble and irreconcilable. The conflict has indeed been great at times in my own mind and experience as a student. I would like to share my perspective and journey as a student in both areas.
There is more to design than complexity. I am proposing that it is time to advance beyond an analysis of complexity, fruitful though that has been. We are able to expand the scope of design arguments to include the existence of beauty, which points to design of a different kind.
When all is said and done we are forced to answer the question that Yahweh posed to Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?." We are forced to admit that when it comes to origins, the entire human race is ignorant. The only way to pacify our ignorance is by exercising faith. The question is, “In what will you place your faith?”
Did God create the world and its environs in six days or did He use a natural process through billions of years? Two studies help to answer this question: an examination of methodological naturalism in the light of recent contributions made by the Intelligent Design movement and an examination of Scripture as revelation.
Revelation, rather than reason, is the source of explanation and truth for those who believe in God and his revelation in Scripture. The Bible's words and inner logic, however, still need interpretation. That is why we need to place all Christian theologies, including Adventist theologies, under careful methodological criticism to make certain we understand biblical thinking on its own terms and not from hermeneutical presuppositions defined by philosophy, science, and culture. Only then can we say in practice that the Bible is the foundation of truth.
If microorganisms are indeed ubiquitous and indispensable, it is reasonable to expect to find evidences of their activities in the biblical record. Such an approach may enrich our grasp of the sacred text. This paper intends to show that there is more microbiology in the Bible than meets the eye!
The concept of a monotheistic God, who is the same yesterday, today and forever, not a plurality of capricious gods, suggested the universality, consistency and coherence of His creation. Among the contingently created beings were humans created in God's own image. This led to "the idea that we lesser rational beings might, by virtue of that Godlike rationality, be able to decipher the laws of nature."
Creationism is a robust paradigm, fully capable of undergirding the scientific enterprise in the new millennium. Wider acceptance of creationism by the scientific community in the future will depend, in part, on how well theologians can convince scientists of the priceless value of revealed information.
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.
Animals can change in small or even large ways to adapt to their surroundings, but humans were created as God’s perfect climax to all that had thus far been created.
