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 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.
The purpose of this study is to explore the complex relations between science and theology and to suggest a viable solution to this group of problems.
In this essay we will seek to find a balanced, practical approach to the relationship between science and God's Word.
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.
Is there a possibility that the matter of faith and faith in matter can have some talking point? What are the aims of Christianity and those of science? Can we conceive of common goals for both? Where lies the final answer to human queries?
Science/religion issues are important because they have to do with ultimate realities, such as whether a supreme being is above the creation and can supernaturally intervene with events such as miracles, an Incarnation, a resurrection, a new birth, or an Advent.
Science and Scripture are built, according to Boyle, on the same epistemological features of revelation, reason, and experience but with different relative contributions from each.
When Christian ethicists reach the same conclusions as Darwinists about our obligations to our fellow humans, it’s time to do some careful thinking. God created us, and He knows the evil of which we are capable. For this reason, He instructed us to treat all humans as worthy of equal dignity and respect.
I don't have much faith in logic as a solution to the world's problems, but I do want a logical faith. I don't demand that my faith correspond to "scientific logic" as presently conceived, but I do expect it to be consistent throughout.
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.
Science and scripture are generally in agreement. Nonetheless, believing scientists will necessarily encounter tension between science and scripture. Ultimately, however, nature is a grand subject for study, and science, guided by scripture, can be an appropriate method for studying it. It is therefore perfectly appropriate, even desirable, for Adventists to participate in science.
While we keep fitting pieces into the puzzle of nature, we should be aware that we are only working on a small corner and that the hope of dropping in the last piece is beyond our grasp.
People in positions of power or influence may take advantage of the ignorance of their listeners or followers and lead them to unwise conclusions or actions. Published in Origins v. 23., n. 1.
Most science is conducted under the philosophical assumption of naturalism. A few scientists are developing an alternative paradigm, here called interventionism (generally called theism). Published in Origins v. 23, n. 1.
Scientific activities can be classified in a number of ways, but the suggestion here is to compare science with a naturalistic presuppostion, science with a creationist presupposition, or "methodological science," meaning inquiry open to either naturalistic or supernaturalistic explanations. Published in Origins v. 22, n. 2.
Two ideas from philosophers of science are discussed: paradigm and falsification. A paradigm is a useful tool for research, but it would be good to test the paradigm occasionally by attempting to falsify seme aspect of its structure. This might be done by considering "the weight of evidence" relating to the paradigm. Published in Origins v. 22, n. 1.
