Some prominent scientists had educators have declared that creation has failed the test of science and has to be discarded. However, ideas that have been discarded are sometimes found to be true. Creation should not be discarded, because there is no better explanation for design in nature and the origin of life. Published in Origins v. 12, n. 1.
A review of the book, The Great Evolution Mystery. Darwinism is entirely inadequate to explain evolution, so some other purely naturalistic mechanism is needed. Published in Origins v. 12, n. 1.
Evolutionists commonly claim creation is unscientific and should be excluded from science. However, scientists study phenomena for which the mechanism is not known, science itself is not clearly defined, and evolutionists use science to try to disprove creation. These points suggest the agenda driving opposition to creation is more philosophical than scientific. Published in Origins v. 11, n. 2.
A review of the book, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories. This is a review of the scientific evidence against the theory of abiogenesis. Published in Origins v. 11, n. 2.
A review of the book, Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science. Many scientists, famous and otherwise, have failed to live up to the highest ideals of good science, in some cases acting fraudulently and deceitfully. Published in Origins v. 11, n. 2.
Life is a property of precisely ordered biopolymers maintaining a non-equilibrium state. The ordering requires information, and this, with the chemical state of non-equilibrium, are conditions not available to natural processes, and point to the existence of a Creator. Published in Origins v. 11, n. 2.
A review of two books on the origin of life: Life Itself, and Evolution from Space. Both books conclude that life is much too complex to have originated on the earth, and must have come from some other part of the universe. Published in Origins v. 10, n. 2.
Axioms, or untestable assumptions, are a necessary part of science. Creationists and evolutionists differ in their axioms, and this leads to conflicts in their interpretations. Published in Origins v. 9, n. 1.
When scientific pronouncements and religious beliefs conflict, what options are open to the Christian? The answer depends upon a host of things, but surely upon how science and religion are perceived. The present essay is confined largely to a consideration of the potential role played by various views of science, though many of the points made might be adapted readily to views of religion as well. Published in Origins v. 9, n. 1.
The way we perceive God, the way we look at the world around us, and the way we understand our own selves all have their roots in the opening verse of Scripture: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Many scientists worry that acknowledging God's activities in nature would hinder scientific advance, but it might make science more exciting and fun if there is always the possibility that God is active in nature. Published in Origins v. 8, n. 1.
It may be an oversimplification, but the separation of evolutionary and creation ideas pivots around the rejection and acceptance of the presence of the miraculous. Published in Origins v. 7, n. 2.
Creationists who want to use the scientific method need to develop and test theories based on creation, and not to be satisfied merely to show that some phenomenon is designed. Published in Origins v. 7, n. 1.
Exclusion of the supernatural by science has restricted theories of origins to purely naturalistic processes. Large numbers of people are looking for broader explanatory approaches that accommodate their own experiences of love, morality and beauty. Published in Originsi v. 7, n. 1.
We should be careful to present our views in truthful and informed ways because it is more important to find truth than to defend our ideas. Published in Origins v. 6, n. 1.
Specialization is a necessary result of our limitations in dealing with the vast amount of information known. Specialization may lead to isolation, which can be at least partially avoided by using multidisciplinary approaches. Published in Origins v. 5, n. 1.
Darwinism has become the dominant paradigm of origins, despite recognition of its deficiency of evidence. The reason for the success of Darwin's theory is more due to sociological and philosophical factors than to scientific evidence. Published in Origins v. 4. n. 2.
The claim that evolution is a "principle of science" is refuted by its lack of prediction, its status as unfalsifiable, and the logical circularity of some of its most important claims. Published in Origins v. 4, n. 1.
The application of the laws of physics and chemistry to the question of the origin of life poses some very basic questions and answers which are evaluated by the author. Published in Origins v. 4, n. 1.
There appears to be no persuasive evidence that the atmosphere has ever differed substantially from its present composition. The presence of oxygen in the earth's original atmosphere would have a dramatic inhibitory effect on the synthesis and accumulation of organic molecules and would virtually rule out the possibility that life arose in this way. Published in Origins v. 3, n. 2.
