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.
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/religion issues are important because they have to do with ultimate realities, with whether to "worship" the Creator or the creature (creation), with whether a supreme being is above the creation and can supernaturally intervene.
A collection of short commentaries on scientific papers published in 1998, covering topics such as boat-building by Homo erectus, biogeography of baobab trees, dispersal by hurricane, design in the genetic code, molecular machines, the problem of homology, peppered moths, lateral gene transfer, Antarctic fish hemoglobins, mammoth phylogeny, origin of life, diversity of Ordovician fossils, patterns of diversity in fossils, bryozoan carbonates, fossil insects and plants, fossil record of vertebrate tracks, body size in North American mammals, Precambrian sponges, Cambrian traces of dinoflagellates, fossil flowers, fossil bird taphonomy, decay of shrimps, catastrophic burial of dinosaurs, fossil whales, and Adam, death and sin. Published in Origins v. 25, n. 2.
A review of the book, Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design. Published in Origins v. 25, n. 2.
Modern cosmology, represented by the Big Bang theory, may have its virtues in explaining numerous aspects of the physical, inanimate universe, but that it is a poor model when it comes to explaining everything, and that it leaves too many of our questions unanswered.
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.
As biological knowledge has increased, the argument for design has been revived and expressed in more sophisticated ways, such as the argument from “irreducible complexity.” The existence of certain features that could not survive in intermediate stages is evidence of a Designer. It is also evidence of a Designer God who created by special intervention—Creation—and not through a continuous process such as evolution.
The doctrine of Creation occupies an important place in Seventh-day Adventist message and mission. The reason for this is twofold: First, Adventists believe in a fiat Creation; and second, they are committed to the proclamation of the three angels’ message of Revelation 14.
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.
Literature Reviews
A review of the book, Darwin's Black Box. Published in Origins v. 23, n. 1.
Long ago, the Psalmist recorded a gem of inspiration: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." Nature calls us to recognize its Creator and nature invites us to probe its mysteries. Within the context of that call and that invitation, there need be no conflict between biblical Christianity and science, between faith and reason. A scientist can indeed be a Christian.
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.
Now is the time to tremble at the words of the God of Israel, particularly in the creation and flood narratives, and not to tremble at the words of Darwin, whose theory is in crisis.
Survival on earth seems bleak as the environmental crisis worsens. Amidst the destruction, how should Adventists respond to the environmental crisis? Creation and incarnation dominate Christian understandings of ecology. However, I think that a third theological theme, the Resurrection, best illuminates the relationship of Christianity to the environment.
The Tasaday was claimed to be a stone age tribe still living in the southern Philippines and recently discovered by anthropologists. Much attention was given to this story, but suspicions were soon aroused that the story was fake, and this indeed turned out to be the case. The lesson is that there is so much pressure for scholars to publish that fraudulent reporting has entered the profession. Published in Origins v. 20, n.1.
