Observers may be led astray by superficial examination of apparent patterns. Two examples are given: the 20-year cycle of U.S. presidents dying in office, and N-rays. Published in Origins v. 11, n. 1.

Readers are invited to submit their reactions to the articles in our journal. Please address contributions to: Origins, Geoscience Research Institute, 11060 Campus St., Loma Linda, California 92350 USA.

It is regrettable that the inquiry into the fundamental question of origins has degenerated to such an emotional level. Attitudes must be improved, and efforts now devoted to name-calling should be redirected towards good scholarship. Published in Origins v. 10, n. 2.

Studying origins from a scientific perspective can be compared with assembling a puzzle when some of the pieces are missing and the overall picture is unknown. To produce a picture at the meaning level can be done only by patterning it after one's world view — the composite of all one's acquired knowledge and experiences. Published in Origins v. 9, n. 2.

A review of the book, Science: Good, Bad and Bogus. The book vigorously attacks anyone whose beliefs are considered pseudoscience. Published in Origins v. 9, 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.

Review of the journal, The Skeptical Inquirer. This journal focuses on debunking ideas considered to be unreliable, but accepts without question a naturalistic foundational basis. Published in Origins v. 9, n. 1.

Creationism can be structured as a biblically-based religious doctrine, or as a method for exploring the world that is open to the possibility of creation. It would be inappropriate for religious creationism to be taught in public schools, but a scientific approach that considers the possibility of a creator need not be excluded. Published in Origins v. 8, n. 2.

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.

The freedom to consider any idea, regardless of its source, is an important basis of academic freedom and the search for truth. This principle should be applied to teaching about origins in the public schools. Published in Origins v. 5, n. 2.

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.

Humans certainly seem to have free will, but how then can God see the future? The statistical nature of quantum theory offers the possibility of unpredictable, chance events. Perhaps God has voluntarily given up some of His ability to see the future in order that free will is possible. Published in Origins v. 4, n. 1.

Bad arguments undermine one's credibility. It is more important to be accurate than to be able to prove one's position. Published in Origins v. 3, n. 2.