Because the creation of God bears undeniable evidence of its Author, there are things in nature that may reflect – even though in a very pale way – some of the characteristics of the nature of God. What follows are two analogies from physics that can serve as illustrations for aspects of the Divinity.

Einstein’s general theory of relativity was published in 1915. It again made headlines in 2017 with two major reports about gravitational waves that further confirmed the theory’s last remaining major prediction. On October 3, the detection of gravitational waves from coalescing black holes was awarded a Nobel Prize. On October 16, the observation of correlated gravitational and electromagnetic (light)…

A review of the book "Biological Information: New Perspectives," The papers are all critical of the current neo-Darwinian synthesis. Although most of them are from intelligent design advocates (including a few creationists), two papers are specifically from advocates of self- organizational theory who do not believe in intelligent design. Published in Origins, n. 64.

This article describes evidence for what appears to be physical design on Earth, in the universe, and in the basic laws of nature. Some have used the examples of design as arguments for the God of religion as the intelligent designer; others have explained the design naturalistically. Some pros and cons of the arguments will be outlined along with cautions in using the arguments.

The way in which God interacts with the world, or divine action, has long been a matter of discussion for theists in the philosophy of science, and continues to remain a complex and controversial topic. In recent decades, this question has taken on additional complexity with advances in contemporary physics, namely quantum physics, which posits a random or probabilistic world in contradistinction to the apparently completely deterministic natural world of Isaac Newton.

As science develops more complete naturalistic explanations to describe the universe, it may appear that there is less room for God in the picture. And if science ever discovers a “complete” theory, it could be presumed that it would describe a universe without God. I am confident, however, that this conclusion is neither necessary nor valid. Drawing upon examples from physics, my purpose is to show that in developing a more complete picture of the universe, scientists are led to greater evidences for God and His design.

This paper evaluates a representative sample of the best anti-ID and pro-ID publications and presents a conclusion as to the present state of the evidence and arguments regarding these positions. Published in Origins, n. 63.

A review of the book, The Tinkerer's Accomplice, How Design Emerges from Life Itself. Mutation and selection are not sufficient to explain evolution, and another factor, homeostasis, should also be considered. Published in Origins, n. 62.

How should the Bible and natural science be related, explained, or studied? At least two positions seem possible. On the one hand, there are those who hold that a conservative understanding of the Bible and the findings of science cannot be harmonized. On the other, there are those who believe that conclusions drawn from the two disciplines can be harmonized to fit into one overall view of the world.

In all this, the overriding importance of a correct paradigm is clear. The conclusions scientists draw from their observations of nature change radically when a different paradigm is used. God does make a difference to the Universe! This is no surprise, because He is not only the Creator, but also the Sustainer.

In this discussion I propose to present a scientific and a biblical model of origins and explore how these can be brought into harmony with each other. I also hope to show that the differences between the statements made by these two disciplines are largely a result of differing interpretations based on different paradigms.

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."

Engineers have the distinguished legacy of following in their Creator's footsteps, thinking God's creative and analytical thoughts after Him. Should we not spend some time reflecting on the Master Engineer as we train engineers to work responsibly in this world?

Because it is based on materialism, science implies (at least hypothetically) that everything should be accessible to experiment and empirical validation. Ideally, there shouldn’t be room for faith in a scientific universe, yet the very nature of that universe demands it.

Historians of science have suggested that the Judea-Christian environment of western Europe and the belief in a monotheistic God were responsible for the development of modem science in that culture. Today students can still see that Christianity and physics are compatible and that similar assumptions underlie both.

This analysis of the Heb of Gen 1:2 has sought to find answers to difficult questions. Does Gen 1:2 describe a watery chaos that existed before the Creation? Is there a direct relationship between Gen 1:2 and the mythology called Chaoskampf?

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.

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.

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.

This paper suggests that from its beginning, science has been one of those factors informing the Christian understanding of human and Divine causality. We conclude that the new physics suggests a wide-open universe in which the interaction of a Creator-Sustainer god can be postulated with far less confrontation with rational and scientific views of the natural order than was the case with the older Newtonian worldview.