Recently, the city buses in my neighborhood gained a new set of brightly-colored advertisements along their sides. In bold letters, they proclaimed that humans and chimpanzees are 98% identical: “Come and meet your relatives.”
To understand how human beings acquire and evaluate knowledge, and how to determine what is true involves consideration of the relationships between data, interpretations, assumptions, and worldviews. All of these contribute to the scholarly search for truth, and none can be safely ignored.
At present, there is an almost absolute exclusion of God from scientific textbooks and journals. Unfortunately, such a closed attitude prevents science from following the data of nature wherever it may lead. Science cannot evaluate evidence for God as long as He is excluded from consideration.
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.
There have been a number of carefully written books and articles arguing that ID has failed to make its case. ID advocates have published responses to these arguments. Which of these lines of argument is most convincing, when compared to what is known about living systems?
Since both reason and revelation have their ultimate source in God, they should be in complete harmony. Yet reason and revelation appear to conflict when attempting to explain the world around us. This article will discuss some of the factors contributing to the conflict between science and faith and suggest ways in which Christians might choose to deal with it.
A review of the book, A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature. Darwinian reductionism dissolves appreciation of the genius behind masterpieces. In the real world, science and the arts each enrich and complement understanding of the other; both, at their best, are part of and point to the same Truth. Published in Origins, n. 61.
The debate raging around ID is not one of scientific fact versus religious faith. The real clash is an ideological one in which scientists are seeking to maintain the intellectual and cultural dominance of the humanist/atheist worldview.
This paper describes three models of the relationship between religion and science, which differ in their view of the nature of theology and how it should or should not interact with science. Published in Origins n. 59.
This article explores the usefulness of the idea of intelligent design in the context of modern (scientific) efforts to understand nature. Among the questions to be considered are whether intelligent design is a necessary inference from the properties of nature, and whether its incorporation into science would improve our ability to explore and understand nature.
It is important in science that authors avoid ad hominem attacks, faulty logic, sloppy handling of data, straw man arguments, switching definitions mid-argument, and using prejudicial definitions and arguments. Published in Origins n. 58.
THE RAINBOW IS ALL IN YOUR HEAD
by Leonard Brand and Ernest SchwabLoma Linda University
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make any sound? This question can be the basis of humorous arguments, perhaps just for the sake of arguing! But when we bring an understanding of the physiology of the human brain and sense organs into the picture, the question becomes…
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.