A review of the book, Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science. Published in Origins, n. 57.

Whenever religion and science have a dispute about some question of fact, religion always loses. So goes a common belief. The implication is that religion should never make any factual claims, as it has no contact with reality. For some religions, such an assertion is irrelevant, as these religions do not make any claims about the physical universe. But for biblical Christianity, such an assertion would be fatal.

Many models have been proposed that tend to blur some of the contrasts between the biblical and naturalistic theories. A number of attempts have been made to develop intermediate models in which elements of the biblical story of creation are mixed with elements of the scientific story of origins. All of these models share the biblical idea that nature is the result of divine purpose and the “scientific” idea of long ages of time, but all suffer from serious scientific problems or are entirely ad hoc and conjectural.

Literature Review A review of the book By Design or By Chance? The Growing Controversy on the Origins of Life in the Universe. Published in Origins n. 58.

A review of the book,Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity. Published in Origins n. 58.

Design in nature can be detected using criteria similar to those for searching for extraterrestrial life, such as purpose, extreme improbability, or specification. Published in Origins n. 56..

In the current debate between theology and science, many of the issues seem insoluble and irreconcilable. The conflict has indeed been great at times in my own mind and experience as a student. I would like to share my perspective and journey as a student in both areas.

There is more to design than complexity. I am proposing that it is time to advance beyond an analysis of complexity, fruitful though that has been. We are able to expand the scope of design arguments to include the existence of beauty, which points to design of a different kind.

Revelation, rather than reason, is the source of explanation and truth for those who believe in God and his revelation in Scripture. The Bible's words and inner logic, however, still need interpretation. That is why we need to place all Christian theologies, including Adventist theologies, under careful methodological criticism to make certain we understand biblical thinking on its own terms and not from hermeneutical presuppositions defined by philosophy, science, and culture. Only then can we say in practice that the Bible is the foundation of truth.

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."

The claim that religion always gives way before the authority of science is discussed and challenged. Published in Origins n. 55.

A collection of short commentaries on scientific papers published in 2003, covering such topics as fish biogeography, chicken teeth, wings of stick insects, evolution as a religion, tests of common ancestry, Black Sea flood, gene duplication, paleoclimate, Permian bacteria alive?, Triassic bird footprints?, historical science, and parallel speciation. Published in Origins n. 55.

A review of the book, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. Published in Origins n. 55.

Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Published in Origins n. 55.

We have much study to do before we will truly understand how to fit together all the evidence into a coherent picture. But I as a Christian and a scientist find a three-step process helpful: trust God's communication to us in Scripture; study carefully and seek to recognize human ideas that we have incorrectly read in between the lines in Scripture; and follow up with careful scientific work.

Everyone believes in someone or something. Even scientists have a belief system. In view of this, Christian believers need not be apologetic about their faith system. Instead, when they approach sciences, they should do so with (1) thoughtful respect for the scientific enterprise when it deals with the strictly empirical; and (2) humility and tolerance for other views with evidentiary support in various areas of historical science.

The creation-evolution debate generally takes place at the level of conclusion without taking into account the nature of the processes through which theologians and scientists arrive at their respective beliefs.

Is the epistemological certainty of evolutionary theory so absolute that Christian theologians should feel rationally compelled to accept its conclusions even if they explicitly contradict the teachings of biblical revelation on the origin of life on our planet?

The molecules of life suggest no need for Christians to become sycophants to materialistic philosophy posing as science. On the contrary, science liberated from the artificial constraints of materialism provides an elegant mechanism for study of the creation and logically points to a wonderful Creator.