Humanity has been drawn to gaze upon the vast expanses of the heavens long before we could see to the farthest reaches of our galaxy thanks to modern telescopes and other scientific advancements. For the writer of the Psalms, the wonder of the sprawling skies was humbling.

In this video Conversation, N.T. Wright explores how the ancient Jewish audience read Genesis before and up to the time that Jesus arrived. He asserts that readers of Genesis today who focus simply on the number of days of creation and whether there is evidence in the text pointing to an old or new earth—are in effect not reading the complete text.

Knowing something of the man's family background, and having deduced from the conversation that he was deeply committed to evolutionary theory, I was a bit surprised to learn that he was a confessing Christian. And as you might guess, it was not the usual evangelical conversion tale.

BioLogos and Reasons To Believe are Christian non-profit organizations. On January 23, 2010, three scientists and a theologian who support BioLogos met in Washington, DC, with three scientists and a theologian from Reasons To Believe to discuss areas of agreement and disagreement.

In this brief video conversation, Os Guinness, author and founder of the Trinity Forum, suggests that the religious right might have largely created the current culture war that has science and faith as its core antagonists.

Even though the cosmic battle is over, we have not left the creation theme. Think of the exodus as God “creating” a people for himself out of a cosmic battle.

Although the article “Whither Wheaton?” focuses on a particular school at a particular juncture, the issues involved will be familiar to people who have worked or studied at religious institutions of higher education—especially those that require specific creedal commitments of faculty and students.

The goal of proper biblical hermeneutics (interpreting the Bible) is to understand the text through the eyes of its original writers and readers. If we are to believe that “in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth,” we must believe what God means by that proposition within their cultural context.

This fear infecting the Christian community derives from concern that the foundations of the faith, based upon literal interpretations of scripture, are being undermined by the claims of science.

Given the parallels between the cosmology of Genesis and ancient cosmology, are we not wiser to view Genesis as a book of theology and ancient scholarship? I think that the answer must be yes.

On Wednesday evening, Ken Ham, President of Answers in Genesis, and the head of the Creation Museum in Petersburg Kentucky, gave his annual "State of the Nation" address. Since Mr. Ham singles out BioLogos in his speech and expresses grave concerns about what we are trying to do, we have been asked by some of our readers to comment.

The theological debates surrounding the Copernican revolution are fascinating for anyone interested in the perennial problem of faith and science. When Copernicus (1473-1543) proffered his heliocentric theory in the 16th century, it met with sharp resistance both within the Catholic Church and among the Reformers.

In this video conversation, Jeff Schloss makes the observation that when we use the term “evolution”, it is not always exactly clear what we are actually discussing unless we denote the intended usage.

The noted atheist and evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne has referred to BioLogos as a flea that needs to be scratched.

These themes are wonderfully interconnected from Genesis through Exodus: cosmic battle, separation of elements, and deliverance from watery fate. Creation, flood, and exodus are almost versions of the same story: the victory of Yahweh and the salvation of his people.

The method of creation has never been an important question for French evangelicals. The creationist influence grew, however, when American missionaries came to Europe during the Cold War.

People often ask me why it matters so much what they think of evolution. Many parents don’t even want their kids to learn about it—evolution is like pornography, not to be trifled with under any circumstances and certainly not something to be “integrated” with the Christian faith.

As a medical student learning about how the body works, I thought it fascinating to understand how we fight off disease, how the brain responds to stress, how we reproduce, how we perceive vision and memory—the list goes on and on. These, too, are miracles in plain sight.

While the question of evolutionary predisposition toward religious belief may be challenging, Christians need not see it as threatening. In fact, this is actually a Pauline notion that is explored in Romans 1, where Paul claims that it is in mankind’s nature to “know God”.

In the 1980s, I picked up the book The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris. It was the first book I was aware of that seemed to maintain respect for the Bible as God’s Word yet also produced legitimate scientific arguments for its viewpoint. I was hooked.

As a rule, God has not specially revealed in Scripture those things that human beings can figure out for ourselves. Basic facts about electricity, magnetism, gravity, quantum physics and genetics, however interesting, could not have been understood by ancient readers.

I find it strange that the strongest resistance to the view that I present in The Lost World of Genesis One has come from the more conservative proponents of the Framework Hypothesis, which basically arrives at the same bottom line that I do: old earth and room for evolution in theologically qualified terms.

In this brief video, Professor Schloss addresses what he sees as the two primary reasons that evangelical Christians oppose evolutionary theory.

Dr. Walton thinks that I have misunderstood him. After reading his response, I regret to say that I believe he has not understood me.

It is obviously important to spend a lot of time discussing the scientific data. But it is also important to deal with the biblical data. Why? Because our expectations about the Bible affect how we handle the scientific data.

Outside of my family and my personal relationship with God, there is nothing in recent years that has shaped me more profoundly than the Sunday School class I teach. It all began ten years ago, when I was asked to do a three week series on biology and faith.

In most evangelical churches today, God receives regular praise for his work in Creation. But how often are recent scientific discoveries used to stir us up to worship, and to what extent do they inform our theology and stewardship?

Whenever two biblical texts seemed to contradict each other on a “literal” reading, Augustine was quite willing to assume that one or both were figural or allegorical. In a similar way, Augustine found it important to use his interpretive strategies to harmonize Scripture with the accredited results of science.

Unfortunately, there is no single word to my knowledge that could accurately categorize the Genesis Flood account. Parabolic Legend is the best I can do because although the genre is Legend not Parable, like a parable it sets forth a story as history with the purpose of teaching spiritual truth.

Though numerous theologians have found my arguments sound, Poythress does not share that opinion and expressed his questions and reservations in his review of my book in World Magazine, August 29, 2009. I feel it is important to set the record straight for the interested reader.

John Walton offers some important reminders in this video with regard to how we should approach a reading of the book of Genesis. While it is a text that is written for us—in the sense that it was written for all people in all times and places—it was not written to us.

The more we grasp Israel’s understanding of creation, the less likely we will be to expect from the Old Testament things it was never intended to deliver.

So kudos to the producers [of Creation] who gave us the first big screen look at the most controversial scientist in history. And kudos for making Darwin into a sympathetic and fully human character, in contrast to the sinister portraits provided by so many of his anti-evolutionary critics.