The only conclusions in science which are widely accepted are those which are supported by multiple, reinforcing lines of evidence – “all roads must lead to Rome”. If there is even one scientific trajectory that seems to clearly lead off to Peoria instead of Rome, the scientific process demands that the scientist find out why.

Come Thou Fount of every blessing / Tune my heart to sing Thy grace / Streams of mercy, never ceasing / Call for songs of loudest praise / Teach me some melodious sonnet, / Sung by flaming tongues above. / Praise the mount! I'm fixed upon it, / Mount of God's unchanging love.

Few evangelical leaders in the United States, when pressed, would insist that rejecting evolutionary science or climate science is part of the cost of discipleship—especially when leading a person of blue sensibility to faith in Jesus. It’s just that they don’t get the chance to do this very often.

It is almost one year since Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer was released. The book now has 245 reviews on Amazon and was on Amazon’s 2009 best seller list for science books. One year later, it still remains in the top 3,000 overall. By many accounts, this is a highly successful book.

To release the pressure, evangelicals must openly acknowledge the risks of belonging to this movement and seek to discover afresh what it is that holds us together.

In these two brief video Conversations, John Walton discusses the problem of trying to integrate ancient scripture with our modern worldview.

Atrahasis is important to biblical scholars because of it similarity to Genesis 2-9. Both stories share a similar storyline: creation, population growth and rebellion, flood. They also share some important details within that storyline.

Mr. Ham, my issue with you and AiG arises from a pastoral concern. Jesus warned his disciples about religious leaders who "tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulder's".

The theodicy problem has been around forever and is rife with nuance and subtlety. Great philosophers and theologians have explored it at great length, as has every freshman philosophy major in their first course.

O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory above the heavens. From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise because of your enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger.

Earlier this year, Ken Ham singled out Calvin College and one of its professors for what he considered to be inappropriate statements about biblical hermeneutics. One student, a college freshman at the time, Daniel Camacho, wrote a letter to the editor of his school newspaper.

I want to say more about Thomism and ID by addressing the charge that some of us do not take into consideration the central question of whether or not ID arguments are reasonable.

I could not and can not respond to each and every criticism, though I know that virtually all of them were offered with genuine respect. It is my hope that in this brief, and no doubt inadequate, reply that I can replicate my critics’ sincere deference.

My evangelical heart was first exposed to this issue when I sat down for coffee with the only biology graduate student attending our church at the time. I asked Theresa an innocent question: “We have grad students in English, social work, and engineering—why aren’t there more science and biology students in our church?”

In this video, John Walton talks about ancient myth and how we might better understand it if we think about its intended functionality—that is, myths were a way to explain a culture’s origin and universal significance though they lacked the advances of scientific discovery.

Found among the ruins was a Babylonian creation story referred to today as Enuma Elish. How people viewed Genesis would never be the same again.

Common ancestry is an elegant, parsimonious explanation for the pattern of pseudogenes that we observe, yet many Christians reject common ancestry for theological reasons. The challenges for a non-evolutionary explanation of this data, however, are many...

Victorian poet and Jesuit priest Gerard Manley Hopkins was noted for his focus on both religious and natural subjects, often intertwining the two. His sonnet “Pied Beauty” is just one example of Hopkins’ masterful ability to connect the beauty of nature with the wonder of God.

In this video, Os Guinness engages the dialogue about how Christians read scripture, and he points out the common misconception that reading scripture literally is equivalent to reading scripture faithfully.

Many evangelicals find the challenge of modern science not only anti-biblical, but antithetical to the notion of a loving God who called His new creation “very good.”

In this video Conversation, N.T. Wright emphasizes the importance of understanding the context of biblical texts in order to know whether to read them as literal or metaphorical narratives.

One thing that these two stories have in common, though, is their high view of humanity. This distinguishes the biblical creation stories from other stories of the ancient world.

One interesting feature of looking at genomes is that often we can find the mutated remains of once-functional genes. These are called pseudogenes, or “false genes.” Pseudogenes might be part of a shared backstory for two species, or they might crop up independently after two species go their separate ways.

My field is physics. I cannot imagine what it would mean for a layperson to deal with the data of physics and draw their own conclusions.

An incarnational model is neither a recent trend in Christian theology, nor is it considered risky.

Interestingly, I find this sort of cynicism about climate change especially prevalent among Christians. Why is this?

In this video, the Rev. Daniel Harrell discusses how there may be some "middle ground" in the way that Christians understand Adam and Eve. Harrell points out that the historicity of Adam and Eve does not necessarily conflict with science.

Insisting on rigid labels can lead to problems. For example, some think that since Genesis 1 is poetry, it can be relieved of the burden of historicity—while Genesis 2, because it is narrative, is intended as a literal description of historical events.

Let me be clear: I believe God is the Creator of the material universe, and God is not limited to working through the laws He created. But to quickly conclude that life is too complex for science to explain without invoking supernatural intervention does not do justice to the intelligence God gave us.

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!