Early interpreters speculated what might be special about this Garden—special enough to have been off limits after Adam and Eve’s transgression.

Dr. Polkinghorne goes on to look at the first of two meta-questions. These are questions, he says, that arise from science, using scientific tools, but which point in each case to God.

It has been said that the accessibility of the cosmos to mathematical investigation—it’s inordinate reasonableness—is one of its greatest mysteries. But our analytical selves often overlook the miracle that the Creation is sensible in addition to being reasonable.

On the campus of Point Loma Nazarene University, Reverend Dr. John Polkinghorne inspired students and faculty alike in thinking about the interaction between science and the Christian faith.

As much as I love the fertilized soccer green at the foot of the library, I can’t imagine Gordon College without the woods and wetlands. They are our best classrooms.

My perception is that science is a tool, but I fear that far too often we as evangelicals have perceived it as a weapon.

The Garden story is about something that started right and quickly went very wrong. The forbidden fruit was eaten with lasting effects for humanity. But who is to blame, Adam or Eve?

In the first installment of this series, I started to lay out the case that “objective” science is actually shot through with imagery and metaphor.

Our estrangement from God began when early humans disobeyed God’s will and took a path leading away from God. Genes and culture contribute to a sinful world in which all people are born and nurtured, and our impact on our environment distorts the terrestrial creation.

Behe’s argument in this chapter is essentially that even with more than several hundred million years of evolution, this is simply not enough time for the ‘right mutations’ to occur in order for the complexity we see around us to have evolved via ‘random processes’.

Since shared pseudogenes (literally, “false genes”) are such clear indicators of common ancestry, RTB has expended significant effort on discussing pseudogene data in their major works.

In this brief video “Conversation” Denis Alexander explains that common ancestry does not mean that we are descended from apes, rather, it means that we last shared a common ancestor with them roughly 6 million years ago.

The earliest interpreters of the Bible—just like modern ones—where curious about the serpent mentioned in Genesis 3.

In discussions about the relationship between science and faith, often the central issue for believers is how scientific investigation affects our understanding of the trustworthiness of Scripture.

For the last several years, my husband and I have done something I would once have found quite improbable: attending an evangelical Korean church. Improbable because we are neither evangelical—or not in the sense that I understood it when we first went--nor Korean.

The final straw man I want to torch in this series is the claim that science uses evidence and religion uses faith.

The notion that God had to create a world with no suffering or death fails to appreciate a theology of the cross. Since God shared in the dying of creatures to bring about his purpose for creation, it shouldn’t surprise us that he created a world in which death plays a role.

In this post, I will isolate one misleading argument- that “complexes of just three or more different proteins are beyond the edge of evolution”- and present evidence to show that Behe may have been wrong.

In this video “Conversation” John Walton discusses that the account in Genesis 1 is not intended to be an account of material origins.

The problem is well known: Adam (and Eve) did eat of the fruit, but they did not die on that day.

As Peter discovered, our theology is descriptive, not prescriptive; it is our collective and halting attempt to describe in coherent terms what we know of God by what we have seen of His acts and what we have read in His Word

Holly Smith’s work, Haircap Gregarious, is part of her series of large, mixed-media fabric works responding to the intricate connections and pathways between the land and the creatures that live in it.

Reasons to Believe (RTB) is the most influential Old-Earth Creationist organization in North America. While RTB supports a mainstream scientific position on cosmology and the age of the earth, RTB rejects evolutionary biology.

Can I believe in God and accept evolution? That depends on what God you have in mind.

It seems that until new scientific ideas become imminently practical, they find only a narrow audience. But once there are ready connections to daily life, the questions about faith and how it relates to those new scientific ideas eventually follow.

Scientists become fairly comfortable with a certain level of uncertainty within scientific data, notes Kathryn Applegate, but that is not the case for most people, especially where faith is concerned

One can find exactly what Behe is claiming can never happen, laid out in clear detail-- slow, gradual, evolution of complex systems such as the eye.

These kinds of questions were not threatening to ancient interpreters. Quite the opposite: instead they thought of them as invitations by God to engage the text more carefully.

Many contemporary Christians struggle to understand the message of the Old Testament, in the light of challenges from higher criticism and science, not to mention internal issues, like the complicated portrayals of God.