We conclude the book with a reflection on what the modern creation story looks like, through biblically informed eyes.

Sometimes Christians and non-Christians alike fall into thinking that God is only active in creation when there are miraculous violations of natural laws.

Childhood collections of leaves or rocks or butterflies have often been gateways into lives of attentiveness to creation, if not full-fledged careers in science—or the arts.

When I was a child growing up in central Africa, I didn’t come across too many PhDs. I assumed that someone with Dr. in front of their name would surely know nearly all there is to know about their subject and a great deal more about the rest of the world of academic thought.

Ian Hutchinson tells us in this video discussion that "New Atheism" is actually a misnomer. In fact, the arguments made by New Atheists are not new at all, but rather extensions of intellectual threads which have existed since the late 19th century.

If science attempts to become a theory of everything, it ironically loses the very matter that it seeks to investigate – and the reason for doing science and even the scientist herself!

What I have said in previous posts bears repeating here: the reason why we are even taking the time to look at how early interpreters handled Genesis is to encourage interpretive self-consciousness and humility on the part of readers today. The opening chapters of Genesis, however pivotal they are for Christian theology, are nevertheless notoriously challenging in some details.

Another element of the Doctrine of Creation is the idea that God’s action in creation parallels His action in salvation and sanctification. Compare Genesis 1 with the description of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt in Exodus 14: 21-22.

I have always appreciated the terminology employed by Dietrich Bonhoeffer as he described life to his friend. He spoke in musical terms, and in so doing ushered in the idea that life cannot be reduced to a note or a monotone.

Ian Barbour—arguably the first true scholar of science-and-religion—identified four ways that science and religion could relate.

The fact that there are so many different metaphors reflects the many facets of evolutionary processes. Christians may find some of these metaphors more palatable than others.

In this video, Daniel Harrell affirms that science is not the only way to pursue truth. Rather, truth happens in a variety of different ways and each one ultimately leads to an understanding of God.

But no rationale is given for why God found Abel’s offering more acceptable. What is especially puzzling is that both types of offerings—animal and agricultural—are commanded of Israel later on (on grain offerings, see for example Leviticus 2). As we have seen so often in these opening chapters of Genesis, there are “gaps” in the text that raise natural questions, then and now.

We’re used to thinking about how God is personally involved in the lives of His people, but we rarely think about how the Trinity is personally involved in creation.

I wonder if the answer might lie not in our study of God but in our praise of Him.

Francis Collins and I make a familiar but under-emphasized theological point: the world cries out for explanation at both a scientific and an emotional level, and the latter must not be reduced to the former.

Christians need to be very careful when trying to derive theological truths from the mechanisms of nature. But it is not all doom and gloom for natural theology.

We are, I trust, united theologically in the main things that are the plain things—that is, around the essentials of the faith which are developed and more fully expressed in the Nicene Creed (AD 381). That God created must unite us as we dialogue over how God created.

Raymond Dart could only conclude that, whatever this creature was, it walked upright and he took the unusual step of calling this new find Australopithecus africanus or “Southern Ape Man from Africa.”

Often forgotten in Christian thinking about creation is the fact that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are intimately involved in creation (Irenaeus famously referred to them as God’s “two hands”).

How can a scientist really believe in miracles? How, or why, does a scientist pray? And how could a physicist possibly believe in the Resurrection of Jesus?

A very important question is what organisms existed before the Cambrian “explosion.” Were there Precambrian precursors, or did the Cambrian explosion really happen in a biological vacuum?

This week we look at an entirely different issue: Why did Cain kill Abel? What was it that “made” him do it? On one level, the story seems clear enough. Nevertheless, answers to these questions—however important they are—are not obvious because the text does not address them specifically.

One of the strongest pieces of evidence in favor of common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees (and other organisms) is a large number of “broken” genes, otherwise known as pseudogenes.

In making unity first, Paul is faithfully reflecting the heart desire of his Great High Priest Jesus as that is reflected in John 17. We Evangelicals and Protestants seem to worry least about what Jesus and Paul worry most—unity and catholicity.

What is it we do when we pray? Is it simply a matter of asking with the hopes of getting?

Once you understand that these Models represent "faith seeking understanding" as to the origins of real human spiritual life, then you can see why I tend to lean more towards the Homo divinus type of model.

"Two challenging languages, one old and wise, one modern and awesome. Two very different accounts of human origins. Can the book of Scripture and the book of nature both be true in the age of science?"

I am pleased to note that my paper has stimulated a good discussion. As is the way with such discussions, the topic has broadened in the process, so here I will simply cherry-pick a few points that seem most pertinent.

Many see the meeting of science and religion as a meeting of ideas. Biologists propose evolution and believers counter with creation. Physicists say "Big Bang" and pastors say "God's handiwork."

“That just doesn’t sound right.” Ever since I was a kid, that was my gut reaction to those well-meaning people in my church and school who told me that despite what many in the sciences were saying, the earth and the entire universe were actually of relatively recent manufacture.

It should be noted that even during the 19th century heyday of natural theology, there was considerable Christian pushback. The more evangelical wing of the church worried that these arguments didn’t put enough emphasis on the Bible or the saving work of Christ.