They all together cry out in unison with a loud voice—“Created!” However, they also, in a subtle, but persuasive whisper, add the all-important qualifying phrase—“…slowly and not in an instant!”

Conspiracy theorists and denialists short-cut the scientific process by relying on anecdote, and by cherry-picking the small number of contrarian scientists and dissenting scientific articles.

Some well-intentioned Evangelicals seek to maintain their particular definition of Biblical inerrancy by denying that the Bible contains this ancient Near Eastern cosmography. They try to explain it away as phenomenal language or poetic license.

Both the arts and sciences are facets of “faith seeking understanding,” and we reject the cultural trend of seeing each field of endeavor—science, the arts, theology, or even Christian ministry—as distinct, autonomous activities divorced from the others.

Dr. Timothy Keller beautifully unravels the first three verses of Genesis 1 in his sermon titled, “Before the Beginning.” From these first verses, three fundamental truths are established.

One always sees Scripture through the lenses of our traditions, our ability to reason, and our experiences as human beings. One of the great strengths of Wesleyanism is in being forthright about the interconnection of these four factors.

Seely shows how the modern scientific bias has guided the translators to render the word for “firmament” (raqia) as “expanse.” Raqia in the Bible consistently means a solid material such as a metal that is hammered out by a craftsman (Ex. 39:3; Isa. 40:19).

Many scientists feel that the ID movement is an attempt to locate gaps in our scientific knowledge and then to presume those gaps can only be filled by intervention of an external intelligence. It is important to note that ID leaders do not view their work this way.

Before we ascend to the heavens, let’s take a look at the Underworld below the earth. The Underworld was a common location of extensive stories about gods and departed souls of men journeying to the depths of the earth.

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral is a spatial metaphor for describing how we gain true theological knowledge. Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience—each has its own quadrant and the four are mutually dependent.

So it must be with us as we bear the imprint of our maker: neither the mundane “stuff” of which we are composed nor the “repeatable” processes by which that stuff was arranged diminish the identity we have with Christ.

The location of heaven being above us may be figurative to our modern cosmology only because we now know it is not literally above us, but it was not figurative to the Biblical writers.

Far from being rare exceptions, multiple lines of genomics evidence point to new structures, functions and information being produced through natural means.

Reconciliation is a much more demanding task than integration because it means an ongoing conversation between us and the unpredictability of how that ongoing conversation may affect each of us and our view of things.

It's no secret that Dr. Hawking does not believe in God, but for some reason, he has decided to become progressively more obnoxious about it.

God’s “immanence” refers to God’s presence in creation. If we were to speak only of the ways in which God is “transcendent” – how He is other than, above, and hidden in creation – we would be left with a god that seems more like an abstract force than a person.

I have always found this dimension of Wesleyanism to be bristling with commonsense in that it recognizes the unavoidable interplay between four factors: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience.

Something else had always haunted me like a nagging pebble in the shoe of my mind, and that was the Galileo affair. There was a time (the 17th century) when brilliant godly Christian theologians and scientists considered the new heliocentric theory as being against the plain teaching of the Bible.

Karl’s journalistic expertise, his sense of style, his high expectations, his sixth sense of what will and won’t work and, eminently, his scintillating writing have been key to the impact of BioLogos.

So, what does Lewis say God is up to in this evolutionary universe? In answering this question, Lewis is at his best.

To watch birds being banded is, for me, to step inside an extraordinary space I recognize as being both an artist’s studio and a scientist’s lab occupied by God the Creator.

I would like to suggest one specific area in which a Calvinist approach to Scripture could, in principle, be employed with great profit in moving forward in how Christians can think through the intersection of evolution and Scripture.

As I studied the ancient Hebrew culture and its surrounding Near Eastern background, I began to see how very different a “plain reading” of a text was to them than a “plain reading” was to me.

Lewis was extremely critical of Evolutionary Naturalism as a total package because Naturalism involves the denial of God, moral relativism, and human devaluation.

But how do we know anything about God? As we go about our daily lives, we can’t converse with God in exactly the same way that we might talk with our families, friends or neighbors. In theological terms, there is a sense in which God is “hidden” to our human senses.

The image of God as an engineer or designer is a creation of 18th century deism, not a biblical image.

We see Calvinist influence beyond Calvinist denominations wherever an intellectual attempt is made to defend inerrancy.

Since Lewis rejects ID in the narrower sense, what does he think about Evolution? Lewis accepted both cosmic and biological evolution as highly confirmed scientific theories.

Providing the crutch for non-believers to lean on is a well-intentioned strategic error that has no benefit and likely does much harm. However, I am even more concerned about something else related to our construction of these crutches.

One of the assumptions underlying this worship project is that the sovereign God provides pointers or signposts to Himself in the natural world.

God is free to create in ways that cannot be predicted, so we should not be astonished that nature sometimes does astonishing things.

What Machen may not have fully appreciated is how the Jewish background of Paul specifically and the New Testament in general can wind up being a theologically reorienting experience. Paying attention to the historical context of Scripture can begin a process of rethinking how Scripture is to be understood.

Lewis knows that such important facts must be included in the complete rational evaluation of any case for an Ultimate Being or Transcendent Intelligence.

I want to lay out some of the key myths and indicate how Coyne’s discussion can help Christians get a more accurate understanding of evolution.

The bottom line is that our growing knowledge of the historical background of the New Testament must affect how we read it.

Lewis’s critical point, in current parlance, is that we must distinguish the appropriate methodological naturalism of science from philosophical naturalism— something ID fails to do.

Poet Kathleen Housley deftly navigates the confluence of science, art, and theology, helping the reader see each of those defining streams of our humanity as emerging from the single source of the Creator.