Taken together, these results suggest that the ability to form new protein-protein interactions may be much easier than Behe has estimated.

I can happily research the natural world and do normal science because science studies the regular ways that God sustains the universe, the “customs of the creator" to use some old-fashioned language. Besides, science derives its power precisely by limiting itself to studying things that are repeatable, or controllable. And you can’t control God.

"In much the same way as earlier generations encountered evolution through a particularly ugly form of Social Darwinism, and not surprisingly then rejected it, many today, it seems, associate it with an amoral, materialist, hopeless, selfish outlook on life, which they are extremely reluctant to countersign and which turns them firmly against the theory."

Even though Southern Baptists are generally more comfortable with ID than we are with theistic evolution, we deeply respect the scientists and theologians who are trying to reconcile their faith with science in a way that is consistent and meaningful. In the end, we believe that what is actually true of the physical world will be perfectly consistent with Scripture.

Our little community of faith in California has never been one to shy away from the critical cultural questions that come up daily in the life of the Christ-follower.

Barkley suggests that material creation is not the end of our understanding (as Naturalists think), but a beginning that unveils the majestic and power of a Creator who loves us.

The Enlightenment view of an “interventionist” God does not accurately reflect a biblical understanding of a Creator who is both transcendent and immanent—fully present and continuously involved in his creation.

In scripture, God is everywhere and always present, always knowing and always acting. There aren’t any phenomena that proceed completely independently of God.

The notion of God’s acting in the world is central to the biblical witness. From the call of Abraham and the Exodus from Egypt, to the birth, ministry, death and raising of Jesus, God is represented as making new things happen.

This is a very sensitive matter for creationist proponents, who tend to take a dim view of any speakers or seminars (such as this series) that present alternatives without openly condemning them.

Most of the Christians I know insure their homes, vehicles, health, and lives—at least to the extent they can afford to do so. Where do we draw the line between putting God to the test and trusting?

While the specific “how” of our being made into the image of God will probably always remain a mystery, the Bible and creeds are clear on the “why” of our creation: we were made to worship the Lord, and be in relation with Him and each other.

Pastor Joseph Barkley of Ecclesia Church extols the greatness of the God who has brought forth incredible works and engaged humankind in relationship. In the first part of the sermon “Over and Above Naturalism,” Barkley admires the factual knowledge unlocked by science, and yet reminds the Church that those material descriptions fail to answer the question of ultimate significance.

The Christian faith begins with Christ, not nature “taken by itself.” Faith in Christ informs reason, and faith and reason work together, finding their end in God and a redeemed view of nature.

The evidence strongly suggests that evolutionary processes can add new components to already complex molecular systems.

Design arguments have been around forever and expressed in various ways. Most of them fall into what we call natural theology, which is the process of inferring something about the existence and nature of God by the inspection of nature.

A God who can create randomness, determine the parameters in which it operates, and use it to achieve certain purposes is not a weak and powerless God. The idea is clever and elegant; the implementation, challenging.

It should not be surprising that John Cage asked the stuff he used to make paintings to take part in the process—to contribute its own identity to the intentional, purposeful, and determined work of creating “based on chance.”

Not only is this gene brand new, it is also essential for survival: if you remove it, the fly dies.

We at BioLogos are convinced that the Bible is the Word of God and that God has created through a gradual, evolutionary process, but we don’t have all of the answers. Therefore, we've launched a program to address theological and philosophical questions commonly voiced by Christians.

If we accept the general validity of the historical sciences, then we cannot avoid asking hard questions about our understanding of the biblical text.

In 1615, Cardinal Bellarmine admitted that if there were “a true demonstration” of the Copernican theory, then we might need to reinterpret some biblical passages. When do we have enough evidence for a scientific conclusion to warrant a re-interpretation of the Bible?

By describing what scientists and mathematicians mean when they speak of something being “random,” mathematician Randall Pruim sets the stage for the question, "Could God use randomness to achieve his purposes?"

When it came time to go to graduate school, one of Owen Gingerich's science professors told him “If you feel a calling to go to astronomy, you should give it a try, because we shouldn’t let atheists take over any particular field.”

The water that we take for granted was forged in the nuclear furnace of a star that exploded in the suburbs of the Milky Way galaxy billions of years ago.

The universe that inspired the psalmist three thousand years ago grows grander as each new generation of astronomers adds yet another layer of understanding.

I now respond directly to Dembski’s analysis of “Darwinism” and how BioLogos differs from the view he critiques.

We think that God created all living organisms, including humans, through the evolutionary process. But acceptance of creation through evolution does not mean that we reject the notion of a miracle-working God. On the contrary...