t f p g+ YouTube icon


Bookmark and Share

March 7, 2010 Tags: Worship & Arts

Today's entry was written by the BioLogos Editorial Team. You can read more about what we believe here.

Each Sunday, BioLogos features a worship-oriented blog. Today's post offers reflection on a worship video produced by Highway Video.

"Do you know how God controls the clouds and makes his lightning flash? Do you know how the clouds hang poised, those wonders of him who is perfect in knowledge?" -Job 37:15-16

Science has shown us that clouds are visible masses of water vapor, which are condensed into either droplets or frozen crystals. Their formation and movement are aided through the circulation of air masses. Indeed, the clouds that seemed so mysterious in the book of Job are no longer a mystery to us.

The same can be said of many other aspects of the natural world. Science can tell us how flowers bloom and how the sun rises and sets each day. Science has even begun to give us insight into the processes that may have brought about life itself - processes that seem to go against the idea of a literalist six day interpretation of Genesis. Does such knowledge mean we cannot look upon these natural wonders and experience the same awe of our Creator, as described in the verses above? Is the beauty of nature diminished simply because we better understand it?

Not at all. Our scientific insight into the way the world works should lead us into a deeper sense of awe and admiration for the author of these processes, not a lessened one. And as we begin to understand the laws that underlie God's creation, even deeper mysteries emerge. Why is the universe so well ordered? Why is there something rather than nothing? Such questions lead us deeper still in our understanding of the Creator.

In addition to His Word, God has given us an innate desire to seek him through nature - the book of God's works. We must remember that both faith and science lead to truth about God the creator.

For more worship videos like the one shown above, be sure to visit Highway Video's website.

View the archived discussion of this post

This article is now closed for new comments. The archived comments are shown below.

Page 1 of 1   1
John VanZwieten - #6158

March 8th 2010

I happened to get to see this just before going to Sunday worship this weak.  It was a great primer; thank you.

Charlie - #6214

March 8th 2010

It’s kind of ironic to appreciate a scientific process and attribute it to a creator because that attribution is unscientific.  You can believe a creator did it but scientifically, this is not a valid belief.

Edward T. Babinsk - #6380

March 10th 2010

Speaking of clouds and God’s direct control over them as depicted in the Bible . . .

The Bible says or at least implies in the Psalms that we were each formed in the womb by God directly.  Yet the science of embryology continues to provide evidence that embryological development is as natural a process as cloud formation and weather patterns.

The Bible says that certain people pre-existed in some sense “in the loins” of Patriarchs even long before any female’s eggs were fertilized by male sperm. 

The Bible says the life is in the blood, not in the brain or central nervous system.

The Bible depicts organs such as the bowels, kidneys and heart as directing man, not the brain.

If none of this really means anything, scientifically speaking, they why is it in the Bible?

Charlie - #6418

March 10th 2010


What are you talking about?  I didn’t understand anything you just wrote.  I said attributing something to a creator is unscientific.  I also said it’s ironic that that something is a scientific conclusion. Claiming that a scientific conclusion is attributed to a creator is simply unscientific.

John VanZwieten - #6512

March 11th 2010

Ah Charlie, you continue with your category confusion.  Cloud formation is a _natural_ process, not a “scientific” process.  Science is a method for better understanding that natural process.

Christians believe in a God who created and sustains the universe, including all of nature.  Because this is not a “scientific” belief does not make it an invalid belief.  In fact to say that a religious belief is unscientific is to say pretty much nothing at all.

Charlie - #6522

March 11th 2010


If you read the article and done some research, you’d know clouds are scientifically explained.  It’s science whether you like it or not.

John VanZwieten - #6536

March 11th 2010


If you read the article without a need to poo-poo anything outside science, perhaps those scientifically explained processes could lead you into a greater sense of awe and admiration for the “unscientifically explained” author of those processes.

Charlie - #6539

March 11th 2010

That’s my whole point.  He’s not talking about the unscientifically explained, he’s talking about the scientifically explained and attributing that to a creator.  This attribution is unscientific and therefore kind of ironic. Again, he’s attributing the scientifically explained to a creator.

John VanZwieten - #6543

March 11th 2010


We do that all the time.  Music is scientifically explained, but we attribute it to composers, artists, etc. 

I understand that you’ve been taught that anything explained scientifically cannot be attributed to a creator, and so as more and more is explained scientifically your room for god gets smaller and smaller.  But you should at least admit that’s a worldview not shared by all, and is the antithesis of what BioLogos is about.

Charlie - #6569

March 11th 2010

You agree that attributing something scientific to a creator is itself unscientific then?

John VanZwieten - #6660

March 12th 2010

Is attributing a composition to a composer unscientific?

Charlie - #6669

March 12th 2010

Ug, can you answer my question?  As off topic as your question is to the essay written here I’ll answer it anyway.  Attributing a composition to a composer is not unscientific.  There must be evidence to confirm someone wrote a piece.  Otherwise anyone could claim they wrote it.  Feel free to answer my question.

John VanZwieten - #6721

March 12th 2010

Must there be scientific evidence to attribute a composition to a composer, or will textual evidence suffice?

Charlie - #6862

March 15th 2010

I don’t know what you mean by textual evidence?  Does this mean someone simply wrote down that a composer wrote a piece?  This is scientifically very weak evidence.  Someone can write that I am an NFL player, but that conclusion is not supported scientifically.  Now it doesn’t mean the composer didn’t write it, it just means if that’s the ONLY “evidence” that supports it, it is not supported scientifically.  Also, can you not answer my question?  My question was: Do you agree that attributing something scientific to a creator is itself unscientific?

John VanZwieten - #6877

March 15th 2010

“A-scientific” might work, in the sense that the attribution is supported religiously rather than scientifically.

Page 1 of 1   1