Ecclesiastes, Education, and the Pursuit of Meaning
If you read Ecclesiastes carefully, Solomon is not saying that knowledge and learning are bad; he’s saying they’re incomplete.
Pope Francis's June 2015 encyclical has stirred international conversation on how science and faith come together on the question of ecology and climate change. This short series features several responses from friends of BioLogos, including world-renowned Christian climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe. The series concludes with closing thoughts by BioLogos content manager Jim Stump.
Is Christianity anti-science? Can Christians be good scientists? Is science the only source of true knowledge? Pastor Dave Gustavsen of Jacksonville Chapel addresses these issues.
A short guide to where BioLogos fits in the origins debate.
President Haarsma reflects on our big interview with Bill Nye, and explains how it relates to our mission.
By getting rid of the miracle stories in the Bible, Bultmann and his followers hoped to make the Christian story more palatable to modern man. Although I recognize the emotional weight of this sentiment, I am not convinced that it is an intellectually coherent approach, mainly for reasons of self-consistency.
From 2012: Many secular and many evangelical voices agree on one ‘truism’—that if you are an orthodox Christian with a high view of the authority of the Bible, you cannot believe in evolution in any form at all. New Atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins and creationist writers such as Ken Ham seem to have arrived at consensus on this.
Theology needs science, but science needs theology; there can be no two-state solution.
In this video originally featured in March of 2012, Dr. David Finch, a biologist at New York University, discusses his thoughts on both Creationism and the effects of "new atheists" like Richard Dawkins.
Here are some of the best responses from around the web to David's Barash's controversial editorial about God and Evolution in the New York Times.
New BioLogos content editor Brad Kramer reviews Chapter 1 of “Surprised by Scripture” by NT Wright, and sees Wright’s work as a signpost for the future of the science/faith debate.
Do we see God because of design, or do we see design because of God?
Everyone is so worried about success and getting this or that honorable diploma—the people here are smart and understand many complex things perfectly—but it’s a long distance from the head to the heart.
All of you who do science, all of you who teach or research or you’re involved in engineering or medicine or education, or biology or chemistry or physics—you are doing a noble thing. You are thinking God’s thoughts after him. … You are obeying God’s command given way back in Genesis to exercise dominion, to learn about, to be curious and discover and steward the earth.
The Psalmist is saying that when we walk outside and look up, the heavens are telling us two things about God: they tell us about his glory, and they tell us about what his hands can do.
“Such a paradigm will enable joyful Christ-followers to be wholly engaged in being the presence of hope in our glorious—yet broken—world.”
It’s eminently easy “in God’s name” to demand things of people as a pre-requirement for acceptance by God—things which Christ himself never demanded.
This entry was originally posted on February 13, 2010. While the question of evolutionary predisposition toward religious belief may be challenging, Christians need not see it as threatening. In fact, this is actually a Pauline notion that is explored in Romans 1, where Paul claims that it is in mankind’s nature to “know God”.
I was raised in a household of atheists. My parents were card-carrying members of the American Communist Party, and therefore the atheism in my household was quite close to the militant anti-theism of the so-called “new atheists”.