People hold clearly discordant points of view, and it would be dishonest to ignore the conflict. Yet some voices emphasize the dissonance without any note of harmony to put it in context. Too often, science and faith becomes a hostile battle of worldviews, sounding angry, dissonant chords even among fellow Christians. But civil, gracious dialogue is possible.

The BioLogos Forum is pleased to present this infographic about the relationship of Christianity with science throughout history. It debunks the myth that they have always been in conflict, and it reveals numerous examples of Christians playing a leading role in the development of natural science.

Considering the immense popularity of "Darwin's finches", it is quite surprising to learn that Charles Darwin himself had very little to say about them. In fact, it was actually David Lack, one century later, who conducted the critical research that immortalized the finches in biology textbooks and popular lore.

The BioLogos Forum is pleased to present this infographic about the tools scientists use to determine the age of the Earth. The graphic, titled "How Do We Know the Earth is Old?", uses data compiled and summarized by geology professor Dr. Gregg Davidson.

In this series, Mark H. Mann rejects the polarization of science and faith, claiming that this separation actually causes elements of Gnosticism to rise up among Christian fundamentalists. In reality, secular knowledge is never purely objective, but has and continues to be influenced by particular world views. He calls Christians to reclaim the scientific endeavor as a means for revealing the “Book of Creation,” which ultimately will enable us to read God’s Word more accurately.

On the morning of June 22, 1633 in the hall of the convent of Santa Maria sopra Minvera in Rome, Galileo Galilei knelt before the Lord-Cardinal Inquisitors-General and publicly abjured his false opinion that the sun was the motionless center of the universe.

I find that when many Christians think about the way God created our universe, they often bring a static expectation similar to what we bring to an ordinary statue. It’s as if we assume the physical realm were merely a rigid three-dimensional sculpture, immovable with time.

So why are Christians nervous about evolution and why do we even use a phrase like the ‘e’ word? The word itself has a negative connotation in many groups.

“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.

During the medieval era, as we can see in examples from three different fields—science, theology, and literature—people were interested and engaged. They were not shrouded in darkness and anti-progression, yet for centuries the period was characterized in this way.

In this series, Mark Noll shows that the long-enduring metaphor of warfare between science and dogmatic theology as suggested by White is inaccurate. After introducing Andrew Dickinson White and his views on the science-faith interaction, Noll offers his own counter-argument for philosophical and historical reasons.

In this three part series, geologist Stephen Moshier critiques John MacArthur’s articles on uniformitarianism, while offering an alternative perspective on the principle. He exposes faulty conceptions about and misleading definitions of uniformitarianism. Gregory Bennett further defends the idea of an old earth as Biblical and focuses on the unchanging nature of God. He also discusses the Scriptural doctrines of creation and God’s providence.

The only conclusions in science which are widely accepted are those which are supported by multiple, reinforcing lines of evidence – “all roads must lead to Rome”. If there is even one scientific trajectory that seems to clearly lead off to Peoria instead of Rome, the scientific process demands that the scientist find out why.

Watching the discussion surrounding Francis Collins's National Institutes of Health (NIH) appointment has been enlightening in so many ways. Especially interesting are the arguments by critics such as Sam Harris that someone with faith in God cannot be a good scientist.

What do today’s pastors think about science? What views do they hold on creation and evolution and how strongly do they hold them? How do origins issues impact their ministries? These were just a few of the questions that motivated us at BioLogos to commission a survey of pastors on origins

In this series, Mark Mann explores what many of the great Christian theologians and saints of the Church have said about how God speaks in and through God’s other great book: Nature, or Creation. Listening to figures from the the 2nd to the 18th centuries,Mann proposes three main points: Christians should think of Scripture and Creation as two “books” that should be read together for understanding the fullness of God’s self-revelation; Science is a God-given tool for discerning the handiwork of God in Creation, and is fully compatible with God’s Word revealed in Scripture, and therefore, Christians have nothing to fear from science.

Most people still assume that the Middle Ages were a period entirely benighted by violence, superstition and stagnation. Echoing the enlightenment historian Edward Gibbon, some commentators today even blame Christianity for causing the "Dark Ages".

In this video, Brian McLaren discusses the idea of surrogate arguments, in which a debate over one thing is really a means for arguing something completely different. According to McClaren, the argument over the age of the earth is one such argument.

The BioLogos Foundation, with its commitment to the “integration of science and Christian faith” is one of many signs that the 150-year-old idea of a “warfare” between science and religion is ending.

The label "accommodationist" is being applied as if it were a warning from the FDA that these ideas are not fit for human consumption. But accommodationism, like "decent swordfish," should not be sneered at.