The “Cosmogonic” Form of Genesis 1 (Part 1)
In both form and content, then, Genesis 1 reveals that its basic purposes are religious and theological, not scientific or historical.
When non-believers in France or in Spain read what young-earth creationists are writing about evolution, geology, or astrophysics, they frequently conclude that the Bible is at best an interesting fairy tale.
The story of the Genesis Rock reminds us of how biblical and scientific accounts, despite their different purviews and purposes, remain inexorably linked in our understanding of origins.
Collection of the best articles of the past several weeks on science (and faith) from around the web.
Some of the Christian objections to evolutionary creation come from a misunderstanding of what the Bible means when it says “God created”.
When we sit down to read sacred Scripture, we need to develop a rapport with the Bible’s various authors and their worldviews. Otherwise, we will unintentionally demand they communicate in the same manner we do.
At BioLogos, we believe that a serious and faithful reading of Scripture doesn’t call for a recent origin to the earth, and we are persuaded that God has shown us through the natural world he created that his creative work began much earlier.
From a Judeo-Christian perspective, all of these curiosities dovetail into a profoundly meaningful explanation: Being made in God’s image helps to explain our creative and investigative skills, particularly when we consider that God has specially engineered this universe to reveal himself to human beings.
Does Collins show that Evangelicals have turned the corner on the scandal Noll brought to light, or does the continued resistance of the majority of Evangelicals to Collins’s work (about 75% reject human evolution) show that we as a collective group still do not take the life of the mind seriously?
We can understand why man, modern man in particular, would like to mop the floors and bleach the walls. We might not be able to tame reality, but we can tame our perception of reality. We intellectualize in order to feel in control.
“There was no better way, in Boyle’s opinion, to ‘give us so great a Wonder and Veneration’ for God’s wisdom, than ‘by Knowing and Considering the Admirable Contrivance of the Particular Productions of that Immense Wisdom,’ by which he mainly meant the exquisitely fashioned parts of animals both great and small.”
The idea that the story we know is only the very beginning raises a new question in place of Feynman’s objection that Christianity is provincial. Is it presumptuous to claim that in such a grand universe, possibly with intelligent life arising in many places, the redemption and transformation of the entire cosmos starts here, on our pale blue dot?
The world is not full of items stamped “made by God”—the Creator is more subtle than that—but there are two locations where general hints of the divine presence might be expected to be seen most clearly. One is the vast cosmos itself, with its fifteen-billion-year history of evolving development following the big bang. The other is the “thinking reed” of humanity, so insignificant in physical scale but, as Pascal said, superior to all the stars because it alone knows them and itself.
Although committed to the principle of sola Scriptura, Calvin recognized that the Bible would have been written in terms its original recipients would have understood. Calvin inherited the medieval cosmology of his time, a way of viewing the world heavily influenced by Greek thought and one which was about to receive shocks from astronomers such as Copernicus and Galileo. But not just yet.
This series by Denis Alexander reflects on advancements in genomics as well as their theological implications. He focuses on the relatedness of hominin genomes, arguing that this does not interfere with the image of God in humans. The image of God depends more on the capacity for relationship and covenant, not on a list of particular physical qualities. He then discusses why the recent studies of genomics provide “no grounds for genetic determinism.”
In our sixth BioLogos videocast, we take a look at the age of the Earth. We explain four methods scientists have used to determine that age: tree ring, lake varve, radiometric, and seafloor spread dating, and also offer some theological insight on how an old earth can fit with the first chapters of Genesis.
In this talk, originally delivered at the BioLogos President's Circle meeting in October 2012, Dr. John Walton discusses the origin stories of Genesis 1-3, and why their focus on function and archetypes mean there is no Biblical narrative of material origins.
Trinitarian theology and the image of God are important, non-essentialist resources to help us think about the distinct place of humanity in creation.
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.
We've recently been looking at the evidence for an old earth and the long history and vibrancy of this view among evangelical Christians. Today’s post features a preview of the updated Question, “How are the ages of the Earth and universe calculated?" revised by Senior Web Consultant and Writer Deborah Haarsma.