"Natural" and "Supernatural" are Modern Categories, Not Biblical Ones
When we make distinctions between natural and supernatural activity in Scripture, not only do we push our modern categories into the Bible, but we also limit God’s action.
In none of these cases was Newton inserting God into a “gap” into our knowledge that science would someday fill. Rather, his prior belief in God helped him arrive at attitudes and ideas that have unquestionably advanced our understanding of nature.
Historian Peter Harrison argues that harmony between faith and science is not as simple as it seems, and some versions of "harmony" can do damage to the Christian faith.
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.
Interview with Bill Nye and follow-up thoughts from president Haarsma.
In both form and content, then, Genesis 1 reveals that its basic purposes are religious and theological, not scientific or historical.
Studying the basis of life’s design cannot meaningfully be separated from the character of the One responsible for it. By living in relationship with him through whom all things were created and in whom all things have their being, we experience the purpose and meaning with which this universe is infused.
John Calvin really believed that the sun revolved around the earth, but we shouldn't dismiss the rest of his theology because of this error.
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”.
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.
Do we see God because of design, or do we see design because of God?