Randy Isaac explores whether science can provide insight into the existence of God in this five part post, looking specifically through the lenses of evolution, creationism, and intelligent design. He provides background of each view and a brief history of how people have responded to it. Then, he explains why they each fail “to provide a persuasive answer from science to the question of God.” He concludes with the two-book model in which both science and theology point to God, but do not overlap.
  • Science and the Question of God, Part I

    | Randy Isaac
    Blog Post
    Science and the Question of God, Part I | Randy Isaac

      This series of blogs will examine three schools of thought regarding the possibility of detecting God’s existence through science: Evolutionism, Creationism, and Intelli... Read More >

    Advanced PART 1 of 5
  • Science and the Question of God, Part 2

    Blog Post
    Science and the Question of God, Part 2

      The modern surge of creationism arose in the mid-twentieth century, about a century after Darwin published his ideas.  Read More >

    Advanced PART 2 of 5
  • Science and the Question of God, Part 3

    | Randy Isaac
    Blog Post
    Science and the Question of God, Part 3 | Randy Isaac

    Design lost favor until it was revived in the late 1980s and 1990s when it blossomed into a widely publicized movement known as Intelligent Design (ID). Read More >

    Advanced PART 3 of 5
  • Science and the Question of God, Part 4

    | Randy Isaac
    Blog Post
    Science and the Question of God, Part 4 | Randy Isaac

    The word “information” is used in many different ways, often leading to confusion. It may be helpful to consider three of the categories in which the term is often used. Read More >

    Advanced PART 4 of 5
  • Science and the Question of God, Part 5

    | Randy Isaac
    Blog Post
    Science and the Question of God, Part 5 | Randy Isaac

      Consider a theology that interprets the Word of God with no acknowledgment of nature. The incarnation then makes no sense. Nature cannot be ignored or devalued. Read More >

    Advanced PART 5 of 5