Dr. Martin Luther King Junior’s legacy lives on in his son. He says here in the video above that he is a bridge builder, as a swarm of journalists try to get him to burn that bridge. I am deeply impressed with admiration for his response.

If you haven’t watched the video yet, please watch it.

We live in a sharply divided nation that is polarized on many issues. Race is just one of them, but race is one of the most visceral and difficult of the issues we face. Dr. King preached a message of love and unity in a world of hatred and disunity. In some ways the world is little different than it was when he was alive.

Continue reading

Race: Building Bridges in a War Torn Country

Universal Design Intuition & Darwin’s Blind Spot

Douglas Axe[i] recently published a book Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed[ii], in which he attempts to show how science, as well as our own experiences and observations, belie a world that is full of design and evidence of a designer. Though he is vilified by hardline New-Darwinists and others who cling to that tired model of life in spite of mounting evidence against it, others have recently acknowledged his contributions to science.[iii]

In the book and elsewhere, Axe highlights a phenomenon that he calls universal design intuition. According to Axe, pre-school age kids on the whole look at the world and attribute it to a God-like designer.

He isn’t alone in this observation, and it isn’t just the advocates of intelligent design who confirm the phenomenon. It has been recognized even by people who are not in favor of intelligent design.

Continue reading

Pluralism: Good or Bad?

Pluralism is a modern buzzword that has turned into a rallying cry in some circles. It shapes education at our universities, and it even shapes our politics. Not everyone ascribes to the value of pluralism, but the notion that we live in a pluralistic society and, therefore, that we should highly value pluralism has become a popular dogma.

It might have been inevitable that we would find ourselves valuing pluralism so highly in this melting pot we call the United States of America. Much of the motivation that drives the current focus on pluralism is good motivation and flows from the freedoms we have long enjoyed. Like any doctrine, however, heresies lurk in the shadows.

Even in the midst of championing pluralism and the unity, opportunity, inclusiveness and tolerance that goes with it, dissension comes from various outlying corners. Not everyone is buying it. The visionaries of a pluralistic ideal can be heard to say something like: “if we can only all get along, the world would be a better place!” But would it?

Continue reading

The Idealization of Science

It’s incredible that in the wake of financial crises and populist movements around the world anyone would wonder whether a glitzy awards gala and lavish prizes would help improve the public’s view of science, yet that is one proposal to boost the public’s opinion in the wake of floundering financial support. […]

via How to make science great again — SixDay Science

Sarah Salviander provides some much needed perspective on the state of science today and its relationship to the American populace. I encourage you to read it before or after my comments. She provides an insider’s perspective, looking out on the audience, wondering where science is going wrong.

As an outsider looking in, I applaud her, not just because she is looking out, but I think she is right.

Continue reading

Do the Bible and Science Come from the Same Author?

The Bible is not a scientific text, and it isn’t meant to be. Yet, we find stunning consistency between the statements about the universe described in the Bible and the facts about the universe revealed by science millennia after the biblical statements were made. In fact, the Bible stands alone among the sacred texts of the world religions in its consistency with modern science, according to Hugh Ross in his book, The Fingerprint of God.

For that reason, Christians (and Jews) should not fear modern science, though many modern scientists may be anti-theistic in their orientation. Modern people of science also should not be ignorant of the Bible. The Bible and science can and do get along. Even if a person ultimately rejects the truths of the Bible, rejecting it from a place of ignorance isn’t very scientific!

From that open-minded perspective, let’s explore some of the things the Bible states about God that are harmonious with what we now know of the universe.[1]

Continue reading

Giving Religion and Science a Chance to Get Along

Christianity stands alone among all the religions of the world in that its religious text is harmonious with the facts about the universe revealed by modern science. That statement may seem incredulous to many who have heard that science and faith are incompatible. Such a sentiment is conveyed by people who don’t understand faith (or the Bible), and they are seemingly confirmed by people of faith who distrust and misunderstand science.

If God is true, His fingerprints should be seen in the universe He created.  So Christians should not be afraid of science. Scientists and people who love science, also, should not be closed-minded about the evidence of God. Close-mindedness should not be characteristic of the scientific community.

Just as many Christians are ignorant of science, many people of science are ignorant of the Bible. As Francis Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute since 1993,[1] concluded when he realized he was ignorant of the claims of faith, dismissing the Bible out of ignorance is not very scientific.

We can’t possibly prove God, which is why many people of science reject the idea of God out of hand. But scientists accept many things that can’t be proven. They accept the concept of beauty, though science cannot tell us what it is; and they love their spouses and children, though the idea of love eludes scientific analysis.

To the extent that God is super natural, He is not susceptible of being measured or quantified by a study of nature. We shouldn’t expect to find God in nature if God created nature, apart from Himself. As the art on a canvas can tell us something about the artist, the natural world can tell us something of the Creator of it, but the art is not the artist.

Just as the art on a canvas is a reflection of the artist, it doesn’t tell the whole story, and different people see different things in the art. Thus, someone can look at the natural world and focus on death, suffering and seeming futility. While, another person can look at the same natural world and see stunning beauty, unimaginable variety of living and nonliving things and the intricately inter-working, complex processes and structures that speak to a mind of awe inspiring magnitude.

In science, we press on when we don’t understand and things don’t make sense. We strive to understand and fill the gaps[2] in our knowledge. The same approach should be used with our understanding of Scripture. A difference between some people of science and some people of faith is that one group has confidence in science alone and one group has confidence in Scripture alone.

Just as a religious person can stray from truth by relying only on Scripture, without the disciplines of grammar, the understanding of ancient Hebrew and culture and, yes, science, people of science can stray from truth without having some understanding of the metaphysical  world of logic, philosophy and, yes, religion.

Just as we don’t (or shouldn’t) approach science with presuppositions, we shouldn’t approach the Bible with presuppositions if we want to understand it on its own terms. A person is bound to have certain doubts (or desires) when approaching any subject. We will tend to look for the evidence that confirms our doubts (or desires), but an honest, more scientific, approach is to be conscious of the doubts (or desires) and willing to set them aside to see where the truth leads.

In that context, there is a friendly challenge awaiting the person of science to examine the Bible and understand it on its own terms. Only then can such a person form an informed opinion of the Bible. The same challenge awaits people of faith. Got, the Creator of the universe, gave us the world, and, by studying it, we can see His handiwork. We should not be closed off to what science reveals.

Some people of science and some people of faith read the Genesis account of creation in a wooden way. For people of science, that wooden understand means that they must reject faith. For people of faith such a wooden understanding means they must reject science. Both are fundamentalists in this interpretation.

The truth lies in between. Many thoughtful and educated Christians today believe as Francis Bacon believed a long time ago: “Science and revelation are like two different books, both made by the same Author.[3] We need not fear that the one will contradict the other.”[4] Such an approach allows us to give ourselves fully over to the truth of science and the truth of Scripture at the same time. As Hugh Ross states in the Fingerprint of God[5], any conflict between Scripture and science is the result of our misreading or misunderstanding of one, or the other or both.

With that introduction, I will endeavor to cite various passages of Scripture that describe the natural world in ways that modern science has affirmed. We should expect to see harmony if nature and the Bible have the same Author.

Note, however, that the Bible is not a scientific text, and it isn’t meant to be. Yet, we find stunning consistency between the statements about the universe described in the Bible and the facts about the universe revealed by science millennia after the biblical statements were made.


[1] Other Voices on PBS, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/collins.html

[2] I hesitated to use the term, “gaps”, knowing the common objection to faith that is simply filling in the gaps in our knowledge with the concept of God, but I shouldn’t be afraid to put it out there. If the concept of God holds true, it will not only fit in the gaps, it will make sense of them and everything else. The truth is, though, that the God of the gaps argument is fatally flawed. It doesn’t settle the question for people of science, and people of faith who do think that way have a fragile understanding of God (and science).

“As philosopher Alvin Plantinga pointed out, the god-of-the-gaps argument assumes something about the theists it is wielded against. It assumes that God is invoked as a kind of ‘large scale hypothesis to explain what cannot be explained otherwise, i.e., naturalistically.’8 If science cannot explain it right now, then God is postulated as the cause. If science can explain it now, God was not the cause. If science cannot explain it now and God is invoked, but later science discovers an explanation, the theist apparently has two choices: (a) acknowledge the scientific version and chalk another item off of God’s ‘to-do’ list, thereby making God’s activity contingent upon science’s inability to explain something naturalistically; or (b) refuse to acknowledge the new science, thereby defending divine action to the detriment of science. Both alternatives present the theist as unscientific in differing degrees.”

[3] See Hunter, C.G., Science’s Blind Spot, Brazos Press, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 15–17, 2007; Mortenson, T., The Great Turning Point, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, pp. 21–22, 2004.

[4] Weinberger, Lael, Whose god? The theological response to the god-of-the-gaps, as published online by Creation Ministries International from the Journal of Creation, April 2008.

[5] Ross, Hugh, The Fingerprint of God, Recent Scientific Discoveries Reveal the Unmistakable Identity of the Creator (Revised) [Paperback] May 17, 2000