Creation, evolution, and everything in between have recently become major talking points in the Christian blogosphere. Sadly, though, many people spend far too much time arguing points instead of discussing issues. One of the primary ways we can stop the arguing and start the discussion is by clarifying our terms.

People care far too little about words. I once watched the movie “V is for Vendetta,” and it had one of the greatest quotes about the importance of words that I have ever heard. The main character, V, made this statement in one of his numerous, semantically beautiful, monologues: “words offer a means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.” It is through words that we primarily communicate. Therefore, let us engage in this debate paying strict attention to the words we employ to describe the concepts we discuss. Specifically, I want to clarify four terms which will play an important role in this discussion: science, scientism, evolution, and evolutionism. [...]

In my past posts I have examined the presuppositional nature of the arguments between science and religion. In this post I will examine the various explanations offered by theologians on how to interpret Scripture, specifically Genesis 1-3, in light of modern science. [...]

In the second part of a three part series, Whitney Clayton continues his discussing on the Christian Faith as it relates to modern day science.  Tell us your thoughts below. [...]

Having discussed the source from which God’s love flows—that is God’s essential attribute of love as it is and has been expressed perpetually and eternally, apart from and independent of the created order, within His intratrinitarian Persons (See my first installment to this series)—we can now consider the expressions of the outworking of God’s other-orientation in His self-giving. The first aspect of God’s self-giving love, to which we will now devote our attention, is the providential love of God for all creation.

God “did not, on making the world, leave it to itself, or commit it into other hands; but it is an object of His constant care, and His hand is concerned in all its movements.”[i] God is not deistic; He is, in fact, interested and concerned with what He has created. Creation is not worthless; it is, on the contrary, of special significance to God.

[...]

With the close of the 18^th Century, we began to see a new form of philosophy begin to shape.  Scientific questions were then a form of the current metaphysical branch of philosophy, known as natural philosophy, which sought answers through empirical knowledge (epistemology).  With the development of modern science and the birth of the scientific method, natural philosophy simply became an empirical and experimental activity, unlike the rest of philosophy.  The birth of the scientific method therefore separated metaphysics from natural philosophy, and metaphysics became a sole philosophical enquiry into the non-empirical and non-experimental questions of life and the nature of existence.  As the scientific method has evolved, it has become the popular belief that metaphysics and the scientific method can no longer co-exist together to be reliable.  Herbert Fiegl contended in the 1954 Journal of Philosophical Studies that there are “no philosophical postulates of science.”  He continues to say that the “scientific method can be explicated and justified without metaphysical presuppositions about the order or structure of nature.”[1]   

[...]