i don’t know whether this answer will satisfy you or not, but let me try. I think the main problem here is making evolution a world view instead of letting it be a merely scientific explanation. If you elevate evolution to an ideology and world view you will automatically end up reducing everything to material and naturalistic processes. It is the view of naturalism that cannot be reconciled with belief in God as the Creator, because everything is reduced to the physical world. Interestingly, i think that people on both sides make the mistake of elevating the theory of evolution to a world view: Hardcore atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens and co. do so in their attempt to rule out the necessity of God, and Creationists do the same thing in their attempt to dismiss evolutionary biology as godless ideology.

To answer your question: i believe that random mutations and God working through these seemingly random processes are not incompatible beliefs at all. Apart from evolution, we hold these kind of beliefs all the time! One of literally innumerable accounts: a German miner was hit by a rock and since then paralyzed. If you are a naturalist, you could argue that this is just a tragic co-incidence. And you can find random natural causes why the rock fell down at that particular moment etc.

This miner ended up being in a wheel chair and was known for his abusive language, for his bitterness and for cursing God. One day, he was wheeled to a bible study group and left there. Through this bible study group he met Christ personally. At the end of his life, he talked to a pastor and gave a remarkable testimony: “I believe the rock falling on my bag and paralyzing me was God’s act of love. I would have never met Christ personally if this didn’t happen.”

Does this answer your question?

This was a great read! But I’m still confused as to how full blown Darwinian evolution can be compatible with a belief in God, especially if it states that Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection is the primary process by which life has evolved. How can God bring purpose to what is by definition a totally unguided, purposeless process of random variation? Aren’t theistic evolutionists twisting Darwin’s actual theory to posit a teleological form of evolution? Anyway, thanks for the read!

I just would like to address one question here. David raised the question, whether Genesis 1-11 is a different kind of narrative as compared to the story of the patriarchs.
Bruce Waltke, in the introduction of his Genesis commentary, makes a very interesting observation. When you look at the first eleven chapters you will find two main narratives: the creation narrative and the flood narrative. The narrative structure of these and the parallels between these two are striking.
A. Creation account, blessing
B. Sin, fall, nakedness, nakedness covered, curse
C. Righteous son Abel has no descendants because he was murdered
D. Descendants of sinful son Cain
E. Descendants of chosen son Seth
F. Ten generations to Noah
G. Brief introduction to Noah

a. Flood (as opposite to creation), blessing
b. Noah’s sin, nakedness, nakedness covered, curse
c. Descendants of Noah’s righteous son Japheth
d. Descendants of Noah’s sinful son Ham
e. Descendants of chosen son Shem
f. Ten generations to Abram
g. Brief introduction to Abram

(this is just off the top of my head). This kind of arrangement is not coincidence. What I see here is masterful, highly artistic narrative told by a genius of an author. Now interestingly, this kind of narrative structure can NOT be found in the rest of the book of Genesis. Instead, when the author proceeds to tell us about the patriarchs, he organized the story of Abram, Jacob and Joseph each in concentric circles, every one of them displaying genial symmetry.
Question: did the author intend to make a purposeful break between the primeval part of Genesis (1-11) and the rest of the book?
Answer: Absolutely!

Does this justify a different exegetical approach to these sections of Genesis?
Maybe.

I’ve been busy to catch up with all the articles since the foundation of this side and I’ve not finished yet. ^^;;

Following the discussion above I can say I’m able to just  lean back, read, think and learn instead of commenting myself because all the thoughts I had regarding ‘creation and evolution/science’ are included and discussed in your great comments. =)
Honestly, I didn’t spend many thoughts to the interpretation of Genesis because it’s quite difficult for me and there are so many  aspects that have to be considered carefully…

But I think I’ve already learned pretty much while reading your inputs.
Not only about the different interpretations and their arguments themselves but also about considerate, open, GOOD  communication (see “What is good communication?”).

THANK YOU ALL very much ~

2) The first lecture by D.A. Carson, Professor at Trinity, is called The God Who Made Everything.

3) Mark Driscoll’s 99 page Genesis booklet.

I have long assumed that the initial chapters of Genesis were intended to depict Adam and Eve as historical figures. Lately I have been reading some Old Testament scholars (e.g., Peter Enns) who claim that the literary  genre of these chapters may not actually be proclaiming the historicity of Adam and Eve. I have not been convinced by them, but I  am willing  to  hear them out. I have met Peter Enns and he’s a committed Christian. I want to respect the faith of committed Christians on all sides. I do realize that non-historicity of Adam and Eve could have many theological ramifications of which I am  only vaguely  aware, and I would not know how to resolve those issues. Are those issues crucial? I do not know. Therefore, with respect to this statement, I confess some ambivalence due to ignorance.

Of course I do not believe that Joseph was Pharoah’s right-hand man in 892,000 BC. If one chooses to interpret “XXX begat YYY” in a general fashion as “YYY is descended from XXX” there is no logical reason  to require  that each “begat” must designate the same time interval.

Having said that, I agree with you that Theistic Evolutionists have some theological issues to wrestle with. That’s why I am not  trying to argue in favor of  TE. (I don’t know nearly as much as Henoch  does, nor have I thought about it much.)  The historicity of Adam is a big issue for TE. The origin of death as well. The origin of death is a tough question for everyone on all sides. The animal world is full of cruelty and death. Fangs and claws etc. which God gave animals to use to eat one another. Was that a result of the Fall? Many people assume so. But were animals immortal before the Fall? I don’t see where  Genesis says that. I don’t see where in Genesis the herbivores get retrofitted with carnivorous gear.  I get the sneaking suspicion that the author of Genesis is sometimes looking down from heaven and shaking his head at us, wondering why we  stupid modern people keep trying to  draw out from his  writings all kinds of information that he never intended to convey.

The Theistic Evolutionary folks must answer the question, Was Adam the first human being, and if so, when did he live? If they say, “a million years ago” then, can you not see the implications that that has for the rest of Genesis and the Bible?

Also, if evolution is true, then how did sin and death come in to the world? Surely, if Humans existed hundreds of thousands of years ago, than Adam must have been the first? And if that is the case, then literally ALL of Genesis (and Exodus for that matter)  must be thrown out as fable or parable at best, because Adam only lived 930 years, and thus ALL subsequent stories about his children and grandchildren could not have happened…The Bible says that the Israelites were in Egypt for 400 years, not 400,000 years!

So, if there was not an actual “Adam” or if Adam lived a million years ago, then by necessity there was no “sin in the garden,” no  flood, no tower of babel, no Abraham or Moses, no Exodus, no Judges, no King David……..UNLESS you say that the first human being came into  existance 6-8 thousand years ago. What other possiblility could there be for the historical reliability  of Genesis or the other history books of the Bible?

Macroevolution provides a rational explanation why from a biological point of view we are not that different from monkeys or from other mammals in general. And though this may sound offensive, it is true. (Again, only from a biological point of view!) This is the reason why we can test HIV vaccines in Rhesus macaques or why mouse models have contributed so much to our understanding of molecular mechanisms of a variety of human diseases.  This is the scientific aspect of macroevolution, which i think is plausible. Evolution becomes very problematic indeed, if you elevate science to a world view and ideology.

Evolution will never be able to explain, why human beings have worth, dignity and value, which is beyond all biology. By definition it cannot because it is nothing but a scientific model. The theological implications of macroevolution you have been talking about are in my opinion not implications of evolution per se, but of naturalism. It is the world view of naturalism that degrades us and reduces us to nothing but matter. Naturalism would say that we are nothing but advanced monkeys, or to put it even more extremely, a bag of biomolecules, biochemical factories, if you will.

This kind of world view is in contrast to what the bible teaches. The bible tells us that we have been made in the image of God, which endows us with worth and human rights. This is an area, which biological science will never be able to assess, the dividing line of science and theology or philosophy.

I think those two are easy to resolve.

First, the Bible, and especially the NT, upholds the God-given dignity of all people. Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female. People are different, but the Bible ends with all nations worshiping at the throne of the Lamb. A Christian who  believes in  macro-evolution would have to accept what the Bible says about the image of God in all people and the work of Jesus to redeem all nations, otherwise he/she is ignoring the obvious. Whatever you think about macro-evolution, it cannot overturn the plain teachings of the Bible about humankind, and macro-evolution does not place you on an inevitable logical  path to racism.

Second, Christ came to redeem all of creation (the kosmos, according to John 3:16). The sin of man, who was made to rule the earth, broke mankind and the whole kosmos. Jesus is working to redeem it all, and he does it by saving mankind. Jesus is fully man. Whatever stock we are made of, he is made of the same stock. Hebrews 2 makes that clear. As he saves humankind, he also redeems the kosmos (Ro 8:22).

You do have a point though. If we dispense with the idea that Adam and Eve were historical figures, that raises lots of difficult issues. That is a question of how to interpret Genesis 2-3. Perhaps Henoch will write about that in the future.

1) Macro-Evolution explains the reason why there are different races of people. Thus, some races must have evolved more quickly than others and are more advanced than others. A  friend of mine jokingly said to me  yesterday, “Well, the Dutch are the tallest people in the world! So we must be the most evolved!” He was joking, but I am not,  how can one possibly escape the racist implications of evolution?  To simply claim that God is guiding the process equally does not answer the question scientifically. From an evolutionary standpoint, why are the pygmies of central  Africa so different in almost every way from the Germans of Berlin?

2) What must be the necessary Christological implications of macro-evolution? Without trying to be too blasphemous here, If man is a glorified Monkey as it were, then what was Jesus Christ? Think of how staggering this view really is! I will try to be careful in my argument here: Hebrews 7:9-10 says about Levi, “One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.” Levi was in the “Loins” of Abraham, who was in the loins of Shem, who was in the loins of Adam, who was in the loins of….a MONKEY! So then, lets turn for a moment from the nature of Christ to his salvific purpose. For whom did Christ come to earth to save? Homo Sapiens only right? Well, if man evolved from primates, I feel bad for the last batch or so of primates who missed the cut off, they must have been pretty close to humanoids by that point!

There are other points of theological contention that arise, but I have to go to work now, I am a plumber so I will probably get a chance to use my monkey wrench today!

@David: oh, absolutely no need to apologize! No offense taken from what you said. i hope i didn’t sound too strong or offensive. (i have tendencies to get passionate in discussions…) :)

Many thanks to Henoch for having the courage to bring this out into the open. He has  revealed that we do not all think alike about Genesis 1, and that this diversity of opinion is perfectly okay. We are, after all, University Bible Fellowship, and that word University means unity-in-diversity. If we  were not willing to tolerate different opinions on nonessentials, then we would have to change our name to Uniformity Bible Fellowship.

@David L: i am not aware of anyone trying to produce “irrefutable, undeniable, absolute evidence that Jesus never rose from the dead” because to the best of my understanding, historical evidences can impossibly fall into that category. (the very reason why i chose such extreme words). I have listened to several debates, where atheists were arguing against the possibility of Jesus’ resurrection. Their arguments cannot hold water and i found the arguments of Christianity to be more persuasive and more plausible. This is the very reason why i try to encourage people to avoid all kinds of “bilnd faith”.

And yes, some arguments for the resurrection of Christ are derived from the bible. But, there are also extra-biblical evidences, such as the rise of the Christian church, or the martyrdom and witness of the first Christians. In this regard, historical, archeological research has done nothing to undermine my faith. In contrary, they support my faith int he resurrection of Jesus. As mentioned before, i am criticizing the world views and ideologies of many scientists but not science itself.

@David Bychkov: i respect your position and i believe that it is derived and motivated by a noble desire to defend the truth of God’s word against contradicting world views. However, i do not believe that there is necessarily a contradiction between what the bible says and evolutionary biology.

Nonetheless, and as i said before, i do not want to make a peripheral issue into a central issue. Being a YEC or a believer in evolution is not decisive for our salvation. But i think that a good and friendly debate of these things could be so helpful. Navigating in these issues with greater care and humility could serve the church well, in my opinion.

Just to mention one example: i remember a young man coming to bible study and to church for quite some time. All of the sudden, he didn’t come to church anymore. So i asked his former bible teacher what happened. She told me that her bible student believed in evolution. When they were studying Genesis she got angry at him and challenged him to deny his belief in evolution because, according to her, it was not compatible with belief in a creator God. This offended him so much that he left and never came back.

I am sure that this has not been a single event in our ministries, which is sad.

The gospel, if rightly presented, will give people a very hard time. I think it is absolutely unnecessary to burden unbelieving people beyond that.

I think Henoch gave a great answer to your question. Please do not feel obligated to stop posting comments and questions. That is why we created this website. The articles we post are just conversation starters.

You posed a hypothetical situation. What would happen if some archeologists “proved” that Jesus never rose. That would be a big deal. Talking about these hypotheticals is always hard because they are, well, so darned hypothetical. My faith is not merely a set of intellectual positions that certain statements are true and others are false. My faith is an ongoing  relationship of trust with persons. I am trusting in  the Father  and his witness through the history of the Jews as recorded in the OT. I am trusting in Jesus and what he said and taught. I am trusting the witness of the Holy Spirit who testified through Jesus’ miracles. I am trusting the apostles who said that they saw the risen Christ and laid down their lives for that belief. I am trusting the witness of countless saints past and present, the evidence of Christ’s work in their lives. And my own personal experiences of God’s work in my life. And then Mr. Archeologist comes along and presents new evidence that Jesus didn’t rise. That would be a big deal. But to weigh his evidence and expert opinion and trust him enough to overturn the trust I have placed in everyone else? That would be a hard sell.

But, as Henoch said,  the resurrection of Christ is the true cornerstone of our faith, the foundation on which everything rests.

You said, “nothing that “science” ever “finds” will be able to overthrow the everlasting Word that stands forever.” That’s an honest statement. But I wonder what you mean by Word. Do you mean Jesus? Or the written text of Scripture? The two are not the same, and confounding them can lead to confusion.

I maintain a high view of Scripture. I believe that it is the divinely inspired, living and authoritative word of God. But I don’t want to rest my faith on a statement about Scripture such as “infallible and inerrant in the original manuscripts.” Statements like that are a modern invention and, in my opinion, a  fundamentalist overreaction to problematic liberal theologies. The Bible testifies to its own authority, but not in those terms. The apostles and early Christians did not rest their faith on statements like that. The early Christians believed the OT as the inspired word of God. But their understanding of Scripture was turned upside down by the resurrection. The resurrection caused them to go back and reinterpret the OT in a radically new light. Their faith was based on the witness of the apostles who saw the risen Christ (1Co 15:1-11). It was based on the work of the Holy Spirit in the church on Pentecost and thereafter (Acts 2). When Jesus ascended to heaven, he did not leave behind a book of writings. He left behind a group of living witnesses who embodied the resurrected Christ in their community. The NT is super important because it is our most direct connection to that apostolic community. But the gospel was the gospel generations  before the books of the OT and NT were compiled and canonized into the present-day Bible.

Ben Toh has often lamented  that evangelicals seem to believe in Father, Son and Holy Scripture rather than Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I have seen that too. The Bible is really, really important. But it is not the object of our worship nor the  center of our faith. Jesus is the object and center.

I have often wondered why the ancient creeds of the early church (Apostles’ and Nicene) did not include statements about the Bible as infallible and inerrant. Church Fathers believed in the authority of Scripture. But perhaps because they were still so socially, culturally and historically close to the apostolic witness, they did not think it necessary. Or perhaps they realized that it is really, really hard to put down into words a statement that captures the essence of how God speaks through Scripture. They knew that the Bible is a messy human document, a product of particular people who lived in particular times. But the Spirit of God lives in that document, in much the same way that God incarnated himself into weak human flesh. How does that work? I don’t exactly know.

Now, to answer your point Henoch, you said, “If there was irrefutable, undeniable, absolute evidence that Jesus never rose from the dead, then i would be a fool to call myself a Christian.” Thats the exact thing that LOTS of  people try to prove all the time! Why dont you believe them? I assume for a couple reasons (correct me if Im wrong): 1) You believe that the Bible’s record  is true,  in terms of the sightings of Jesus after the resurrection, the  empty tomb  etc. 2) You believe that the evidence presented to the contrary is not irrefutable.  And until there was absolutely irrefutable evidence you would refuse to concede, right?

Well, I feel the same way about evolution. Until  there is  irrefutable, undeniable, absolute evidence that Macro-evolution is true, I will believe that it is an invention by an imaginative scientist in the 19th century to explain the origin of species outside of, and in opposition to  the Bible’s record. And even then I will be skeptical because of what I wrote in  the first paragraph! Thanks for putting up with me on this thread!

I believe that by far and large science has been a good “companion” of Christianity. I critique the ideologies and the world views of many scientists who are proponents of evolutionary biology (mainly naturalism).

You proposed a very interesting, provoking thought-experiment. What if scientists presented evidence that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead? John Lennox, in a debate with atheist Michael Shermer was asked, if there was anything that could change his mind and make him not be a Christian anymore. And Lennox replied to this question: “the evidence that Jesus did not rise from the dead.” i think this is a wonderfully honest answer.  If there was irrefutable, undeniable, absolute evidence that Jesus never rose from the dead, then i would be a fool to call myself a Christian. Isn’t this the very point which Paul is making in 1. Corinthians? I believe in the resurrection of Christ because the bible says so. In addition to this, i do believe because there is evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (the empty tomb, the rise of Christianity, the witness of the martyrs, etc. etc)

Another thought concerning bible and truth… we very often argue by saying: “the bible says so. Therefore it’s true.” Haddon Robinson proposed to argue the other way round when we preach. We should show people that something is true and then tell the people: “you see, it is in the bible because it’s true.”

If this scenario actually happened and the vast majority of scientists in the world concurred with each other that the findings were not a hoax…would your faith crumble? Or would you say, “Let God be True and every scientist a liar!”

The reason I think that this is relates to our discussion, is because until a couple hundred years ago, no Christian, let alone person,  on earth believed that man evolved from primates. Why is that? For at least 6000 years, people believed that God made man from the dust of  the earth, was man just simply ignorant all of that time about his true origins? And for that matter,  evolutionary scientists believe that Homo Sapiens have existed for WAY longer than 6000 years right? More like a million years or so?  So what  does that do for the geneology and events  of  Genesis? Certainly it must mean that Adam, Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham…never existed. Now, some might call the fact that the Bible never talks about evolution  an “argument from silence” but I would think that somthing as monumental as people evolving from lower life forms would have come up at some point. (I could imagine, if evolution were true, God saying to his disobedient people, “you live up to your origin, you monkeys!” but he doesnt call people monkeys, he calls them dust, because that is what he made Man from).

Personally, I am not scared of evolution, just as I am not scared of dracula. The Bible is my paradigm of how I judge reality. Someone might call that an anti-intellectual stance but nothing that “science” ever “finds” will be able to overthrow the everlasting Word that stands forever.

But as i said, i am aware of the arguments of proponents of creationists and ID scientists and i honestly can say that i spent time to get acquainted with it, mostly because i used to be one of them! Five years ago, i used to be a ‘hardcore creationist’, claiming that God created everything within seven 24-days. i argued with my friends from research about the impossibility of evolution, telling them that the irreducible complexity of all life forms cannot be explained by random mutations and natural selection.

Again, what changed my mind were the tremendous data sets generated by sequencing the DNA of living organisms. If you look at the sequence data, there are a number of significant problems attached to it that simply do not make ANY sense apart from the theory of evolution (e.g. telomeric sequences in the middle of a human chromosome, the existence of pseudogenes, the remarkable sequence similarities of crucial genes in all organisms, which, after aligning them would form an evolutionary tree etc). I apologize that i won’t go into details here because it’s impossible to explain this understandably in a couple of sentences.

Richard Dawkins was once asked for one convincing proof for evolution. And he mentioned the DNA evidence and criticized creationists for not listening because they don’t want to listen. Believe me, i do not agree with Dawkins too often, but i have to agree with him on this one, because i, myself, have been like this.

As a Christian, i have now two choices in light of the sequencing data evidence: either i believe that God created everything as is or i believe that God created by means of evolutionary processes. First one would imply that God is fooling us, similarly to Joe’s argument: why would he create a universe that seems to be old when it is not? why would he create us with genomes that suggest that evolutionary developments took place when they didn’t? I thus feel more comfortable with the 2nd choice.

Importantly though: these are important issues but not essential issues for our salvation. whereas i clearly state my position and am willing to discuss these with any Christian, i don’t want to give the impression that i would go as far as to make a peripheral issue a central issue and in this way jeopardize the unity of the church. And as you said well: “nobody is perfect.” :)

David L: Yes, I saw Ben Stein’s movie and liked it.  That film was not  an apologetic for ID. It was an  exposé of  bigotry among scientists and  a cry for common sense, openness, and intellectual honesty. These  are in short supply all around, Anti-Christian bigotry is rampant in science and academia; I have witnessed it and experienced it firsthand. But things are not so different in the church. I have seen  Christians of all stripes  stake out positions in science, politics, ministry and Bible study that  are defensive, agenda-driven, narrowminded, bigoted and ideological.  

I really do believe that we have nothing to lose and much to gain by combining rigorous, honest empirical research with rigorous, honest study of Scripture. The two are not as different as some may think. Over the years, I have come to know many renowned scientists. Most are not Christian, as far as I know. They have genuine love for learning and desire for truth. And they are sometimes driven by ideology, ego, pride, shame, loyalty toward friends and animosity toward enemies. They choose sides, line up behind their favorite authority figures, and so on. The same can be said of every Christian I know. The processes by which scientific communities and faith communities achieve common understanding are similar. Both are messy and very human.   Both are most edifying and effective when people submit and listen to one another,  show kindness and respect, put aside ideology and politics and humbly cooperate to seek the truth.

I think the battle between creation and evolution is part of a large culture war that has gone on for well over a century in theology, politics and society at large. It is difficult for people to weigh evidence fairly because,  always in the backs of the minds, they are calculating. If they follow a particular line of evidence or logic too far, they might have to  adopt a position  which is at odds with the prevailing culture of their own  group, jeopardizing their personal relationships etc. And because they have unknowingly bought into the prevailing modernistic view of knowledge (fundamentalists  and liberals alike have bought into  this), they do not know how to process uncertainty and ambiguity. They do not understand how it is possible to maintain faith in the midst of ignorance and doubt.

I was greatly helped by the book  Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship by Newbiggin. I had to read it a few times to understand it. Newbiggin gets behind the culture wars and asks the basic question of epistemology: How do we know what we know? He argues that the distinction between scientific knowledge and religious knowledge is artificial and unbiblical. Knowledge is a unity. Then he shows that all knowledge is ultimately personal. No one is smart enough to look at all the evidence for or against,  say, intelligent design and draw their own conclusions in a vaccuum. Whatever knowledge is presented to us, the act of receiving it is placing ourselves in a relationship of trust with the ones who present it. The receipt of any knowledge about ultimate truth is a transaction with the personal God who made the world and who incarnated himself into it. This book, and other ones by Newbiggin, have been helping me to sort out difficult questions such as
* how to reconcile science and faith
* how to study the Bible and deal with ambiguities such as the ones Henoch has raised
* how to overcome relationship pressures and think independently while maintaining unity
* how to be open to learn from all people, and especially from Christians, including those with whom I disagree
* how to see the work of  the Father, Son  and Holy Spirit happening  in this world all around me

I sense that there are some who have trouble reading  this article  by Henoch because they feel threatened by it, seeing the potential for disagreement and disunity. Is it better to bury this stuff and go back to the same Genesis 1 questions? The ambiguities that Henoch raises have been known to the Church since the beginning. Church Fathers like Augustine knew all about them. They had different opinions about what Genesis 1 meant, yet they all confessed the same Apostles’ Creed and recognized one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. I can be at one with sincere Christians who believe in YEC and with Francis Collins who believes in evolution. Being one with Christians of different positions  is not dishonesty or compromise. It is an honest recognition of the fact that different opinions are out there, that there are many open questions to which we do not have to pretend we know all the answers, and that Christians have many different reasons for holding the views that they do. But that the grace of Jesus covers all.

My faith will not crumble if someone shows me that my present ideas about Genesis 1 could be wrong. My faith will not crumble if I learn that my own church is not perfect and has made big mistakes. My faith will not crumble if Christians whom I loved and trusted turn out to be self-centered and hurt me. My faith will not crumble if two passages of Scripture that describe the same event differ in certain details and I do not know how to reconcile those differences. But my faith will definitely crumble if Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead.

<p>David L, you do know that there are no scientific articles published (at least in prestigious journals) refuting intelligent design, as far as I know.  I do a quick search for “intelligent design” in a well known scientific journal database and it pops up under 130 articles ever published.  A lot of them are also not related to intelligent design itself.  Even Google Scholar pops up only 27,000 hits while p53 (a cancer gene) brings up reaching 800,000 hits.  The far majority of articles published about intelligent design are philosophical in nature.</P><p>The truth is that you can’t actually scientifically study intelligent design apart from philosophy.  Again, this goes into the fact that faith (at least the way I believe it) is not an evidence based belief in the sense of how scientists view evidence.</p><p>That being said, I personally am a proponent of ID because I believe in a Creator God.  However, I do not wholly subscribe to ID as it is known popularly.  Yet at the same time I do believe it is entirely possible as God is Almighty God that he has created the world thusly.  But as far as the scientific observations are, it does not seem to be this way.</P>

Joshua, i am always delighted to hear from you. i remember our time in Korea at the world mission report in 2006 and your faith and devotion and sincerity deeply impressed me.

@Joe: as always… i couldn’t have said it any better. The fact that there is order in the universe and that math makes sense and that complex phenomena in the universe can be described with relatively simple mathematical equations: all of this clearly points to the fact that there is a Creator who wants us to explore and understand his creation.

i should be more thankful for the incredible privilege i have, to do scientific work, to get to know more of the genial creativity of God as revealed in nature and to even be paid for that.

@Wes: i can absolutely understand you. Many a times, i have not been very honest in following where the evidence points to. For instance, whenever i saw an article with the headline “new evidence for evolution” or something similar, i would just ignore it as i was afraid that the article might say something which jeopardizes my faith in God as creator and what the bible says. i have become much more relaxed about this.

I remember studying the molecular mechanism of the ATP Synthase for final exam preparations. What i read was absolute ingenuity and i felt overwhelmed by the resourcefulness of God. i have no problems to believe that God used evolutionary processes to accomplish and fulfill and bring forth what he always had in his mastermind.

You asked for evidence for evolution. Well, that is a very difficult thing to do in a nutshell… =) i am more than happy to discuss that, but i guess that space to talk about these issues here, is somewhat limited. (and also, having paper and pencil at hand can help alot to illustrate things).

I can however refer you to some excellent resources, such as Francis Collin’s book “the language of God”. Collins also gave a very nice talk at the Veritas forum, which has been posted on youtube and can be seen here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjJAWuzno9Y

Like Henoch, I am a scientist. Recently I learned that the foundations of science were laid in the fourth century by a group of Christian theologians known as the Cappadocian Fathers who taught three principles.

First: Because this world is the handiwork of a benevolent and rational God, it is coherent and understandable. The universe operates in a predictable manner, following laws that may be discovered and tested. God himself is not bound by these laws, but he does not intentionally confuse or deceive.

Second: Because creation is distinct from God, it possesses a large degree of autonomy. God and Nature are not identical, and not everything that happens in Nature is God’s will. Therefore, accurate knowledge of Nature is gleaned not only by contemplating the attributes of God, but by careful, empirical study of natural phenomena.

Third: The Incarnation demonstrates that God is willing to use earthly means for human salvation. The Creator became a part of his Creation. He shattered the idea that the material world is unspiritual. By this understanding, Christians came to believe that medicine could be used in a ministry of healing, and that science is not the enemy of faith.

I  think these principles are biblically sound  and they guide me in my convictions. For example, Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptists is an ardent supporter of YEC. He says that, just as God created Adam and Eve as adults, not babies, he created the world with an apparent age, so that despite all the geological and radiological evidence, the world is only a few thousand years old. I don’t buy that, because it violates the first principle (God does not deceive us). And I do not the  idea that giving up YEC starts us down a slippery slope to liberalism and heresy.

I agree with Henoch: All truth is God’s truth. I have no problem following evidence wherever it leads, both in my Bible study and in my scientific work.    As David L has said, science is  evolving all the time. And our understanding of Scripture is also changing and should be growing throughout our lives.  There are limits to what science can teach us. And there are limits to what the Scripture alone  intends to teach us. But each one can inform the other, and we can learn a lot by combining them, if we are not afraid to do so.

I am not anti-science or anti-intellectual, but people must recognize  there is a limit to what science is able to tell us, and I would not be in the least surprised if 20 years from now science has completely debunked its own theory of evolution. You said in your article, “Analysis of genomic DNA sequences strongly suggests that life did in fact  undergo a development from relatively primitive single cells to more complex life forms.” I am curious about this statement. Certainly we can see single cells developing in to more complex life forms in the development of embryos, but of course that is not evolution…could you explain this a little more to lay folk like me?

Thanks for this article, we need to think about these things and have an opinion on them, especially in our times! I personally hold strongly to fiat creationism but I know that there are plenty of dear brothers and sisters who believe in theistic evolution, even some good friends, and like I say to them…nobody’s perfect ;-)