/** recent comments widget code */ /** end of recent comments widget code */

Saturday, 28 July 2007

Anabaptists, Mennonites, and Evolution

One aspect of the Evangelical / Evolution dialogue I find fascinating is the differing reactions to evolution within the Evangelical camp (usually just varying degrees of intense opposition). I’ve already posted some brief thoughts on the Christian Reformed Church and Lutherans, and now I’d like to comment on the Anabaptist / Mennonite reaction. (Note: Anabaptists are not really a proper subset of Evangelicalism but there is a significant intersection in my opinion).

The Anabaptist reaction is of particular personal interest to me since my background is thoroughly Mennonite – at least 4 generations on both sides of my family and, I suspect, back to the original Anabaptists during the reformation. Although my family left the Mennonite church when I was six, I grew up in a “Mennonite culture”. Most of the members of our church came from either an Old Order or other conservative Mennonite backgrounds, a majority of the our farming neighbors were some form of Mennonite or Amish, and many of my relatives were (and still are) Old Order Mennonites.

There was a recent interesting post and discussion on Anabaptists and Science and Religion at the Young Anabaptist radicals blog. The author provides his view of the science / faith discussion within the Anabaptist tradition – actually, he comments that there is very little discussion among modern Anabaptists.

In the Anabaptist churches, however, I see little of this discussion. Perhaps it’s the lingering suspicion of higher education from our Anabaptist forebears. Perhaps it’s our emphasis on social justice and discipleship at the expense of other matters. But whatever the reason, there just aren’t very many Mennonites or Brethren out there talking about science and religion.

He then concludes by asking some very interesting questions regarding this lack of discussion.

So, here are my questions for you. Firstly, why is this something that is never talked about in the Mennonite Church? Secondly, do you think that it is something that should be talked about? Is it an unimportant issue? Is this just pointless intellectual hair-splitting that is better saved until we’ve actually solved things like hunger, war, and poverty? Finally, if it is something that we should talk about, is there something distinctly “Anabaptist” that we can bring to this issue?
I’d like to make 2 comments. First, although not necessarily healthily, I think this lack of discussion is much better than the thoroughly unhealthy opposition to the findings of modern science found in the broader evangelical church. The Anabaptist emphasis on orthopraxy (eg. In the area of social action) is something the broader Evangelical church should learn from. (And we are, albeit slowly, from Anabaptist Evangelicals like Ron Sider). This emphasis on orthopraxy does not have to come at the expense of orthodoxy; “right thinking” and “right action” need to be balanced.

Second, I believe there indeed are some “distinctly Anabaptist” ideas that can be brought to the table in the science / faith discussion. Nancey Murphy, an ordained minister in the Church of the Brethren, has done a good job of articulating this perspective. For example, her view on “God’s Nonviolent Direct Action” (see chapter 2 of Religion and Science: God, Evolution, and the Soul) should be required reading for anyone trying to understand divine action in the light of evolution. In my opinion, this Anabaptist-ethic model is very helpful to those of us trying to avoid the “Cosmic Tyrant God” of ID on one hand, and the “Non-existent God” of Richard Dawkins and other metaphysical materialists on the other. In fact, this view of God’s action is the only one, for me, that begins to address the issue of theodicy.

Wednesday, 25 July 2007

Faith and Freedom to ask the Big Questions #1: So old, so vast. So insignificant?

First in a series of Faith/Science questions Cliff Martin presented for discussion.

Why is the Cosmos 13 billion years old, and yet man (seemingly the crowning achievement of Creation) has a history of 10 or 20 thousand years only? Does this say something about the possible purposes of God? Or are the skeptics right when they say Christians are ridiculous for believing we are anything special in light of our extremely short blip on the radar screen of cosmic history?

Also, why is the Universe so incredibly vast? If man is central to what God is doing in the cosmos, why is our part of the cosmos so extremely infinitesimal? Does this suggest anything about the plan and process of Creation, and the purpose of the cosmos? Or are the skeptics again correct in saying that Christians ignore this salient fact and are ridiculously self-important.

Tuesday, 24 July 2007

Faith and Freedom to ask the Big Questions: Introduction

Trust is at the heart of any good parent / child relationship. However, this trust does not preclude questions. If anything it assumes there will be questions – lots of questions. As a parent, we long to have our children take an interest in the world around them, in our own lives, and ultimately in finding their own purpose.

I believe this is also true of our relationship with God. At the heart of a good relationship with God is trust, trust that his revelation in the incarnation and in the scriptures is authentic, that this authentic past revelation leads to authentic hope for the future, and maybe most importantly, that we act on this trust in the present. However, I believe he also welcomes our questions about his revelations, his creation, and the implications for our lives. An unquestioning attitude, a “just follow the rules” attitude is for slaves. We are not slaves, but children of God, joint heirs with Christ. Heirs are never disinterested. And that’s why asking questions is not only OK, but also what God desires. Part of our mandate as stewards of God’s creation is to understand it.

A new reader of this blog, Cliff Martin (no known relation), provided me with a list of “Big” questions regarding science & faith, including those to do with evolution – questions he has grappled with for some time. He comments:

In our time, science is opening many portals for viewing Creation that were not available to generations of believers that have gone before. We understand our universe much better than most of those who are responsible for traditionally accepted Christian theology. While we cannot ask science to give us ultimate answers regarding the Creator, or his purposes in Creation, science can at least help us to frame the right questions. Questions that never would have occurred to Christian thinkers throughout most of the Church age. Such questions, and a renewed study of the Scriptures in light of them, might just help us to develop theological understandings that are richer, more satisfying, and closer to Truth. Over the centuries, the Church has been guilty of lagging woefully behind science, sometimes playing catch up for hundreds of years. Isn't it time we begin to give heed to science as it unfolds, and allow it to adjust the parameters of our search for truth?

The questions he poses are excellent questions, and include many of the same ones I have either grappled with, or continue to grapple with. I think these are appropriate questions to share on this blog. Over the next few months I’ll be posting Cliff’s questions here. They should stimulate a very interesting dialog – if nothing else between Cliff and myself.

Note that neither of us has satisfactory answers to all of these questions, not even necessarily satisfactory to ourselves. Do not expect a simple catechism question and answer session. However, I believe asking these questions together, discussing them together, providing tentative answers together, and at times, conceding that there is no satisfactory answer together is worthwhile. This, I believe, is a necessary function of the Church, the community of Christians, the body of Christ. These are not questions we should answer alone. Sometimes, maybe most of the time, God provides answers to his children only through other children. As always, you are welcome to join the conversation.

Friday, 20 July 2007

Lutherans and Evolution

Back in May I commented that, among Evangelicals, those in the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) are less likely to find evolution challenging to their faith. I speculated that this was because they had few ties with the early 20th century fundamentalist / modernist controversy. Seems that this is also true of the Lutheran church. Lars Hammar, a Lutheran pastor in Arizona, writes a very nice article on evolution here. He states:

Historically, Lutherans never got into the whole evolution-creationism debate. We avoided it, just didn’t enter into it at all. As a result, some of our members have more conservative views, some more liberal, but little in the way of an official church stance. Anecdotally, I would say that most Evangelical Lutherans (what we are at Our Saviour’s) believe in evolution (if you can say that evolution is something you believe in, and not something you accept as fact or deny). Definitely most Lutheran pastors and church leaders accept evolution.

I suspect part of the reason for not entering the debate is that during the crucial moment (early 20th century) the Lutheran church probably still looked to Europe (Germany, Scandinavia) for much of its theological leadership. Whereas denominations like the Baptists and Presbyterians had been completely assimilated to American culture by the early 20th century, the Lutherans and the CRC (Dutch) were not.

As a side note, George Murphy, one of my favorite science-theology-interaction writers, is also a Lutheran pastor. You can check out his website at http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/.

Tuesday, 17 July 2007

Made in God’s Image or Evolved from Apes?

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1: 26, 27

For many Evangelicals, human evolution simply cannot be reconciled with our creation in the image of God. Evolution seems theologically dangerous because it implies a close biological connection between humans and animals. An acceptance of evolution, it is feared, leads inevitably to the acceptance of a shared spiritual nature between humans and animals. Thus it logically follows that we must grant a spiritual nature to animals, or we must conclude that humans do not have a spiritual dimension. Neither of these positions is compatible with orthodox Christianity. However, I do not believe that this dichotomy is warranted by the biblical account of man’s creation in the image of God.

In facing this potential dilemma, it would be helpful if we had a clear understanding of what exactly “The Image” means in Genesis 1:27. Unfortunately, its meaning is somewhat ambiguous. That it is a unique quality given by God to man is clear; what that quality entails is unclear as biblical interpreters do not agree on its meaning. There are three interpretations that are most common. First, it could mean the mental and spiritual faculties that humans share with God, for example, reason, free will, and self-consciousness. Second, it could mean God’s divine representative on earth. This interpretation is supported by the mandate to care for God’s creation recorded in Gen 1:26 & 28. Third, it could mean man’s ability to relate to God. For myself, any of these interpretations (or maybe all of them) could be correct.

If the exact meaning of the word image in Gen 1:27 is unclear, what “the image” describes is not. The image describes what we as humans are; it does not describe how we were created. It says absolutely nothing about the process of God bestowing man with unique qualities and a unique position on earth. The entire process is described in a single word: created. Thus the writer of Genesis is clear on “who” brought the process about, and for what purpose, but is unconcerned with the materials (if any) that were used to create.

The second account of the creation of man (Gen 2:7) does provide some additional details to this creation. Man is shaped from dust. Just as God knits or shapes us in our mother’s wombs (Ps 139), so God shaped the first man. Man is not created out of thin air, in a puff of magic, but is lovingly moulded from common, useless dirt. So since the bible describes our original material as being dust, why should a creation process that includes intermediary animal states be theologically dangerous? Original material is not a problem with God whether for a physical creation or for a spiritual one.

I believe that evangelical opposition to evolution from pre-existing animals has just as much to do with pride as with a desire to defend traditional interpretations of scripture. We focus more on our spiritual characteristics than our creaturely characteristics. In other words, we view ourselves as closer to God (because we share a spiritual dimension) than to animals (with whom we share the characteristic of being creatures of God). This is the same type of pride that Moses warned the Israelites about:
“It was not because you were more numerous than any other people that the LORD set his heart on you and chose you--for you were the fewest of all peoples. It was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath that he swore to your ancestors, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt (Deut. 7:7-8).

The Israelites were “The Chosen” because God chose them, not for any inherent quality they possessed. And this bundle of molecules, genes, cells, and organs we call ourselves is the image of God because he bestowed it upon us, not because it is a particularly noteworthy bunch of molecules, genes, cells, or organs. As Jesus indicated, God could easily have called on other parts of creation to serve and worship him. (Luke 3:8, Luke 19:40).

Although biological evolution does not, in my opinion, challenge traditional interpretations of who we are as humans, our relationship to God, and our mandate within God’s creation, it certainly does challenge traditional notions of how this relationship with God came about, how the relationship was damaged, and possibly, how the spiritual & physical interact.
  • If modern Homo sapiens gradually developed from earlier hominids over hundreds of thousands of years, at what point was God’s Image bestowed on humanity? And does this imply that the “first human” had non-human parents who did not share the image of God?
  • At what point does “sin” enter the world? At what point does violence change from basic animal survival instincts to breaking God’s moral law?
  • With new evidence from the world of neuroscience, should we even speak of the human “soul” or is this concept simply a vestige of ancient Greek philosophy that so clearly influenced western traditions including the early Church fathers? Are there better ways of describing and explaining our unique spiritual nature?
These are still somewhat uncomfortable & perplexing questions for me. Although I now have a greater appreciation for how some Evangelical Christians come to terms with these questions, my own answers are still very much early in the conceptual stage. The answers fit into what I believe is a self-consistent theological framework that is supported by the biblical record. However, there are enough gaps in this framework right now that I’m not able to clearly articulate it even to my own satisfaction.

But these questions on the origins of humanity, sin, and the image of God do not change the fact of who we are right now. Nor do they change how we should relate to God or how we should carry out our mandate. We are, as Graeme Finlay asserts, Homo divinus, the Ape that bears God’s image.

Recommended Reading:

Thursday, 12 July 2007

Index of Key Posts

(Last updated July 17, 2007)

This is an index of key posts that discuss the two broad conclusions I articulated in my welcome post:
1. Biological evolution, including common descent of humans from pre-existing animals, is the framework that best matches current scientific evidence for describing how life developed on earth.
2. The idea of God creating through evolution is compatible with the Christian faith, an Evangelical expression of this faith, a faith that does not compromise the divine inspiration and authority of the scriptures, and is in fact theologically more satisfying than creation without evolution.


Theological Choices

Tuesday, 10 July 2007

Responding to the New Atheism: Something to Commend, a Reason to Celebrate, and a misunderstanding to Correct

A lot has been said recently on the “New Atheism”. This is a more strident atheism that is asserting itself not in the halls of academia, but in the mass media. (Both “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins and “God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything” by Christopher Hitchens are runaway best sellers). It is an arrogant atheism that expresses exasperation at the fact that a majority of educated people still hold “illogical medieval” religious beliefs. It is a judgmental atheism that accuses religion of being not a force of good but the "Root of all Evil". And it is an evangelistic atheism that seeks to convert others to its cause. In particular, it believes that “fence sitting” agnostics and “dialoguing atheists” should join the more militant brand of atheism (Check out "The Church of Non-Believers" article in Wired and the “Should Science Speak to Faith” discussion in Scientific American).

Of the four leading voices of the new Atheism (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris) it is Dawkins that interests me most. He an evolutionary biologist that claims the science of biological evolution supports philosophical atheism. One of his more famous quotes is that “Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”. There have been numerous replies and rebuttals to Dawkins claims; even many who agree with Dawkin’s conclusions seem to think his arguments extremely weak (See this review of "The God Delusion" in the New York Review of Books ). I’m not going to add to these responses. Rather, I’d like to identify one belief I share with Dawkins, identify a positive side effect to Dawkins aggressive atheism that we can celebrate, and correct a claim made about Dawkins.

Something To Commend:

Although our philosophical worldviews are polar opposites, there is one point on which I agree with Dawkins. When he is asked “But isn’t religion good for people? Even if the metaphysical claims are false, doesn’t it still provide some benefit?” Dawkins disdain usually comes through loud and clear. He rejects the idea that the actual truth of a religious belief is irrelevant. No mushy “It’s ok if it feels good” for Dawkins. This view of the importance of truth actually mirrors that of a biblical faith. As Paul states in his first letter to the Corinthians: “If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men” (1 Cor: 15:19). If the resurrection of Christ is but a fable, if our own resurrection is not assured, and if “all things will become new” is but a false hope, then indeed our faith would be misplaced.

A Reason To Celebrate:

For too long, it’s Evangelicals that have been embarrassed by strident fundamentalists. I cringe every time the likes of Pat Robertson expresses an extreme political statement (eg. calling for the killing of the Venezuelan President) or Oral Roberts recounts his latest message from God (“I need $8 million dollars or God will take me home”) or Young Earth Creationist provide their latest evidence for a young earth. It almost makes you want to apologize for being a Christian. Now it’s the turn of those opposed to religion (and Christianity in particular) to be embarrassed by offensive assertions (“Religious people are stupid, lying or evil”), extremist social policy (“parents should not be allowed to teach religion to their children. It’s a form of child abuse”), and crusading evangelism. It’s not difficult to find comments from atheists and agnostics embarrassed by vitriol of their philosophical brethren. One amusing comment will have to suffice:

I agree with what Dawkins says in 'The God Delusion', just not the way he says it. If he'd toned down the ridicule and sarcasm aimed at 'faith-heads' then he might have secured the desired result. But, it's a lesson for me; I also have a tendency to ridicule religion. This book is written in such an egotistical and patronizing way, it was quite an effort to finish it. Now I know how my Catholic fiancée feels when I tell her what nonsense religion is! So thank you Richard, our upcoming wedding (in a church) will be a much calmer event!
Something to Correct

There is a common misconception that the ideological fight is between the extremists (eg. New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and YEC leaders like Ken Ham). I.e. It’s the old tired assertion that the conflict is between science and religion. For example, in a Wired article commenting on a debate between Dawkins and Lawrence Kraus (an agnostic scientist who believes dialogue with religious believers is beneficial), Brandon Keim comments:
… but the boorishness of people like Dawkins doesn't help anyone, except maybe people who think scientists hate God. Is there some way of making him switch teams? At this point, the best thing that could happen to the public acceptance of evolution would be Richard Dawkins' full-fledged conversion to Christianity, whereupon his alienating intellectual tendencies would show moderate, generally sensible fence-sitters the stupidity of fundamentalism.

Keim seems to be equating fundamentalism and YEC with Christianity, and believes that having Dawkins switch to Ham’s team will be good for evolution since all the “boorish” people would be on one side. My view is that Ham and Dawkins are already on the same “team”, the team that states that evolution and creation are contradictory concepts, the team that believes science and scripture are in conflict, and the team that believes the bible must be interpreted literally in all cases to be true. In short they are the team that wants to continue the ideological warfare between science and religion. But for most of us, I believe, we just want the war to be over.


So how should we as Christians respond to the New Atheism, an atheism that openly ridicules our most cherished beliefs? There is certainly room for Christians with the gift of apologetics to respond. I appreciate much of what Allister Mcgrath says on Dawkins. However, I really don’t think that defending our faith against Atheisim is our most urgent priority. And defending ourselves against a brand of Atheism that seems to shoot itself in the foot is not something that we need fear. Christ's Kingdom is so much more than this.

Some interesting Dawkins info on the web:
  1. Most polarizing figures incite a flurry of reactions, and Dawkins is no exception. There is a tonne of stuff written about him and its generally either glowing (those that support his cause) or extremely critical (those that don’t). Much of the stuff (on both sides) is, from my perspective, not very thoughtful or useful. One site I recommend for a good Christian response to Dawkins is the Christians in Science website. Check out: http://cis.org.uk/resources/dawkins.shtml
  2. If you like “good diatribes” (and I do), check out http://andrewrilstone.blogspot.com/2007/05/being-for-benefit-of-people-who-want-to.html.
  3. For an entertaining parody of Richard Dawkins (it helps if you’ve seen or heard some of his interviews already) see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QERyh9YYEis

Tuesday, 3 July 2007

Evolution from an Evangelical Perspective: Recommended Internet Resources

(Last updated: November 6, 2007)

One of the great things about the Internet is you CAN find just about everything. One the worst things about the Internet is that you DO find just about everything. Sorting the wheat from the chaff (let alone the rat bait) can be a frustrating task. Google search may be your friend, but it probably should not be your starting point for researching a topic like an Evangelical view of Evolution. The following is my suggestion on how to approach the topic.

A) Theistic Evolution (TE) or Evolutionary Creation (EC) Resources

Assumption: You are an Evangelical Christian and know very little about evolution. Almost everything you’ve heard about it from other Christians is negative. You are surprised that some Evangelical Christians are very comfortable with the science of biological evolution. Where do you start?

1. The 15 minute starter essay: Denis Lamoureux’s essay “Evolutionary Creation”: It provides an excellent explanation of why the scientific theory of evolution can be acknowledged by Evangelicals without compromising the theology of creation or biblical authority.

2. Overviews of science and faith from an Evangelical perspective:
I highly recommend two series of essays written by fellow ASA members Allan Harvey and Robert Schneider.

3. Answering Young Earth Creationist arguments against Radiometric Dating & an old earth: Roger Wiens has written an excellent, readable paper geared towards the general public called Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective.

4. Resources for in-depth Science and Faith articles:

5. Multimedia Science and Faith Resources:

6. Overview of the Science of Evolution

B) Other Viewpoints

Many Christians do not accept the scientific evidence for evolution, and believe that it is theologically damaging. These Christians can generally be categorized into three groups.

1) Young Earth Creationism (YEC)

YEC’s interpret the creation accounts in Genesis literally (see my post on this) and believe that the earth is only about 6000 years old. The best resources for articles from a YEC point of view are Answers in Genesis (AIG) and Creation Ministries International (CMI)

2) Old Earth Creationism (OEC)

OEC’s accept the evidence for an old earth, but not the evidence for biological evolution. The best resource for articles from this viewpoint is Hugh Ross’s Reason to Believe.

3) Intelligent Design (ID):

ID is a complicated movement. ID has been described as the view that “nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a pre-existing intelligence”. Although ID by definition is not anti-evolutionary, most adherents do oppose evolution, and much of its apologetic work is anti-evolutionary.

  • A good source of ID resources is the Access Research Network (ARN) website.
  • A good way to get to know the views of ID adherents is to follow the Uncommondescent weblog
  • Monday, 2 July 2007

    Evangelicals and Evolution: Selected Bibliography

    (Last updated November 6, 2007)

    Alexander, Denis. "Can Science Explain Everything? Scientific Naturalism and the Death of Science." The Cambridge Papers 8 #2, (June 1999): December 2006, http://www.cis.org.uk/resources/articles/article_archive/naturalism.htm (accessed December 2006).

    ———. "Is Intelligent Design Biblical?" Evangelicals Now (2005): December 2006, http://cis.org.uk/resources/articles/article_archive/EN_IDarticle.pdf.

    ———. Rebuilding the Matrix : Science and Faith in the 21st Century. 1st ed. Oxford: Lion Books, 2001.

    ———. "Does Evolution have any Religious Significance? "http://www.cis.org.uk/resources/articles/article_archive/evolution_relig_signif/alexander_01.htm (accessed December, 2006).

    Bimson, John. "Reconsidering a "Cosmic Fall"." Science and Christain Belief 18, (2006): 63-81.

    Bright, John. A History of Israel. 4th ed. Louisville, Ky: Westminster J. Knox Press, 2000.

    Collins, Francis. The Language of God : A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York: Free Press, 2006.

    Collins, Robin. "Evolution and Original Sin." In Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, edited by Keith B. Miller, 469-501. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2003.

    Dembinski, William. "Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science." http://www.designinference.com/documents/2006.05.christian_theodicy.pdf (accessed December, 2006).

    Dickerson, Richard. "The Game of Science: Reflections After Arguing with some rather Overwrought People." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 44, no. 2 (June 1992): 137-138.

    Enns, Peter. Inspiration and Incarnation : Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005.

    Falk, Darrel. Coming to Peace with Science : Bridging the Worlds between Faith and Biology. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Fischer, D. "In Search of the Historical Adam: Part 2." Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 46, (1994): 47-57.

    ———. "In Search of the Historical Adam: Part 1." Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 45, (1993): 241-250.

    Gingerich, Owen. God's Universe Owen Gingerich. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006.

    Glover, Gordon. Beyond the Firmament, Watertree Press, 2007.

    Gould, Stephen Jay. "Evolution as Fact and Theory." http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html.

    Gray, Terry. "Biochemistry and Evolution." In Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, edited by Keith B. Miller, 256-287. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2003.

    ———. "Complexity--Yes! Irreducible--Maybe! Unexplainable--no! A Creationist Criticism of Irreducible Complexity." ASA. http://www.asa3.org/evolution/irred_compl.html (December 2006).

    Haarsma, Deborah and Jennifer Wiseman. "An Evolving Cosmos." In Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, edited by Keith B. Miller, 97-119. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2003.

    Haarsma, Loren. "Can Many World Views Agree on Science?" Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 54, no. 1 (March 2002): 28-29.

    ———. "Chance from a Theistic Perspective." Talk Origins. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance-theistic.html (May 2006).

    ———. "Is Intelligent Design Scientific?" ASA. http://www.asa3.org:16080/ASA/meetings/Messiah2005/papers/IsIDScientific_ASA2005.htm (May 2006).

    ———. "Does Science Exclude God? Natural Law, Chance, Miracles, and Scientific Practice." In Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, edited by Keith B. Miller, 72-94. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2003.

    Haarsma, Loren and Terry Gray. "Complexity, Self Organization, and Design." In Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, edited by Keith B. Miller, 288-312. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2003.

    Harvey, Allan. "Science and Nature in Christian Perspective." http://steamdoc.s5.com/sci-nature/.

    Haught, JohnF and CarlS Helrich. Purpose, Evolution and the Meaning of Life : Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Goshen Conference on Religion and Science. Kitchener, Ont.: Pandora Press, 2005.

    Hughes, PhilipEdgcumbe. The True Image : The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989.

    Hurd, James. "Reply to the Real Adam and Original Sin." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 58, no. 2 (June 2006): 102-3.

    ———. "Hominids in the Garden." In Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, edited by Keith B. Miller, 208-233. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2003.

    Hyers, Conrad. "Dinosaur Religion: On Interpreting and Misinterpreting the Creation Texts." JASA #36 September, (1984): 142-148.

    ———. "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance." The Christian Century Aug 4, (1982): 832-841.

    Isaac, Randy. "From Gaps to Gods." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 57, no. 3 (Sept 2005): 230-4.

    ———. "Assessing the RATE Project." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 59, (2007): 143-146.

    ———. "Chronology of the Fall." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 48, (1996): 34-42.

    Krienke, Karl. "Theodicy and Evolution." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 44, no. 4 (Dec 1992): 255-257.

    Lamoureau, Denis. "Evolutionary Creationism". http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm (May 2006).

    Lindberg, DavidC and RonaldL Numbers. When Science & Christianity Meet. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

    Livingstone, DavidN. Darwin's Forgotten Defenders : The Encounter between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Edinburgh, Scotland: W.B. Eerdmans; Scottish Academic Press, 1987.

    Long, V. Philips, GordonJ Wenham, and DavidW Baker. Windows into Old Testament History : Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of "Biblical Israel". Grand Rapids, Mich. ; Cambridge, U.K.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002.

    Marsden, George M. Reforming Fundamentalism : Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1987.

    ———. Fundamentalism and American Culture : The Shaping of Twentieth Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980.

    McGrath, AlisterE. "Has Science Eliminated God?" CiS-St Edmund's Online Lectures. http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/cis/mcgrath/index.html.

    ———. Dawkins' God : Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life. Oxford: Blackwell Pub., 2005.

    McIntyre, J. A. "The Historical Adam." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 54, no. 3 (Sept. 2002): 150-7.

    ———. "The Real Adam and Original Sin." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 58, no. 2 (June 2006): 90-8.

    Menninga, Clarence. "Creation, Time, and "Apparent Age"." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 40, no. 3 (Sept 1988): 160-2.

    ———. "Disease and Dying in the Fossil Record." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 51, no. 4 (Dec 1999): 226-230.

    Miller, Roman. "Do we Debate Or Dialogue Issues of Science and Faith?" Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 59, no. 1 (March 2007): 1-2.

    Miller, KeithB. "Theological Implications of an Evolving Creation." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 45, no. 3 (September 1993): 150-160.

    ———. "The Similarity of Theory Testing in the Historical and “Hard” Sciences." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 54, no. 2 (June 2002): 119-122.

    ———. "Common Descent, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record." In Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, edited by Keith B. Miller, 152-181. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2003.

    ———. Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2003.

    Miller, KeithB and David Campbell. "The "Cambrian Explosion": A Challenge to Evolutionary Theory?" In Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, edited by Keith B. Miller, 182-204. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2003.

    Miller, KennethR. Finding Darwin's God : A Scientist's Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution. New York: Cliff Street Books, 1999.

    Morris, SimonConway. "The Boyle Lecture 2005: Darwin's Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Song of Creation." Science and Christain Belief 18, (2006): 5-22.

    Murphy, GeorgeL. "Reading God's Two Books." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 58, no. 1 (March 2006): 64-7.

    ———. "Chiasmic Cosmology and Creation's Functional Integrity." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 53, no. 1 (March 2001): 7-13.

    ———. "A Theological Argument for Evolution." Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 38, no. 1 (March 1986): 19-26.

    ———. "Roads to Paradise and Perdition: Christ, Evolution, and Original Sin." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 58, no. 2 (June 2006): 109-118.

    ———. "Christology, Evolution, and the Cross." In Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, edited by Keith B. Miller, 370-389. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2003.

    ———. The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2003.

    ———. "The Theology of the Cross and God's Work in the World." Zygon® 33, no. 2 (1998): 221-231.

    Murphy, Nancey C. Bodies and Souls, Or Spirited Bodies?. Current Issues in Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

    Murphy, NanceyC. Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism : How Modern and Postmodern Philosophy Set the Theological Agenda. Rockwell Lecture Series. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1996.

    Murphy, NanceyC and CarlS Helrich. Religion and Science : God, Evolution and the Soul by Nancey Murphy : Proceedings of the Goshen Conference on Religion and Science. Kitchener, Ont.: Pandora Press, 2002.

    Noll, MarkA. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

    Numbers, Ronald L. The Creationists : From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Expand ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006.

    Peters, Ted and Martin Hewlett. Can You Believe in God and Evolution? : A Guide for the Perplexed. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006.

    ———. Evolution from Creation to New Creation : Conflict, Conversation , andConvergence. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2003.

    Plantinga, Alvin. "Methodological Naturalism." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49, no. 3 (Sept 1997): 143-154.

    ———. God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.

    Polkinghorne, J. C. Creation, Time, and Evil. The Faraday Institute of Science and Religion. 2006. Summer 2006 Lecture Series. , http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/Summer%20Course%201/045_John_Polkinghorne3.mp3.

    ———. Science and Theology : An Introduction. London; Minneapolis, Minn.: Spck; Fortress Press, 1998.

    ———. Science and Christian Belief Theological Reflections of a Bottom-Up Thinker. Gifford Lectures for 1993-4. London: Spck, 1994.

    ———. Science and Providence : God's Interaction with the World. London: Spck, 1989.

    Poole, Michael. "Explaining Or Explaining Away?" Science and Christain Belief 14, (2002): 123-142.

    Poole, Michael and GordonJ Wenham. Creation Or Evolution : A False Antithesis?. Latimer Studies. Vol. 23-24. Oxford: Latimer House, 1987.

    Reynolds, Hugh. "Creation and Intelligent Design: A New Testament Perspective." http://www.cis.org.uk/resources/articles/article_archive/EN_IDarticle.pdf (May 2006).

    Roberts, Michael. "Genesis Chapter 1 and Geological Time from Hugo Grotius and Marin Mersenne to William Conybeare and Thomas Chalmers (1620–1825)." Geological Society, London, Special Publications 273, (2007): 39-49.

    Rogers, Jack Bartlett and Donald K. McKim. The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible : An Historical Approach. 1st ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979.

    Rusbult, Craig. "Naturalism and NATURALISM (Two Meanings: Descriptive and Atheistic)." ASA. http://www.asa3.org/asa/education/origins/naturalism.htm (January 2007).

    Sandeen, ErnestRobert. The Roots of Fundamentalism ; British and American Millenarianism, 1800-1930. Twin Brooks Series. New ]. -- ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1978.

    Sarna, NahumM. Understanding Genesis. The Heritage of Biblical Israel. Vol. 1. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1967.

    Schneider, Robert. "Essays on Science and Faith: Perspectives on Christianity and Science." http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essays.asp.

    Seely, Paul. "The Date of the Tower of Babel and some Theological Implications." Westminster Theological Journal 63, (2001): 15-38.

    ———. "The Geographical Meaning of "Earth" and "Seas" in Genesis 1: 10." Westminster Theological Journal 59, (1997): 231-255.

    ———. "The Firmament and the Water Above. Part I: The Meaning of Raqia in Gen 1: 6-8." Westminster Theological Journal 53, (1991): 241-261.

    Singh, Simon. Big Bang : The Origin of the Universe. 1st U.S. ed. New York: Fourth Estate, 2004.

    Stackhouse, John Gordon. Canadian Evangelicalism in the Twentieth Century : An Introduction to its Character. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993.

    Stackhouse, JohnGordon. Can God be Trusted? : Faith and the Challenge of Evil. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

    Theobald, Douglas. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution (3 Articles)." Talk Origins. http://www.talkorigens.org/faqs/comdesc (May 2006).

    Thorson, Walter. "Legitimacy and Scope of “Naturalism” in Science - Part 1: Theological Basis for "Naturalistic" Science." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 54, no. 1 (March 2002): 2-11.

    ———. "Legitimacy and Scope of “Naturalism” in Science - Part II:Scope for New Scientific Paradigms." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 54, no. 1 (March 2002): 12-21.

    VanTil, Howard. "Is the Universe Capable of Evolving?" In Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, edited by Keith B. Miller, 313-334. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2003.

    Wenham, GordonJ. "Original Sin in Genesis 1-11." The Churchman 104, no. 4 (1990).

    ———. "The Place of Biblical Criticism in Theological Study." Themelios (1989): 84-9.

    ———. Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 1. Dallas, Tex.: Word Books, 1987.

    Wiens, Roger. "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective." http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html (December 2006).

    Wilcox, DavidL. "Establishing Adam: Recent Evidences for a Late Date Adam." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 56, no. 1 (March 2004): 49-54.

    ———. God and Evolution : A Faith-Based Understanding. 1st ed. Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson Press, 2004.

    ———. "Finding Adam: The Genetics of Human Origins." In Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, edited by Keith B. Miller, 234-253. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2003.

    Wilkins, John. "Evolution and Chance." Talk Origins. http://www.talkorigens.org/faqs/chance/chance.html (December 2006).

    Young, D. A. "The Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race Revisited." Christian Scholar's Review 24, (1995): 380-396.

    (Bibliography generated by refworks )