Redeeming Science: A God-Centered ApproachCrossway, 13 okt. 2006 - 384 sidor Many people think science is antagonistic to Christian belief. Science, it is said, shows that the universe is billions of years old, while the Bible says it is only thousands of years old. And some claim that science shows supernatural miracles are impossible. These and other points of contention cause some Christians to view science as a threat to their beliefs. Redeeming Science attempts to kindle our appreciation for science as it ought to be-science that could serve as a path for praising God and serving fellow human beings. Through examining the wonderfully complex and immutable laws of nature, author Vern Poythress explains, we ought to recognize the wisdom, care, and beauty of God. A Christian worldview restores a true response to science, where we praise the God who created nature and cares for it. |
Från bokens innehåll
Resultat 1-5 av 37
... rest. Somewhere along the way, many of these people started dreading their math or science class, and probably it only got worse with time. They did not understand well what was going on, and they could do the problems only with a hard ...
... rests on a cultural history that has distorted people's understanding of science. I would like to kindle our appreciation ... rest in the constancy of physical laws, their precision, their harmony. I pursued my interest by majoring in ...
... rest with observations of mere coincidence. They want to know whether the recurrence is somehow constrained, whether it occurs according to a general explanatory principle.6 The principles go by various names: “natural law,” “scientific ...
... rest of us see the faithfulness of God manifested more prosaically in the dependability of the technological apparatus that spins off from science. We assume the reliability of our food sources; we believe the food will grow every year ...
... rest of the ridicule and disapprobation heaped upon them by the scientific establishment.) I happen to think they are mistaken; but their errors, to my mind, are enormously less important than the errors of many of those—the Dawkins and ...