Love is primary for any adequate ethic. But can the human brain – especially the brains of those who love often and well – tell us anything about love?

A vegetarian butcher. That’s the combination some people think analogous to being both a scientist and theologian.

I spend a great deal of time engaging fundamentalists. And I’ve learned a few lessons over the years.

I previously identified some problems inherent in creatio ex nihilo. I believe a new doctrine of creation, God’s creating out of creation with a nature of love (creatio ex creation a natura amoris), is more adequate for Christians.

I believe God created the heavens, the earth, and every living thing. But I think Christians should reject the idea that God created the universe from absolutely nothing.

In my past two installments, I noted five things I like about Intelligent Design and five things I don’t. I conclude with my final (and apparently unique) criticism of ID.

Having pointed out five things I like about Intelligent Design, I turn now to five things I don’t like. 

I’ve been thinking and reading about the Intelligent Design (ID) movement and its ideas for some time.  I’m ready to put my evaluation in writing.

At the recent American Academy of Religion meeting, I was asked to present a scholarly overview of Evangelical theology and science. I assumed the task would be easy. I was wrong.

Prominent Evangelical Christians are working together to reconcile apparent differences between science and religion. A recent workshop of such Christians in which I participated agreed to the following statement: