Mission Statement of www.SciPrint.org

Scientific GOD Institute ("SGI") and its flagship publication Scientific GOD Journal ("SGJ" this journal) is not about a particular religion nor is it focused on religious debates. Rather, it is an institution (and publication) where scientists, philosophers, theologians and other learned scholars publish their research results and express their views on the issues outlined herein. In doing so, the editors of SGJ hope that one day we will be able to answer scientifically the questions concerning us the most-who are we, where did we come from, where are we going, and, is there a Scientific GOD? Therefore, this Journal is dedicated to scientific inquiry on GOD. The herein authors believe that in this golden age of Science the GOD in whom we trust should be spiritual as well as scientific. Indeed, since we are all made out of the same subatomic, atomic and genetic alphabets, the scientific GOD each of us seeks should be one and the same whatever our race, religion and other differences.

Science have in common with Religion and vice versa? The simplest answer is the world.

Zygon, 2016

Clifford Cain, editor and also author of six of the ten chapters in this book, is the Harrod-C.S. Lewis Professor of Religious Studies at Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri. He solicited contributions by colleagues from the sciences-biology and physics-as well as from philosophy from his home institution to address the issue of cosmology (Laura Stumpe, "The Big Bang Theory," 17-34), evolution (Gabe McNett, "Seeing the Reality of Evolution," 45-71), genetics (Jane Kenney-Hunt, "The Complex Relationship between Nature and Nurture," 95-112), and intelligent design (Rich Green, "Intelligent Design," 123-43), providing theological commentaries himself to each of these topics besides writing the Introduction (1-15) and the Conclusion (153-58). The book "is intentionally directed toward a general, nonspecialist audience, because the contributors believe that the attempt to relate science and religion should not be reserved for, or monopolized by, experts talking only to each other" (ix). This overarching goal is well achieved. The individual contributors not only explain almost every technical term they use and provide essential references in "notes" at the end of their chapters, but also unfold complex matters in plain language and in such a way that these easily can be grasped (a nice proof of their didactic skills). While, then, nothing much needs to be said regarding the straightforward, very basic presentations of the scientific topics; it is the theological interpretations that warrant a closer examination, because it is these to which the book's title refers when speaking of "re-vision." What is revised and reimagined here is not scientific theory or research as such, but the theological interpretation of scientific and, as in the case of intelligent design, pseudo-scientific theories and research in light of process theology. Process theology "picks up on both the God of the philosophers and the God of the Bible" (147, original emphasis), "promotes a view of the world that involves change, development, novelty, and organic unity," and "posits a concept of God as having two natures. .. a transcendent aspect and also an immanent" one (76). Properly understood, process theology abolishes the concept of an omnipotent God and renders the literalistic, fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible impossible. To thus revise the concept of God and the study of the Bible "is critical" because in light of scientific findings "it is no longer tenable" to cling to a religiously informed deterministic worldview by asserting "a notion of God as divine Regulator with infinite power and meticulous providence" (154). The same applies to "biblical literalism," for this "not only creates (unnecessary) conflict with science, it also does not do justice to religion's scriptures themselves" (153; original parenthesis). With an almost pastoral concern, Cain pleads for a nonconfrontational "conversation" (12) between science and religion for mutual benefit, since both "are needed for a complete picture of reality. .. and make necessary contributions to

2016

Clifford Cain, editor and also author of six of the ten chapters in this book, is the Harrod-C.S. Lewis Professor of Religious Studies at Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri. He solicited contributions by colleagues from the sciences-biology and physics-as well as from philosophy from his home institution to address the issue of cosmology (Laura Stumpe, "The Big Bang Theory," 17-34), evolution (Gabe McNett, "Seeing the Reality of Evolution," 45-71), genetics (Jane Kenney-Hunt, "The Complex Relationship between Nature and Nurture," 95-112), and intelligent design (Rich Green, "Intelligent Design," 123-43), providing theological commentaries himself to each of these topics besides writing the Introduction (1-15) and the Conclusion (153-58). The book "is intentionally directed toward a general, nonspecialist audience, because the contributors believe that the attempt to relate science and religion should not be reserved for, or monopolized by, experts talking only to each other" (ix). This overarching goal is well achieved. The individual contributors not only explain almost every technical term they use and provide essential references in "notes" at the end of their chapters, but also unfold complex matters in plain language and in such a way that these easily can be grasped (a nice proof of their didactic skills). While, then, nothing much needs to be said regarding the straightforward, very basic presentations of the scientific topics; it is the theological interpretations that warrant a closer examination, because it is these to which the book's title refers when speaking of "re-vision." What is revised and reimagined here is not scientific theory or research as such, but the theological interpretation of scientific and, as in the case of intelligent design, pseudo-scientific theories and research in light of process theology. Process theology "picks up on both the God of the philosophers and the God of the Bible" (147, original emphasis), "promotes a view of the world that involves change, development, novelty, and organic unity," and "posits a concept of God as having two natures. .. a transcendent aspect and also an immanent" one (76). Properly understood, process theology abolishes the concept of an omnipotent God and renders the literalistic, fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible impossible. To thus revise the concept of God and the study of the Bible "is critical" because in light of scientific findings "it is no longer tenable" to cling to a religiously informed deterministic worldview by asserting "a notion of God as divine Regulator with infinite power and meticulous providence" (154). The same applies to "biblical literalism," for this "not only creates (unnecessary) conflict with science, it also does not do justice to religion's scriptures themselves" (153; original parenthesis). With an almost pastoral concern, Cain pleads for a nonconfrontational "conversation" (12) between science and religion for mutual benefit, since both "are needed for a complete picture of reality. .. and make necessary contributions to

2008

Christian Post January 12, 2019

Zygon®

It might be argued that the modern American science and religion discussion started fifty years ago, with the first issue of Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science and Ian Barbour's Issues in Science and Religion, both appearing in 1966. Both go back to work that started in the 1950s (Hefner 2014; Peters 2014). For the journal, the foundational event is the creation of IRAS, the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science, and its first conference at Star Island in the summer of 1954. In 2014, IRAS held its sixtieth conference, again on Star Island, not only to commemorate its past, but also to consider "the future of religion and science." With this issue, readers will get their share of the plenary lectures. Karl Peters, former editor of Zygon, linked "the ghosts of IRAS past" to those of the present and future. Michael Ruse, philosopher and historian of biology, challenges those who seek some form of integration between science and religion, as he defends their coexistence as different and relatively independent human activities-which involves a particular view of science and of religion (see Ruse 2011; Wisdo 2011). Ruse considers a fairly traditional Christian concept of God. In contrast, in a personal essay Nancy Ellen Abrams-author of the recent A God Who Could Be Real: Spirituality, Science, and the Future of Our Planet (Abrams 2014)-prefers a rather different understanding of God, as a name for emergent features in our existence. In doing so, she assumes a different understanding of science and of religion and a more immediate link between scientific knowledge and spiritual beliefs. Whitney Bauman speaks on the impact of globalization, which has made our situation quite different from the situation in the 1950s and 1960s. His examples mainly come from Indonesia-the land of the next author, Zainal Abidin Bagir, who also considers the impact of the pluralistic world on "religion and science." Sarah Fredericks and Lea Schweitz speak of those involved-not only academics, but also artists and amateurs-and illustrate their creative vision for the future of religion and science with various examples from their experience in teaching those subjects in a public university and a seminary in a big city. I, Willem B. Drees, focus on the way religion has changed in

Faith and Philosophy, 2000

2003

Christian theology is necessarily rooted in the Bible. Nevertheless, the role the Bible plays in theology varies greatly among theologies. At one extreme are theologies that regard their task as systematizing the teaching of the Bible. At the other extreme are theologies that take the best of contemporary thought as normative and then explain what sense can be made of basic biblical ideas in this context. In other instances, the tradition through the centuries plays the primary role. Here it is assumed that the church's teaching is the responsible development of biblical teaching, but the task is not so much to check this assumption as to build on the tradition.

The Journal of The Math3ma Institute, 2022

Historically, theology was viewed as the queen of the sciences. But in recent days this has fallen out of favor, especially due to the unpopularity of the doctrine of creation. Instead, science is viewed as its own autonomous foundation. This article surveys through the issues surrounding creation and argues that a realism of biblical authority and revelation establishes theology and creation as a necessary framework for science. It also will contend that the interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is clear and clearly historical as well as that the doctrine of creation is inextricably linked with the totality of Christian theology. Even more, it will survey God's plan of redemption and illustrate that creation is the basis and driver of God's redemptive work. Creation holds the answers to the toughest questions people have about this world and evil. With that, by virtue of divine authority, theology is the queen of the sciences, and within this, the doctrine of creation helps to restore the true value and beauty of science. Therefore, it should be the starting point of the sciences.