Articles by The Rev. Dr. Greg Cootsona
Thursday January 28, 2021
What’s the recipe for lasting change in discussing thorny topics in general, but especially those in faith and science—whether human origins, climate change, or racism? The recipe, we’ve found at Science for the Church, includes endorsers, translators, and storytellers.
Wednesday January 20, 2021
This is the problem of persistence and change: We tend to go back to old patterns unless we keep working at change.
Thursday December 24, 2020
When we look at 2020, when we look at this world—a year marked by the exposure of racism in America, political division, and the deadly COVID pandemic—can we have either optimism or hope?
Wednesday November 18, 2020
At the center of Thanksgiving—both the holiday and the practice—is generosity. When we’re thankful for what we have, we become content, and we tend to open our eyes and our hands. We give to others. Scripture and science are both clear about this.
Wednesday November 11, 2020
Last Friday, I interviewed Dr. John Lennox, Oxford University mathematician and Christian apologist. He’s authored several books, such as Can Science Explain Everything? and most recently, 2084: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity. The upcoming film Against the Tide features Doctor Lennox’s thought. What follows is an excerpt of our delightful conversation.
Tuesday October 20, 2020
I actually love what natural theology wants to do. I appreciate the way it leads us to look at “nature and nature’s God” (to quote the Declaration of Independence). The problem is, strictly speaking, natural theology doesn’t work. We cannot move directly from nature to the existence and character of the Creator of nature in order to answer the question, What kind of God?
Tuesday October 13, 2020
Teamwork often leads to groupthink, and one of the glories of science is its capacity to combat this tendency, by setting up rigorous methods to root it out. Put simply, scientists know we need colleagues from within the fold to question our statements. We can do the same in our congregations as we seek out God’s truth.
Wednesday October 05, 2016
When it comes to God and science, we’d like there to be definitive proof. A knock-down argument for the Deity would be nice.
Thursday September 22, 2016
My previous post highlighted mere Christians like C.S. Lewis, who understood Adam and Eve as typological (or paradigmatic), but not historical. I’ll call this Position A. I realize many reject this position. And some vehemently! So I now come to Position, B, those who say Yes to Adam and Eve as both typological and historical while engaging the consensus of modern science. They accomplish all this in some surprising ways.
Friday September 16, 2016
According to a 2012 Pew Report, many Christians do not believe that human beings evolved. One reason seems to be for those who take the Bible seriously as a divine revelation, human evolution is hard to square with a literal Adam and Eve (By the way, too many discussions leave out the Eve part here, but I think she’s important.) So a lot of people would rather chuck evolution than the first two humans.
Tuesday September 13, 2016
Ken Ham and the Answers in Genesis $100 million ark notwithstanding, if we take the great consensus of modern science seriously, it’s impossible to sustain belief that God created the universe in six twenty-four hour days. And, given the way the Almighty views time, it seems a bit presumptuous to believe we could precisely specify God’s timing of creation. It might possibly involve figurative language.
Saturday September 03, 2016
After three months without posts, I’m now returning and offering snippets of the book I’ve been writing on emerging adults, mainstream science, and mere Christianity.
Tuesday May 17, 2016
A considerable number of key thinkers are addressing the positive and negative effects of technology. The number is so considerable that I can only mention a few in this post. And, in order to limit myself further, I’ll start with the those who want us to stop racing after techie toys.
Thursday May 05, 2016
I believed that the truth of an argument ought to be enough to convince us. I wanted human beings to be the thinking machines that evaluate opinions purely on their merits, not on who presents them. You see, I’ve heard the ad hominem fallacy””we can’t disregard an idea based on (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining””like their education, their clothing, their political affiliation... or their halitosis.
Thursday April 14, 2016
When we talk about 'religion and science,' it sounds like two things. But that’s changing in at least one way. The contemporary conversation, especially with 18-30 year old, increasingly includes technology. Which emerging adults identify as a component of””or even a more important substitute for””science.