DOCSLIB.ORG

Cosmological Beliefs About Origins Related to Science Achievement Among Junior High-School Students in South Bend, Indiana

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cosmological Beliefs About Origins Related to Science Achievement Among Junior High-School Students in South Bend, Indiana Andrews University Digital Commons @ Andrews University Dissertations Graduate Research 2010 Cosmological Beliefs About Origins Related to Science Achievement Among Junior High-School Students in South Bend, Indiana J David Van Dyke Andrews University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, Life Sciences Commons, and the Science and Mathematics Education Commons Recommended Citation Van Dyke, J David, "Cosmological Beliefs About Origins Related to Science Achievement Among Junior High-School Students in South Bend, Indiana" (2010). Dissertations. 750. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/750 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thank you for your interest in the Andrews University Digital Library of Dissertations and Theses. Please honor the copyright of this document by not duplicating or distributing additional copies in any form without the author’s express written permission. Thanks for your cooperation. ABSTRACT COSMOLOGICAL BELIEFS ABOUT ORIGINS RELATED TO SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT AMONG JUNIOR HIGH-SCHOOL STUDENTS IN SOUTH BEND, INDIANA by J. David Van Dyke Chair: Duane Covrig ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH Dissertation Andrews University School of Education Title: COSMOLOGICAL BELIEFS ABOUT ORIGINS RELATED TO SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT AMONG JUNIOR HIGH-SCHOOL STUDENTS IN SOUTH BEND, INDIANA Name of researcher: J. David Van Dyke Name and degree of faculty chair: Duane Covrig, Ph.D. Date completed: November 2010 Problem American high-school students score lower in science achievement tests than their peers in other developed nations. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ranked the scientific achievement of American high-school students as ―very low‖ in comparison to high-school students in other industrialized nations—only 29th out of 57 developed countries. Research has indicated that achievement declines as U.S. students progress to higher grades and take on more rigorous science courses. A variety of factors have been documented that may account for U.S. students‘ lower science achievement rankings. These include socioeconomic status, race, and gender. One area only marginally explored is the role of cosmological beliefs—such as New Earth Creationism—on science achievement. Some studies indicate that these cosmological beliefs correlate to low science achievement, while others show little to no correlation between cosmological beliefs and science achievement. Americans are unique in their high rate of belief in divine special creation, as opposed to origin by evolution through natural selection. This cosmological view of origins differs from mainstream scientific thought, research, and publications. Some wonder whether this view of creation might partially explain the lower science achievement reported in American students. This problem needs to be more thoroughly investigated. Research on cosmological beliefs has focused mostly on college students in biology courses, but this study sought to understand this problem at the junior-high level of science education. Research Design A quasi-experimental design was used. The entire study took place at Clay Intermediate Center, a public school within the South Bend Community School Corporation (SBCSC) in South Bend, Indiana. A treatment group of 47 middle-school students participated in a three-session after-school science program. Their science achievement within the program was compared to their cosmological beliefs and other socio-demographic and instructional variables. Posttests were used to measure students‘ science achievement. The pretest and posttest were constructed using a test bank available from the publisher of the science unit. A control group of similar students took the pretest and posttest but did not participate in the after-school sessions. The students‘ level of science achievement from the posttest scores were then compared to their responses to statements from Eugenie Scott‘s Spectrum of Creationism scale, which measures cosmological beliefs related to origins (creationism to natural evolution). The quantitative data were represented in structural equation model(s). Students were debriefed with questions regarding their feelings of how their cosmological beliefs might affect their science achievement both within the course and in general. Results The study found no significance between science achievement and cosmological beliefs, but very strong multiple correlations of socioeconomic status and previous science knowledge to science achievement, as well as evidence that the instruction was effective in raising posttest scores. Recommendations were made that: (a) The significance of poverty status to science achievement of SBCSC students be further studied, (b) the study be extended to other middle schools and high schools within SBCSC, (c) SBCSC recognize the efficacy of after-school programs and consider further funding for these programs, and (d) SBCSC consider a unit that emphasizes empirical evidence, how things evolve, and the process of science through guided inquiry upon its next science adoption. Andrews University School of Education COSMOLOGICAL BELIEFS ABOUT ORIGINS RELATED TO SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT AMONG JUNIOR HIGH-SCHOOL STUDENTS IN SOUTH BEND, INDIANA A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by J. David Van Dyke November 2010 © Copyright by J. David Van Dyke 2010 All Rights Reserved COSMOLOGICAL BELIEFS ABOUT ORIGINS RELATED TO SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT AMONG JUNIOR HIGH-SCHOOL STUDENTS IN SOUTH BEND, INDIANA A dissertation presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy by J. David Van Dyke APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE: ________________________________ _____________________________ Chair: Duane Covrig Dean, School of Education James R. Jeffrey ________________________________ Member: Tevni Grajales ________________________________ Member: Sylvia Gonzalez ________________________________ _____________________________ External: H. Gordon Berry Date approved Dedicated to My heroes Paul H. Cofield and Eleanor V. Van Dyke — and to my best friend Dawn M. Van Dyke v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ...................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................... ix LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...............................................x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................ xi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................1 Problem .................................................1 Purpose of the Study .......................................3 Research Question .........................................3 Research Design ...........................................3 Significance of the Study ....................................6 Theoretical Framework for Curricular Analysis ..................7 Assumptions, Guiding Beliefs, and Premises ...................10 Limitations of the Study ....................................11 Delimitations of the Study ..................................12 Definition of Terms .......................................13 Summary ...............................................16 II. LITERATURE REVIEW ..........................................18 Parameters of Relevant Literature ............................18 The Conflict Between the Supernatural and Natural in Science Education .............................................19 A Detailed Examination of Creationism .......................20 New Earth Creationism ....................................21 Old Earth Creationism .....................................23 Gap Creationism................................... 23 Day-age Creationism ............................... 24 Progressive Creationists ............................. 24 Theistic Evolution/Evolutionary Creationism and Intelligent Design ...............................................24 Research on Cosmological Beliefs and Science Achievement ......27 Other Factors That Influence Academic/Science Achievement .....32 Socioeconomic Status .....................................32 vi Race ...................................................34 Gender .................................................35 Measuring Science Achievement .............................36 Assessing Science Process Achievement .......................37 Standardized Assessments ..................................39 Summary ...............................................41 III. METHODOLOGY ...............................................43 General Introduction ......................................43 Type of Study ............................................43 Population and Sample .....................................44 Hypothesis ..............................................45 Variables Defined.........................................46 Instrumentation ..........................................48 Data Collection Procedure ..................................50 Data Analysis Procedure ...................................54 Summary ...............................................56 IV. FINDINGS: GENERAL AND QUANTITATIVE ......................57
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Apologetic Resources
    APOLOGETIC RESOURCES A Young Earth ministry perspective, namely contrasting Scripture to true science now and during the ages. By Dr. Jim Pagels [email protected] 9/2016 Editor Dr. John Fricke, Emeritus Professor of Biology, Concordia University, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Copyright This book is offered as an educational resource on a no cost basis. Contents are not to be reproduced for the purpose of sale. Note that all Scriptural passages are taken from the English Standard Version. 1 I HAVE NO GREATER JOY THAN TO HEAR THAT MY CHILDREN WALK IN THE TRUTH III JOHN 1:4 Forward - Although there is much young Earth information available from commercial sources and on the internet, it was the impression of this writer that no resource that deals with basic topical issues correlating the young Earth philosophy and science exists for professional church workers. To this end, Apologetic Resources is being offered. Intended Audience – The intended audience of this reference material is primarily use by professional church workers, i.e., teachers, pastors, youth workers, etc., namely those who choose to uphold the literal interpretation of Genesis and the inerrancy of Holy Scripture. The focus in this regard is Young Earth Creationism and the catastrophic nature of the global Genesis Flood keeping in mind that Genesis 1-11 is foundational to most of the significant doctrines of Holy Scripture. Of course, laymen may well also find this reference a valuable resource. There is obviously a realistic interplay between Scripture, apologetics and true science. The goal of this document is to provide clarity to this interaction.
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping the Creation-Evolution Debate in Public Life
    MAPPING THE CREATION-EVOLUTION DEBATE IN PUBLIC LIFE by ANDREW JUDSON HART (Under the Direction of Edward Panetta) ABSTRACT Evolution versus creation is a divisive issue as religion is pitted against science in public discourse. Despite mounting scientific evidence in favor of evolution and legal decisions against the teaching of creationism in public schools, the number of advocates who still argue for creationist teaching in the science curriculum of public schools remains quite large. Public debates have played a key role in the creationist movement, and this study examines public debates between creationists and evolutionists over thirty years to track trends and analyze differences in arguments and political style in an attempt to better understand why creationism remains salient with many in the American public. INDEX WORDS: Creation; Evolution; Public Debate; Argumentation; Political Style; Bill Nye MAPPING THE CREATION-EVOLUTION DEBATE IN PUBLIC LIFE by ANDREW JUDSON HART B.A., The University of Georgia, 2010 B.S.F.R., The University of Georgia, 2010 M.A.T., The University of Georgia, 2014 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS ATHENS, GEORGIA 2016 © 2016 Andrew Judson Hart All Rights Reserved MAPPING THE CREATION-EVOLUTION DEBATE IN PUBLIC LIFE by ANDREW JUDSON HART Major Professor: Edward Panetta Committee: Barbara Biesecker Thomas Lessl Electronic Version Approved: Suzanne Barbour Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2016 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project would not have been possible without Dr. Ed Panetta pushing me down the path to study the creation-evolution debates and his work with me on this through the many drafts and edits.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation and Evolution: What Should We Teach?
    Creation and Evolution: What Should We Teach? Author: Eugenie C. Scott, Director Affiliation: National Center for Science Education Bio: Dr. Eugenie C. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc., a not-for-profit membership organization of scientists, teachers, and others that works to improve the teaching of evolution and of science as a way of knowing. It opposes the teaching of “scientific” creationism and other religiously based views in science classes. A former college professor, Dr. Scott lectures widely and is called upon by the press and other media to explain science and evolution to the general public. Scott is the author of the 2004 book, Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, and has served as president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. Scott has been honored by both scientists and educators by being awarded the National Science Board Public Service Award, the AIBS Outstanding Service Award, the Geological Society of America Public Service Award, and the California Science Teachers Association Distinguished Service Award. She holds a Ph.D. in physical anthropology from the University of Missouri, an honorary D.Sc. from McGill University, and an honorary Doctor of Science from Ohio State University. Abstract: In this essay, I sketch an overview of the foundations of the creation/evolution debate in the United States today. Evolution is rejected by many Americans because it conflicts with their religious views. This conflict may occur because evolution is not compatible with biblical literalism, or because evolution creates other problems in Christian theology. Most Americans do not belong to Christian traditions that require a literal interpretation of the Bible; in addition, there is a long tradition of accommodation of evolution and science to Christian theology.
    [Show full text]
  • ORIGINS Genesis 1-11 Universe: Origin of the Universe (Part 2)
    ORIGINS Genesis 1-11 Universe: Origin of the Universe (Part 2) James River Community Church David Curfman February ² May 2013 Universe: Genesis 1:1-5 (Day One) y How should we interpret Genesis Chapter 1? y Does it matter? y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4uqst c3_pc y Meaning hinges on meanings of several words Outline 1. Genesis 1-11 (Introduction) 2. Genesis 1:1-31 (Universe Part 1) ² Big Bang Model 3. Genesis 1:1-5 (Universe Part 2) ² Old and Young Earth Models 4. Genesis 1: 3-12 (Earth) ² Dating methods 5. Genesis 1:13-25 (Plants and Animals) ² Evolution 6. Genesis 1:26-31 (Man ² male and female) 7. Genesis 1:32-2:4a (Rest, the week, Sabbath) 8. Genesis 2:4b-2:24 (Man and Woman, Garden of Eden & Marriage) 9. Genesis 3-5:1a (Sin & Curse) 10. Genesis 5:1b-6:9a (Decay) 11. Genesis 6:9b ² 10:1a (Flood & Justice) 12. Genesis 10:1b -12:4 (Nations and Languages) Universe: Objectives y Examine Genesis 1:1-5 from three interpretations y Young earth y Old earth ² Progressive Creation y Old earth ² Gap Theory y Understand the Hebrew words used in Genesis y Understand the interpretation of those words in order to arrive at the two perspectives y Impacts on interpreting the rest of Scripture y There will be no winner or loser today! Universe: What do others say? y ~150 AD ² Referred to Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 to support their views that the creation "days" in Genesis 1 were not 24 hours long, but a "thousand years" in duration.
    [Show full text]
  • Contents Page
    Contents Page Adventists and Genesis The Primary Time Theory Refuted By Paul Nethercott 2008 Contents Introduction Jehovah Witness Viewpoint Seventh Day Adventist Viewpoint The Age Of the Earth Is the Age Of Mankind Scientific Contradictions To The Book Of Genesis No Gap Between Genesis 1:1 and 1:3 Radioactive Dating Is Whole Rock Dating Radioactive Dating And Fossil Ages Radioactive Dating Of ‘Pre‐Cambrian’ Rocks Genesis Versus Radio‐Active Dating Chronology Controversy Over Radiometric Dating Methods The Days Of Creation Are Literal 24 Hour Days Ellen G. Whites Comments Gunter Faure Brent Dalrymple History Of Modern Creationism The Biblical Account Of Origins In the Beginning Where Did the Light on the First Day Come From? Light On The First Day Of Creation Loma Linda University Conclusions References www.CreationOnTheWeb.org Adventists And Genesis 1 Introduction The Men Behind The Idea The Founders Of The Primary Time Theory Pastor Russell Judge Rutherford Nathan Homer Knorr Jehovah’s Witnesses The Bible does not say how long a period elapsed between the beginning when God created the heaven and the earth, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses beginning of the creative week used in perfecting it for man: nor do Long before the beginning of those Jehovah’s Witnesses geologists agree amongst seven days the molten mass had “In the beginning God created the heavens and the themselves as to the period of this thrown off great quantities of mineral interval‐‐a few extremists indulge in Earth.” (Genesis 1:1) Just how long ago the starry substances in vapor form, and these heavens and the earth were created is not stated In wild speculations of millions of had formed into rings around the years.
    [Show full text]
  • Download February 2001
    Vol. 30 No. 2 February 2001 NOAH’S ARK REMAINS IN THE NEWS! By John D. Morris John Morris at site dedication for the Rainbow Paradise. Noah’s Ark and Noah’s Flood have al- attempt to minimize Scripture, was car- ways been favorite children’s stories, but ried by newspapers worldwide. adults remain fascinated with factual pos- More favorable coverage, although sibilities as well. Every bit of news com- less definitive, was featured in Insight, mands headlines in the media. Sometimes (www.insightmag.com) vol. 16, no. 43, the reports contain bogus information, but November 20, 2000. A cover photo and intriguing facts continue to captivate. major article entitled “Anomaly or The depths of the Black Sea recently Noah’s Ark?” related some of the evi- yielded up evidence for a major flood and dence which supports the contention that a prior civilization which was misinter- remains of Noah’s Ark may yet remain preted as from the great Flood of Noah’s on Mt. Ararat in eastern Turkey. It fea- day. But this flood accompanied the end tured efforts to obtain release of govern- of the Ice Age following Noah’s Flood, ment satellite photos, which are reported as melting glaciers caused sea level to to show the Ark. Through the efforts of rise, flooding the Mediterranean and then Professor Porcher Taylor, several 1949 the Black Sea basins, which were inhab- photos, which showed the “Ararat ited by that time. This probably occurred Anomaly,” were released in 1995. They sometime soon after the Tower of Babel revealed an elongated object, several incident.
    [Show full text]
  • Gap Theory  Other Flavors …  Conclusions
    Compromising Theories Dr. Heinz Lycklama [email protected] www.osta.com “The concept of a frog being turned into a prince in an instant is a fairy tale, but the assertion that a frog, given 300 million years, can turn into a man, is considered science.” Dr. Duane Gish, ICR Compromising Theories Genesis 1-11 as our foundation Theistic Evolution Problems with Theistic Evolution Progressive Creation Day-Age Theory Gap Theory Other flavors … Conclusions @ Dr. Heinz Lycklama The Coral Reef Measurement The age of the earth has been tied to the rate of growth of coral for more than a century now In the March 1997 issue of Nature, three scientists reported on their work in measuring the growth of living staghorn coral located in the Great Barrier Reef in Australia Using a precision laser measuring device, they found that coral was growing at the rate of 1.25 inches per year Since some coral is more than 2000 feet deep, that leads to an age of the earth of at least 19,200 years old @ Dr. Heinz Lycklama The Coral Reef “Compromise” In 1862, James Dwight Dana presented in his Manual of Geology that coral grew at about 1/16th of an inch per year, resulting in an age of the earth of at least 384,000 years old As a result of his studies, Dana vigorously promoted the idea that God took millions of years to bring about His creation Dana was instrumental in converting Yale University from its orthodox Christian foundation to a belief in evolution @ Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Creation
    The Case For Creation Sermons On The Subjects Of Creation And Evolution This material is from ExecutableOutlines.com, a web site containing sermon outlines and Bible studies by Mark A. Copeland. Visit the web site to browse or download additional material for church or personal use. The outlines were developed in the course of my ministry as a preacher of the gospel. Feel free to use them as they are, or adapt them to suit your own personal style. To God Be The Glory! Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2009 Mark A. Copeland The Case For Creation Table Of Contents The Biblical Case For Creation 3 The Philosophical Case For Creation 5 The Scientific Case For Creation 8 The Historical Case For Creation 12 The Days Of Creation 17 The Case For Six Literal 24 Hour Days 19 Difficulties With Evolutionary Science 22 Difficulties With Evolutionary Scientists 26 Resources For Further Study 28 The Case For Creation 2 Mark A. Copeland The Case For Creation The Biblical Case For Creation INTRODUCTION 1. Among the fundamental questions of life, are those related to the issue of origins... a. Where did life come from? b. How did it all begin? 2. The answers basically fall into two groups... a. Matter is eternal, and life has evolved through purely natural processes b. Matter is not eternal, and life was created by a supernatural force 3. The answers are not without consequence... a. Those who believe matter is eternal tend to deny the existence of God b. Those who believe matter was created tend to believe in a Supreme Being [The question of origins cannot be answered with 100% certainty.
    [Show full text]
  • Mar April 2013 C
    But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and Where We Study take any person from among them, he is taken away in his and Research Bible iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand. EZE 33:6 Prophecy March — April 2013 David Mathews Stephen Hanson Prophecy C.K. Quarterman Russ Dizdar Hebrew: The Rainbow Divisions Leading to Genesis Secrets and the The Truth Behind the Language the Internal Revolution Club Endtimes Mass Shootings! Friday, March 8th Saturday, March 9th Saturday, April 13th Monday, April 15th 7 — 10:30 p.m. 7 — 10:30 p.m. 7 - 10:30 p.m. 7 - 10:30 p.m. David has been studying Stephen says there are Meetings! CK is a published author. Russ has been shattering and teaching the Hebrew lan- many divisions in America Founded End Time Ministries the darkness for 30 years guage of Eden for 12 years. The Prophecy Club/ that will lead to more divi- where he uses his knowledge He is the author of the He has been in ministry sions and the internal revo- Spirit of Prophecy to reveal Biblical mysteries. very popular book The Black for 30 years and Pastor for 13 lution spoken to Dumitru Church, He is the author of Genesis Awakening years. Duduman. There are divisions Secrets Revealed, and Fallen in the Church, politics, rich/ 2540 Avenue K, Angels Giants, UFO En- He is interviewed on He conducts radio inter- poor, black/white, prayer, counters and The New World hundreds of radio and TV views and conferences inter- abortion, sesession, gun con- Suite 100, Plano, TX Order.
    [Show full text]
  • The Intelligent Designer
    Tirthankar Vani, HereNow4U Soul: The Intelligent Designer Prof Narayan Lal Kachhara 1. Creationism and Intelligent Design Life is still a mystery to science and many others. Existence of life has always been a standing question before the humanity and all great thinking souls have pondered over it and offered explanations. Many religions like Hinduism, Christianism, Islam, Judaism, etc. believe in creationism which holds that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing. There are different versions of creationism like Dualistic and Non-Dualistic concepts of Hinduism, Young Earth Creationism, Gap Creationism and Progressive Creationism. Creationism became the object of renewed interest among conservative religious groups following the wide dissemination of the theory of biological evolution, first systematically propounded by Charles Darwin in 19 th century. In the late 20 th century many creationists advocated a view known as Intelligent Design, which was essentially a scientifically modern version of the argument from design for the existence of God. This view is intended to demonstrate that living organisms were created in more or less their present form by an "Intelligent designer (God)" Proponents of intelligent design observed that the functional parts and systems of living organisms are" incredible complex" in the sense that none of their component parts can be removed without causing the whole system to cease functioning. From this premise they inferred that no such system could have come about through the gradual alteration of functioning precursor systems by means of random mutation and natural selection, as the standard evolutionary account maintains.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes for Genesis in the Influential 1917 Scofield Reference Bible
    Preliminary Thoughts The first five books of the Bible are known by several names: The Pentateuch (penta=five; teuchos=scroll or book), the Five Books of Moses, the Law of Moses, the Torah (Hebrew for Law), the Law. It is believed that Moses was the author of these books for several reasons. Luke 24:27And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Matthew 18:4; 19:7-8; 23:2 Mark 1:44; 10:3-4; 7:10 Luke 5:14; 16:19, 31; 20:37; 24:27, 44 John 3:14; 5:39, 45-46; 6:32; 7:19, 22-23 The Torah, Pentateuch, Law, etc: Genesis – The Book of Beginnings Exodus – The Birth of a Nation Leviticus – The Law of the Nation Numbers – The Wilderness Wanderings Deuteronomy – The Law Renewed There are those who question the historical validity of Genesis and in particular, the first 11 chapters. However, it is interesting to note: Adam is mentioned in Deuteronomy, Job, and I Chronicles, not to mention, the New Testament in Romans, I Corinthians, I Timothy, Jude and the Gospel of Luke 3:38 in the genealogy of Mary, “Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.” No passage ever gives a hint to the effect that Adam was fictitious or symbolic. Noah appears in I Chronicles, Isaiah and Ezekiel. In the New Testament, Matthew, Luke, Hebrews, I & II Peter. Abraham appears 15 times in the Old Testament and 11 times in the New.
    [Show full text]
  • A False Dichotomy?
    Creation and Evolution: A False Dichotomy? Jeff Hardin, Professor and Chair, Department of Zoology, UW-Madison Phone: 608-262-9634 • email: [email protected] I. Introduction: How Should We Think about the Question of Origins? A. A personal story about binary thinking B. Finding common ground: What Christians can all affirm about creation 1. God is the Creator through Jesus Christ 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:16-17) We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made (Nicene Creed, AD 325) 2. Psalm 19 – God’s Two Books 1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge… 7 The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple. 8 The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes. “...let no man…think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works.” Francis Bacon, Advancement of Learning, Bk I [Note: quoted by both Charles Darwin in the preface to The Origin of Species and Henry Morris in Men of Science, Men of God, pp.
    [Show full text]