Quote

I also think we need to maintain distinctions - the doctrine of creation is different from a scientific cosmology, and we should resist the temptation, which sometimes scientists give in to, to try to assimilate the concepts of theology to the concepts of science.

God created the world; the laws of nature were created by God. True science tries to find out what God put in the world. The trouble is where scientists speculate about theology and they don't know what they're talking about because they weren't there. They can't speculate about the origins of life because they weren't there.

Unlike science, creationism cannot predict anything, and it cannot provide satisfactory answers about the past.

There's no way that scientists can ever rule out religion, or even have anything significant to say about the abstract idea of a divine creator.

I'd be perfectly happy with a mathematically precise description of how time began. I see science and religion as being two completely different things. I don't see science as relevant to the question of whether or not there's a God.

Creation is absolute, 100 percent scientific proof that there was a Creator.

Those theologians who are beginning to take the doctrine of creation very seriously should pay some attention to science's story.

All of creation, in the biblical view, was to ultimately prepare the way for the creation of man. But one does not need the Bible alone to hold this view. A purely scientific reading of the universe is in keeping with this view. Everything - every natural and physical law - is exquisitely tuned to produce life, and ultimately man, on earth.

Creationist critics often charge that evolution cannot be tested, and therefore cannot be viewed as a properly scientific subject at all. This claim is rhetorical nonsense.

The Bible gives a true and trustworthy account of creation, and that account in no way conflicts with or contradicts an old-Earth view, and vice versa.