Christianity is not burdened with the requirement that everything result from natural processes. The Christian worldview allows for supernatural intervention in the material world, and thus, depending on which is most logically consistent with the data, either natural or supernatural explanations of nature are allowed. In the study of biology this means that, like other theists, Christians have a broader palette of explanations to draw on than do materials. Not surprisingly, this may mean that Christians are willing to entertain explanations that are anathema within materialist dogma.

The discovery that God is the ultimate source and cause of life on earth does not bring the study of nature to a halt. In fact, discovering the ultimate cause of phenomena is the Holy Grail of science, not because it causes the work of science to cease but because it provides profound insights suggesting new potentially productive lines of research. (Darwin’s Nemesis p. 119-20)

Determining whether life is "natural"-the product of natural laws and chance alone-is not possible within the present definition of science. Instead, life must first be assumed to be natural, and if that is done, it must be explained via natural causes. When problems inherent in materialist definitions of science were recognized by those writing the Ohio science standards, they wisely modified this definition to read: "Recognize that science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, based on observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, and theory building, which leads to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." (Darwin’s Nemesis p. 121) This may still not be a satisfactory definition for Christians, but it is better than the completely materialistic definition generally proposed.

If Christian education is to ensure students come to the "right answers," but those "right answers" are decided before the education begins, then this "education" may well turn out to be the very kind of coercion that should be anathema to Christian thinking. (Darwin’s Nemesis p. 122)

Significant risk is inherent in presenting information in a way that allows students to make their own judgment; they may not make the judgment that Christian teachers believe to be correct. On the other hand, attempting to reduce the risk by keeping students ignorant denies them their God-given right to a free and informed choice. (Darwin’s Nemesis p.123)

(Excerpted from Darwin’s Nemesis, William Dembski, editor.)

Timothy G. Standish has an M.S. in biology from Andrews University, and a Ph.D. in biology and public policy from George Mason University (University of Virginia).

William A. Dembski has a Ph.D. in philosophy, a Ph.D. in mathematics and a M.S. in Statistics from the University of Chicago. He also has a M. Div. degree from Princeton Theological Seminary.