Is there a place for interaction between science and theology? I try to take a different direction here and pursue an approach different from the common arguments. The idea of non-overlapping magestieria is too simplistic and subject theology to science or science to theology is too provincial. There are other options and I’ll explore one of them.

This is standard for all orthodoxies. No naturalismist constructs an apologetic for YEC, OEC, or TE. They just don’t. These are called “belief systems.” It seems silly to have to say that, but it seems Mr. Enns missed something really basic.

simpler approach is James Shapiro’s informational assumption. Think of it as a variation on Dawkin’s selfish gene but going one step further. The gene is not only selfish but smart, too. It’s the biological equivalent of Adam Smith’s economic self-interest. Genes may now be seen as producers and investors rather than as mere consumers.