Listen to this article (38: 26 min) 

Music of the Spheres Column

Explorations in Science, Philosophy, and Christian Thought

This article was published exclusively online in the Christian Research Journal, Volume 49, number 03 (2026).

This is also a Viewpoint article. Viewpoint articles address relevant contemporary issues in discernment and apologetics from a particular perspective that is usually not shared by all Christians, with the intended result that Christians’ thinking on that issue will be stimulated and enhanced (whether or not people end up agreeing with the author’s opinion).

When you support the Journal, you join the team and help provide the resources at equip.org that minister to people worldwide. These resources include our ever-growing database of more than 2,500 articles and Bible Answers, as well as our free Postmodern Realities podcast.

Another way you can support our online articles is by leaving us a tip. A tip is just a small amount, like $3, $5, or $10, which is the cost of a latte, lunch out, or coffee drink. To leave a tip, click here.

Synopsis

During the last quarter-century, there have been both noticeable shifts and unfortunate stagnation in science and faith discourse. The age of the Earth, the geographical scope of the Genesis flood, and the extent of evolutionary change over biological history continue to be hotly debated at the popular level, often with the same fallacious rhetoric and vitriol that was common decades ago. The volatile political landscape has affected the conversation, as various views on the details of creation widely regarded as non-primary doctrinal issues have been, unfortunately, co-opted into the culture wars.

There seems to be a consensus among academics today that more Christians have been persuaded of some kind of macro-evolutionary mechanism, and a contingent of these evolutionary creationists represent one of the two most visible camps in the so-called “creation wars” (the other being young-Earth creationism). Many Christians still seem to be oblivious or perhaps underinformed of the “middle way” views such as old-Earth creationism and the “mere creation” approach championed by proponents of intelligent design (ID). Recent high-profile media exposure through outlets such as The Joe Rogan Experience and Piers Morgan Uncensored has increased visibility of the ID movement, which has done much to raise awareness.

Several academics who either specialize or have expertise in science and faith issues were interviewed for this op-ed, and their perspectives show interesting commonalities in terms of the shape of the contemporary discourse as well as the aspects that are most desperately in need of improvement. Although a lot of progress certainly needs to be made as far as accuracy, charity, and intellectual humility, there is room for optimism, given the fair-mindedness and diplomatic attitudes of many in the academy and the excellent work being done by some Christian public intellectuals who call for a more responsible and charitable science and faith discourse.

Only once during my college career did I ever raise my hand to challenge the words of a professor. It was the spring of 1999, the final semester of my senior year at a small Christian university in rural North Carolina. Although I was mere weeks away from graduation as a biology major, I had never, until that moment, heard a statement in a lecture that was dissonant with my preconceived notions about the relationship between science and Scripture. To be sure, I had learned plenty about evolutionary theory in three and a half years, but the largely neutral manner with which the material was presented left what I considered a comfortable margin for skepticism.

My fateful moment came during an early evening physics course taught by Jason Ezell, a brilliant, perpetually disheveled physicist with Einsteinian hair who never lacked a relevant illustration from either Star Trek or Star Wars.¹ If memory serves, he was explaining how long it had taken the light from a supernova in the Andromeda Galaxy to reach Earth: 2.5 million years.

Wait…what? There hasn’t been enough time since the creation of the universe for that to have happened.

I raised my hand: “Professor Ezell, how do astronomers determine this? How can it be true, given the Genesis creation account? How do they know?” I remember the skeptical tone of my voice and the subtle snickers made by students sitting behind me (I always sat in the front row, like any geek worthy of the label). My professor, in carefully measured words and with a patient tone explained how the calculations are made. I don’t remember making a verbal response to Professor Ezell; I think I simply nodded politely. The mathematics of astrophysics was markedly different from the bold extrapolations and inferences made by evolutionary theorists; the starlight transit issue seemed more directly empirical. To say the least, my dogmatism softened, because I began to realize how much I didn’t know. In hindsight, I now regard that moment as one of the stepping-stones towards my eventual academic vocation in the discipline of science and religion.

About a month after graduation, while working as a research assistant in a genetics lab at Wake Forest School of Medicine, I encountered the work of Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder, an Orthodox Jewish physicist (MIT) who had published a book entitled The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom.² I was struck by the cover art, which featured an image of Adam and Eve alongside a DNA-helix-entwined Tree of Knowledge. Schroeder proposes a concordism between the biblical creation narrative and an evolutionary biological history, citing the succession of fossils in the geologic column as supportive of the order of creation — aquatic life to humankind — described in Genesis 1. In other words, God used the evolutionary process as a creation mechanism. Although not totally convinced of his view, I was intrigued by Schroeder’s method of reconciling modern science with his understanding of the biblical data, and I wanted to learn more about how other credentialed scientists were approaching this project. At that time, I didn’t yet own a personal computer or know much about navigating the young and mysterious World Wide Web (beyond how to log in and check my Hotmail account), so physical library stacks and brick-and-mortar bookstores were my only resources.

My search did not yield much at first, but then, in 2001, some new friends invited my husband and me to a conference put on by a young-Earth creationism organization. I found the talks on “creation science” compelling, to say the least; I’d never heard anyone argue so passionately and persuasively for a particular understanding of Genesis 1. I became a voracious reader of popular level creationism material; I bought dozens of books and DVDs, attended more conferences, and memorized pithy talking points to wield in conversations, including (I’m now ashamed to say) Ken Ham’s fallacious battle cry: “It’s God’s word or man’s fallible opinions!”

Then, in 2009, as a homeschooling mom with two young boys, my autodidactic era ended when I began graduate studies in Biola University’s Science and Religion program, which was founded and directed by the brilliant Dr. John Bloom. I knew going in that the professors held a diversity of views on issues like the age of the Earth and the geographical extent of Noah’s flood, but I felt ready to navigate class conversations involving different perspectives. Over the next three years, I had a richer and more joyful experience than I knew was possible, studying under professors who not only reflected the love of Christ but were also experts from a wide range of disciplines: philosophy, astrophysics, biochemistry, history of science, archaeology, and theology. Early on in grad school, my great epiphany was that the science and faith conversation was exponentially more complex and nuanced than I had ever imagined. The scope of my exposure and study up to that point had been extremely limited (and somewhat misleading), and my intellectual formation had been woefully inadequate. For one thing, I’d never been trained in the rigors of logical reasoning nor taught the great importance of investigating various perspectives on their own terms. For another, I had been influenced by reams of popular level commentary that had oversimplified the landscape, sometimes to the point of distortion. I realized that this deficiency (as true deficiencies are wont to do) had also cultivated in my soul a terrible vice: a woeful lack of charity, both intellectual and interpersonal, towards advocates of the views I’d been convinced were imminent dangers to the very foundations of the Christian faith. Thankfully, during my years at Biola, I experienced a rigorous and balanced curriculum that not only filled in some terrible gaps in my knowledge but also taught me how to be a learner.³ Not to mention, I came to understand how crucial it is to employ Christian virtues in all dialogue for the sake of the gospel.⁴

Equipped with a much clearer lens and some desperately needed intellectual humility, I began to recognize and grieve the devastation that had been wrought within the church by the so-called “creation wars.” The inflammatory, fallacy-laced rhetoric from prominent corners of evangelicalism had bred ugly division and strife — even at the local congregational level. This became all too clear to me in the early 2010s as I was working to facilitate a science and faith conference at my non-denominational Bible church in Texas. With the permission of my pastor, I had invited several scholars from the intelligent design (ID) organization, Discovery Institute: Drs. Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and John West. When word began circulating, one of the long-time members of the church approached our senior pastor and told him that he “should be ashamed” of himself for not orchestrating a conference devoted exclusively to young-Earth creationism (YEC), since (this member argued) this understanding of the Genesis creation narrative is a doctrinal essential that separates the heretical from the orthodox. I should have expected such heated objections, given my own former posture. I had been naive to assume that an Earth-age-neutral conference would promote unity and a spirit of common apologetic mission. There was clearly a lot of work to do.

THE CONTEMPORARY DISCOURSE

My approach to harmonizing God’s general and special revelation — His created world and His inspired word — has continued to develop over the ensuing years. For one thing, my convictions about defining the essentials of a robust doctrine of creation are far more finely tuned; where I once saw an entire range of hills to die on, I now see only a few, and those are surrounded by valleys and plains of legitimate theological latitude. When it comes to the scientific issues related to cosmic and biological origins, I have landed squarely in the ID camp, and for the past several years I’ve served as a Fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, where our Fellows and Senior Fellows hold a diversity of views on things like the age of the Earth and the extent of evolutionary change in biological history. My colleagues and I see tremendous value in taking a “mere creation” approach when making a case for a Creator, emphasizing the fact of divine creation rather than the secondary details of when and how. This is not to say that I (or any of my colleagues) regard those related exegetical and theological questions as unimportant, only that I’m convinced that excellent design arguments harnessed as a minimal scientific case for a mind behind the universe offers extra apologetic agility in science and faith conversations. More than ever, I understand the premium value of intellectual hospitality and authentic Christian charity in exchanges about these often (and unfortunately) emotionally charged, polarizing issues.

Has the timbre of the science and faith discourse improved since the late 1990s? Are the “creation wars” at least simmering down? I wish I could say yes. As with the horribly fraught political landscape, truth and goodness tend to be drowned out in the cacophony. For better or worse, we now have an overwhelming deluge of print and digital content on the interrelated topics, subtopics, and sub-subtopics related to creation questions. Uncredentialed Christian influencers with enormous, lucrative platforms dramatically shape the opinions of well-meaning laypersons, and this sometimes (but not always) epitomizes the “just enough knowledge to be dangerous” problem. The uncritical championing of spoon-fed views by certain political and denominational tribes has yielded increased polarization and “us versus them” attitudes. Moreover, highly influential Christian public intellectuals occasionally abandon their lane of expertise to comment on science and faith issues, and their statements are sometimes not only factually misguided, but venomous and destructive. One egregious recent instance of this occurred in April 2026 at an Answers in Genesis (AiG) conference for women. One of the headline speakers, Dr. Rosaria Butterfield, the atheist lesbian professor turned Presbyterian pastor’s wife and homeschool mom, delivered an impassioned speech in which she lumped together several prominent Christian figures for their views on vastly different theological issues, including the veracity of the Old Testament, human sexuality, the nature of hell, biological origins, and the Noahic flood. To the cheers and applause of the audience, she said, “Yes, I just named names, and that is because false teachers need to no longer threaten you, your household, and your children. You see, I am not part of the wolf rehoming business. I am not interested in running a humane association for heretics.”⁵ Among those to whom she applied such damning labels was Dr. Gavin Ortlund, for “accommodating the idea of a local flood.”⁶ I found this pretty shocking, to be honest, given the number of revered conservative theologians (past and present) who regard the scope of the flood (global versus regional) as a secondary or tertiary issue. I commend to you the academically thorough and incredibly charitable response Ortlund offered: “Disagreeing on the Flood Isn’t Heresy.”⁷

It is not difficult to figure out where Butterfield got the idea of calling out Ortlund. In her comments, she mentioned her friendship with co-speaker and political commentator Megan Basham, who had named Ortlund alongside a variety of other Christian figures whom she accused of leftist compromise in her instant New York Times bestseller, Shepherds for Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda (Broadside Books, 2024). While her mention of Ortlund was not related to his perspective on the Genesis flood, a few months after the release of her book, Basham took aim at the localized flood view on X. She parroted a still popular (and still fallacious) YEC talking point: “I’m a young-earth, six-day, literal-Adam creationist. (Oh yeah, and the flood was global, because the Bible tells me so.)”⁸ The implicit claim here is that anyone who holds different views on the age of the Earth and the scope of the Genesis flood is not upholding the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. When Ortlund posted on X that he believed the flood account could be read as referring to a localized event, Basham responded, “I don’t think it’s God’s reputation you’re worried about.”⁹ It is interesting that Basham has never leveled accusations of compromise at Dr. Frank Turek, the prolific Christian apologist with whom she has collaborated from time to time. Turek embraces an old Earth and, like Ortlund, treats the geographical scope of Noah’s flood as an open question, acknowledging that there are arguments on both sides.¹⁰ Turek is a professor at Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES) in North Carolina, an institution that makes plenty of room for old-Earth creationism (OEC) as well as the regional flood view. SES was co-founded by Dr. Norman Geisler, an old-Earth creationist who was one of the framers of the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and the 1982 Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics. In his commentary on Article XXII of the latter, Geisler explained that it “left open the question of the age of the earth.”¹¹ Moreover, Drs. Hugh Ross and Fazale (“Fuz”) Rana of Reasons to Believe, a premier old-Earth creation ministry that promotes a regional flood view, are long-time adjunct professors at SES. Over the years, I have personally attended debates between young-Earth and old-Earth creationists at SES’s national apologetics conference and have been impressed by the seminary’s fair-mindedness on these issues. On multiple occasions, SES has been on the receiving end of harsh critique by Ken Ham of AiG for this very reason.¹² Basham will be speaking at an AiG conference alongside Ham this year, at the end of September and first of October.¹³ Note that she was a speaker at SES’s conference in 2023, alongside Turek and Ross, yet she has not (to my knowledge) been publicly critical of that institution nor any of its faculty members. Neither has Butterfield, who is scheduled to speak alongside Turek at the 2026 Essential Summit hosted by the Center for Christian Virtue this October.¹⁴ This seems to be a rather convenient double standard; it is curious, to say the least.

As I’ve observed the intramural mudslinging and tribalism over the years, I’ve often thought about how thrilling all this would be to Uncle Screwtape, the head demon in C. S. Lewis’s famous allegory, The Screwtape Letters (1942). Happily, I recently re-encountered a brilliant relevant essay written by Susannah Black Roberts, a contributor to The American Conservative, Plough, and Mere Orthodoxy. Roberts imagines how Uncle Screwtape would capitalize on the brokenness we see in so much of the public interaction between Christians:

Let them treat their personal foes, those fellow-citizens and often enough fellow-Christians, with whom they have a grievance, as though they were the enemies of their country in war. Indeed, what is wanted most is to stir up hatred against those who are in these matters as close as possible in terms of shared Christian belief and shared institutions, while being in some sense competitive precisely because of that proximity….Your patient is an American evangelical — let him by all means focus most of his vitriol on American evangelicals very slightly to his left or to his right. This narcissism of small differences creates, to my palate, one of the more piquant deformations of soul. Of course, your patient must never be permitted to reflect that one of the things that he is doing in his attacks on those whose friends he may share, whose writings may appear alongside his in journals, is an attempt at market differentiation. There has been nothing so helpful to our strategies in these areas as the creation of a marketplace of personal brands, of potentially profitable public profiles among those who profess our Enemy’s name.¹⁵

I love that line: “This narcissism of small differences creates, to my palate, one of the more piquant deformations of soul.” Mic drop.

There are certainly positives to note in the contemporary discourse. In recent years, several major secular media platforms have spotlighted theologically conservative Christian scholars, including Stephen Meyer, who is perhaps the world’s leading proponent of ID. In 2023, Joe Rogan, who hosts the podcast recognized as number one in the world, The Joe Rogan Experience, sat down for an in-depth conversation with Meyer that clocked in at a whopping three hours and ten minutes (the full interview was uploaded to YouTube in 2024).¹⁶ Rogan is a thoughtful interviewer who often asks insightful questions; he gave Meyer ample time and latitude to articulate the ID position as well as his thoughts on various philosophical and theological issues related to the question of a transcendent creator. The episode was widely viewed and attracted extensive mainstream attention. More than once, Meyer has been featured on the Piers Morgan Uncensored program. In 2024, the episode was styled as a friendly debate of sorts, although Morgan identifies as a Roman Catholic (many of whom are not friendly to ID arguments).¹⁷ Morgan invited Meyer back in the spring of 2026 to discuss the new documentary, The Story of Everything,¹⁸ which (at the time the episode was posted on YouTube) had just made its theatrical debut.¹⁹ The film, which enjoyed success as a limited release and is now available on streaming platforms, prominently features Meyer and other design proponents from a range of related scientific and philosophical disciplines. It is a beautiful and skillfully crafted film, with a prologue and epilogue delivered by the popular Christian apologist, Lee Strobel. AiG almost immediately published a review in which the authors acknowledged the merits of the production but criticized its scope:

This well-made film — with clearly intelligent scientists and awe-inspiring graphics — tells a story, quite literally, of the beauty of the intricacy and intelligence needed for our universe to even work (much less have a semblance of beauty); however, the story leads nowhere. Evidence upon evidence pointed only toward intelligence, causality, a “mind,” and a beginning.²⁰

The authors of this review seem to suggest that there is little value in a circumscribed strategy — using evidence for design as a strategic attack on the foundations of scientific materialism. But, as I have argued elsewhere, a production of this type can most certainly, by the Holy Spirit’s guidance, serve as a compelling signpost for the unbeliever during the journey towards the Christian faith.²¹

DATA FROM A SELECTION OF CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS

What I’ve offered above is a collection of my own field notes on current public discourse. Ultimately, it is difficult to make a concise, decisive assessment; it largely depends upon where you’re sitting and the circles in which you move. I thought one good way to supplement my perspective would be to interview a range of theologically conservative intellectuals about their experiences and observations over the years. My interviewees included science and faith scholars properly speaking, but also academic theologians and apologists who have relevant expertise and sizeable public platforms or strategic ministry roles. While their views on harmonizing science and faith differ in one way or another, all of them, in their respective vocations, are fighting the good fight to present their views with clarity, accuracy, and Christian charity. They are also united in their efforts to reshape the spirit of the contemporary conversation for the glory of God.

Sean McDowell, PhD

Dr. Sean McDowell currently serves as a professor of apologetics at Biola University’s Talbot School of Theology. He has earned two master’s degrees (theology and philosophy) as well as a PhD in apologetics and worldview studies. A prolific author, speaker, podcaster, and YouTube host, McDowell has participated in science and faith conversations for many years and in a variety of contexts. Of special note for present purposes is the excellent book he coauthored with Dr. William Dembski, Understanding Intelligent Design (Harvest House, 2008), as well as the numerous episodes of his YouTube program that tackle science-related topics.²² I asked McDowell what changes he has witnessed in science and faith discourse over the past quarter-century:

Roughly twenty-five years ago, the science-faith debate seemed to focus on the age of the Earth. While much was (and is) at stake, it was largely considered an in-house debate among believers who were trying to make sense of the relationship between the Bible and science. Christians embraced YEC and OEC, and some also advanced ID, but the main debates and dividing line were over the age of the Earth. The idea that God used evolution, at least in evangelical circles, was a fringe position. One of the reasons for this is that theistic evolutionists at that time often elevated science above Scripture and they questioned core doctrines such as the historical Adam and the fall. Over the past decade or so, evolutionary creationists have advanced their views from (arguably) a more orthodox framework, thus addressing concerns that they undermine the authority of Scripture. As a result, theistic evolution (evolutionary creation) seems to be more widely accepted as an option for Christians than at the turn of the century. Also, the case for intelligent design has gotten far more sophisticated. It has moved into a more “mature” phase of research and proponents are advancing their case in a range of arenas (biology, cosmology, neuroscience, etc.).²³

I concur with McDowell’s observations, especially about the wider acceptance of evolutionary creation, and the significant strides made by the ID movement.²⁴ Fortunately, his excellent work and personable demeanor have served to build trust with today’s Christian influencers and general audiences. A few years ago, for example, he was interviewed by popular Christian talk show host Allie Beth Stuckey on the question of the age of the Earth, and he fairly and charitably articulated the competing views. He explained that both are viable options within a Christian worldview and noted that theological essentials, including the inspiration and authority of Scripture, are faithfully upheld by conservative members of both camps.²⁵ McDowell’s exhortation was for Christians to refrain from dividing over these subsidiary questions. The graciousness of the exchange was encouraging, since Stuckey herself seems to hold a young-Earth view (she has featured Ken Ham on her show), although she admitted that she has never undertaken a deep dive into each of the different perspectives.²⁶

Gavin Ortlund, PhD

Dr. Gavin Ortlund (previously discussed) is the president of Truth Unites, a YouTube ministry where he delivers academically rigorous, yet accessible content related to a wide range of theological issues. He holds a Master of Divinity as well as a PhD in historical theology, and he currently serves as Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Nashville. I’ve followed Ortlund’s work for several years, and I’ve been continually impressed by his gracious tone and thorough treatment of whatever subject is under his consideration. He taps into the riches of historical theology in addressing a wide range of topics and debates, which is a marvelous service to the church, particularly the average layperson, who is often completely unaware of the domain of historical theology and thus unaware of how old many theological debates actually are. In his book, Retrieving Augustine’s Doctrine of Creation: Ancient Wisdom for Current Controversy (IVP Academic, 2020), Ortlund explains the “missing virtues” in the science and faith conversation and then meticulously examines the ancient and respectable roots of a non-literalistic interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative. His book, Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage (Crossway, 2020), is a must read, and it briefly mentions the creation days issue as one example of a wrong hill to die on. Ortlund has covered many science and faith topics on his YouTube channel with a high degree of competence and much valuable insight. I asked him to share his perspective on the current state of science and faith discourse and specify areas where he sees the most need for improvement.

I think the greatest need in the current science and faith conversation is not necessarily a new argument, but a healthier culture of disagreement. Unfortunately, like so much of our culture, conversations about faith and science are polarizing. We need more epistemic humility, more charitable dialogue across differences, more care for accurate representation of others’ views, and less suspicion that different perspectives necessarily represent compromise or bad motives. It would be thrilling if Christians were known to disagree about these matters in a way that reflects the love of Christ displayed in the gospel! I also think it’s critical to distinguish between first-order, foundational Christian commitments and secondary and tertiary issues on which faithful Christians can disagree. Many Christians today assume that an issue like the age of the Earth is a litmus test of orthodoxy. They are simply unaware that many orthodox Christians of the past (including many fundamentalists!) disagreed charitably on this question, without loss of Christian unity or fellowship. I wish I could say this situation is improving, but unfortunately, I cannot say that it is. In this respect conversations around faith and science might be an instructive test case of how Christian disagreements are currently polarizing. I am very eager to encourage Christians to seek a better way of engaging amidst different perspectives.²⁷

Ortlund most certainly practices what he preaches. Case in point: In the summer of this year (2026), he conducted a fantastic in-depth interview with geologist, paleontologist, and young earth creationist, Dr. Marcus Ross.²⁸ Both gentlemen modeled precisely the kind of intellectual humility, diplomacy, and kindness that should characterize all Christian dialogue. I highly recommend that video and will be sharing it with all of my science and faith students going forward.

Julie Miller, PhD

For fifteen years, eight of those at Rutgers University and the subsequent seven at Texas A&M University, Dr. Julie Miller has served as a campus chapter director for Ratio Christi, a global organization that provides Christian apologetics education on college campuses. She holds a master’s degree in apologetics as well as a PhD in humanities with a philosophy concentration. She is the author of Critiquing Transhumanism: The Human Cost of Pursuing Techno-Utopia (Public Philosophy Press, 2022), as well as Do You Want to Live Forever? A Tolkienian Critique of Transhumanism (Ratio Christi Press, 2025).²⁹ During her years working for Ratio Christi, Miller has been uniquely positioned to observe college students’ attitudes towards matters of science and faith and engage with them on their pressing questions. I asked her to summarize some of the boots-on-the-ground impressions she has collected over the past decade and a half.

At Ratio Christi, our mission is to equip students and faculty to share reasons and evidence from philosophy, science, and history for the core truth claims of Christianity. We have believers and non-believers in our chapter, so we sometimes have students from all four of the major camps (YEC, OEC, evolutionary creation, and naturalistic evolution). Our first task is to introduce the principle of theological triage from Gavin Ortlund’s book, Finding the Right Hills to Die On. We make the case that there is a hierarchy of doctrines, and if a doctrine is not first-rank (essential to the gospel), sincere Christians may disagree charitably and still have fellowship with one another. This principle is important, and the stakes are high. To give an example from the Rutger’s chapter, after presenting six different views of creation using Gerald Rau’s Mapping the Origins Debate,³⁰ a student approached me to say how relieved he was to hear there were different views available to Christians. He had been about to leave his faith behind because he had concluded that the YEC position he’d grown up with was untenable. Since YEC proponents have made themselves highly visible in the culture and have spoken so dogmatically, our atheist friends at both Rutgers and Texas A&M almost always assume that all Christians are YEC and seem visibly relieved when they learn that YEC is not the only view on the table. Since most students have not seen charitable dialogue between Christians on these issues, we emphasize developing the intellectual virtues of humility, fair-mindedness, and carefulness when investigating and dialoging with others. Interestingly, our students from classical Christian high schools typically have a better grasp of debatable issues and are better prepared to engage with other students. At the same time, I find it encouraging that some of our YEC students learn to maintain their position and yet not argue about it as if it were a first-rank doctrine.³¹

Miller’s emphasis on the hierarchy of doctrine and on virtuous Christian disagreement are clearly proving effective and edifying among her students. The anecdote about the student who nearly abandoned Christianity once he got to college is not unique; I’ve heard other campus ministry leaders and faculty recount similar stories of students who thought there were no truly biblical alternatives to whatever narrow view they were raised with and which they no longer considered defensible. Simply having access to the broader conversation can be, and has been, a lifeline for many.

John Bloom, PhD

Dr. John Bloom is emeritus professor of physics and, as noted above, the founding director of the graduate program in Science and Religion at Biola University. He holds four master’s degrees (biblical studies, ancient Near Eastern studies, physics, and divinity) a PhD in physics with a biochemistry minor, and a PhD in ancient Near Eastern studies. In short, Bloom is a bona fide modern-day polymath, and I was honored to study under him at Biola. I asked him what he has observed over the past quarter-century, changes he’s noticed in relations between leaders of “competing” perspectives (YEC, OEC, and theistic evolution/evolutionary creation [TE/EC]),³² whether he has found today’s Christian influencers (YouTube show hosts, podcast hosts, etc.) to be friendly towards his perspective on biblical creation, and where he sees the most need for improvement in science and faith discourse.

I increasingly find the TE/EC position is the “default” view among conservative Christians, and less interest in creation issues overall. I also see less Christian interest in environmental issues. Probably the hot buttons today are consciousness and AI-related topics….I do not see any dialogue between positions. Although Reasons to Believe (OEC) is most open to it, [proponents of] the other positions are not. The Peaceful Science website³³ gives space to atheists on these topics, but [those atheists who participate are] not really open to dialogue either….I’ve tried to present OEC as “the middle way” to stay biblically faithful while accepting the science (but not the naturalism). The conversation seems polarized between the extremes of YEC and TE, and hardly any lay people are aware of OEC, despite groups like Reasons to Believe advocating it for decades. So, I’d like to see more attention/awareness of the OEC position. Also, less writing-off of ‘the other side’ (YEC/TE) as idiots or heretics.³⁴

Bloom reconfirmed my own impression that OEC is not as well known among laypersons as YEC and evolutionary creation views are, and that those more extreme positions get the most press and inspire the most debate, which reinforces the illusion of a dichotomy (evolutionary views or YEC, with no other options). It is disappointing to hear of a persistent lack of openness to genuine dialogue among some of the major camps.

Marcus Ross, PhD

Dr. Marcus Ross, aforementioned for being a recent guest on Gavin Ortlund’s channel, is the founder of Cornerstone Educational Supply, a company that provides creation-based science education materials to private schools and homeschooling families. Prior to opening Cornerstone, Ross served as an associate professor of geology at Liberty University, where he taught for sixteen years. He holds an MS in paleontology and a PhD in geosciences and has a particular interest in dinosaur fossils. Months ago, Ross was recommended to me by both John Bloom and Fuz Rana as an excellent YEC scholar to invite to be one of the guest lecturers in my Christianity and Human Origins course at Houston Christian University. Ross did an outstanding job presenting the YEC perspective to my students, and I knew he would be a valuable contributor to this conversation. I asked him the same questions that I asked John Bloom, and his responses were resonant with those of my other interviewees.

Regarding creation specifically, the major shift within evangelicalism has been the rise of theistic evolution perspectives within this group, led by Francis Collins and the BioLogos organization. While not yet mainstream (especially among the evangelical laity), they have made significant inroads among evangelical academics. Relationships [between the different camps] are generally quite strained, though this remains little changed over the past twenty-five years. While the early goals of the intelligent design movement, as articulated by Philip Johnson, were to defeat naturalistic philosophy so theistic perspectives (especially OEC and YEC views) could be openly discussed, these goals have not been met. ID made very little progress in academia, and their attempt to be a philosophically minimalistic “big tent” has not attracted support from the specifically Christian-oriented approaches of either YEC or OEC organizations. YEC and OEC groups generally stay away from each other, with little dialogue, as there remain fundamental differences of opinion and approach. YEC itself is balkanized into three major organizations that largely distrust each other. There are a number of unaffiliated YEC scholars such as those featured in the film Is Genesis History?³⁵ mostly at universities and small ministries. They are moving slowly into view and may be coalescing into something more concrete. If that happens, it will be interesting to see if a more scholarly and less apologetic/polemical approach is received. OEC remains largely represented by Reasons to Believe. With Fuz Rana now president, this organization has been reaching out to other viewpoints for dialogue and discussion, which is encouraging. That said, I’m uncertain of the future viability of the OEC viewpoint with the rise of TE among evangelicals. I expect the OEC camp will gradually shed supporters to TE on the one side and YEC on the other.

Yes [Christian influencers have been friendly], though I admit that most of the people who’ve invited me onto their programs share my perspective. Those who have different views have been excellent as well, though I curate those appearances a bit more carefully so that they do not become too confrontational. There is a balance to be struck between Christian charity toward one another during disagreements and the need to stand firmly when doctrinal issues are at stake. It is important to dialogue with one another, but it is also important to draw clear lines regarding orthodoxy. For many years, the dialogue has been prized among academics while the line-drawing has been prized by lay-oriented organizations. Each could gain some wisdom from the other.³⁶

I especially appreciate Marcus Ross’s openness to intellectually responsible and charitable dialogue, and his excellent point about how different the in-house culture in the academy tends to be compared to that in lay-oriented organizations. I share that observation and have long wondered how to build more bridges.

THERE IS ROOM FOR OPTIMISM

We still have much work to do when it comes to educating Christians about the theological, philosophical, and scientific issues that complicate science and faith discourse. In many quarters, this presents what my agrarian grandparents would call “a hard row to hoe.” The emotionalism and the political threads that have become interwoven into some media platforms only exacerbate the problem. In addition, it is too often the case that those working hardest for productive, godly diplomacy are the very ones criticized or caught in the crossfire between the aggressively dogmatic and most radically polarized camps. Yet I remain hopeful about improvement in science and faith conversations in the coming years. As Christian public intellectuals continue working hard to model and champion a biblical culture in all discourse, especially where controversial topics are concerned, we can expect the Lord to bless those efforts. Imitate those good warriors and lend them your support and prayers. May Wormwood and Uncle Screwtape miserably fail.

Melissa Cain Travis, PhD, serves as an assistant professor of apologetics at Houston Christian University and as a fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. Her most recent book, coauthored with Andrew Ike Shepardson, is The Reconstruction Project: Recovering Truth and Rebuilding Faith (B&H Academic, 2026).

NOTES

1. Jason Ezell still teaches physics and astronomy at Campbell University. You can read about him in “Celestial Science,” Campbell University Magazine, August 19, 2024, https://magazine.campbell.edu/articles/celestial-science/.
2. Gerald L. Schroeder, The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom (The Free Press, 1997).
3.  I had many wonderful professors and studied the work of dozens of scholars who had a major influence on my thinking during my time at Biola. These included (but are not limited to) J. P. Moreland, Kevin Wong, C. John Collins, John Lennox, John Mark Reynolds, George Hunter, Paul Nelson, and Michael Keas.
4. Among others, two texts I have recommended many times over the years are C. John Collins’s Reading Genesis Well: Navigating History, Poetry, Science, and Truth in Genesis 1–11 (Zondervan, 2018) and John Lennox’s Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science (Zondervan, 2011 and 2021).
5. Quote transcribed from the video recording of Butterfield’s address at the Answers for Women conference, Anchored: Pursuing Biblical Sexuality in a Turbulent World, Ark Encounter, Williamstown, Kentucky, April 6–8, 2026.
6. Butterfield, Anchored address. I am not here commenting on any views of the other figures named by Butterfield. My intent here is to draw attention to her inclusion of Ortlund using the labels “false teachers,” “wolves,” and “heretics.”
7. Truth Unites with Gavin Ortlund, “Disagreeing on the Flood Isn’t Heresy (Responding to Rosaria Butterfield),” posted May 18, 2026, YouTube, 28:05, https://youtu.be/YwcxlJW-kAg.
8. Megan Basham, X post, January 9, 2025, https://x.com/megbasham/status/1877414018350027248.
9. Ortlund released a response video addressing the firestorm on X. See Truth Unites with Gavin Ortlund, “Is My Local Flood View Heresy?,” posted January 28, 2024, YouTube, 57:58, https://youtu.be/pgVsZCdlSPM?si=MeR0vJyrHc6chbo0&t=73.
10. For reference, see these clips from Q&A sessions in which Turek briefly comments on the scope of the flood: Frank Turek, “Did the Great Flood Really Happen Unveiling the Truth,” posted March 8, 2024, by Dr. Chip Bennett, YouTube Short, https://youtube.com/shorts/HdnSj9opXq8; Frank Turek, “Is There Evidence to Truly Support the Great Flood?,” posted October 18, 2023, by Cross Examined, YouTube, 2:17, https://youtube.com/shorts/HdnSj9opXq8.
11. For the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, see International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21, no. 4 (December 1978): 289–296, https://etsjets.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/files_JETS-PDFs_21_21-4_21-4-pp289-296_JETS.pdf. See also Norman L. Geisler, Explaining Hermeneutics: A Commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1983), commentary on art. XXII, https://bastionbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Explaining-Biblical-Inerrancy-ICBI-Sproul-Geisler.pdf.
12. See “Ken Ham Proves Our Point by Missing It Again,” Southern Evangelical Seminary, December 8, 2017, https://ses.edu/ken-ham-proves-our-point-by-missing-it-again/.
13. See “Answers for Pastors and Leaders Conference 2026,” Answers in Genesis, accessed August 24, 2026, https://answersingenesis.org/outreach/event/answers-for-pastors-2026/.
14. See “Restoring Faith in America,” Essential Summit, Center for Christian Virtue, accessed August 24, 2026, https://essentialsummit.org/.
15. Susannah Black Roberts, “Screwtape Considers the Culture Wars,” Mere Orthodoxy, January 9, 2024, https://mereorthodoxy.com/screwtape-considers-the-culture-wars/.
16. “Joe Rogan Experience #2008 — Stephen C. Meyer,” posted June 27, 2024, by PowerfulJRE, YouTube, 3:10:27, https://youtu.be/COyRH27wc84.
17. “Can This Man PROVE That God Exists? Piers Morgan vs Stephen Meyer,” posted May 3, 2024, by Piers Morgan Uncensored, YouTube, 33:04, https://youtu.be/ISUynYz93zY.
18. The Story of Everything: The Science That Reveals a Mind Behind the Universe, directed by Eric Esau, written by Stephen C. Meyer (Sypher Studios and Mew Films, 2026), https://www.thestoryofeverything.film/.
19. “Can This Man PROVE God Built the Universe? Stephen Meyer Returns,” posted May 1, 2026, by Piers Morgan Uncensored, YouTube, 35:33, https://youtu.be/zBI8vU7vadY.
20. Troy Lacey and Frost Smith, “Does The Story of Everything Really Cover Everything?,” Answers in Genesis, May 1, 2026. https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/movies/does-story-everything-really-cover-everything/.
21. For a more expansive treatment of my view on this matter, see Melissa Cain Travis, “Classical Apologetics,” in Understanding Christian Apologetics: Five Methods for Defending the Faith, ed. Timothy Paul Jones (Hendrickson, 2025).
22. See Sean McDowell’s YouTube channel, accessed August 26, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/@SeanMcDowell.
23. Interview with Sean McDowell, August 7, 2026.
24. Related to the evolutionary creation issue, McDowell has participated in the historical Adam dialogue, notably in conversations with his Talbot School of Theology colleague, Dr. William Lane Craig. Craig has been one of the more prominent voices in that debate. For example, see “Historical Adam: Updates and BIG Lessons (w/ William Lane Craig),” posted October 18, 2024, by Sean McDowell Show, YouTube, 59:41, https://youtu.be/kkmhq-6GdMs.
25. Sean McDowell, interview by Allie Beth Stuckey, “Does the Age of the Earth Matter? | Guest: Dr. Sean McDowell (Part Two) | Ep 901,” posted November 2, 2023, by Allie Beth Stuckey, YouTube, 36:51, https://youtu.be/Ah0pMKSGLP8.
26. In fact, Stuckey has enthusiastically interviewed Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis, a young-Earth creation ministry. Ham is often combative and sometimes incorrect in his assertions about opposing views, and it has been my observation over the years that many young-Earth creationists have distanced themselves from him for these reasons. See Gavin Ortlund’s response video, “What Ken Ham Misses About Creation,” posted September 7, 2023, by Gavin Ortlund, YouTube, 27:23, https://youtu.be/FL9t3O-1E7w. Also see Marcus Ross, interview by Cameron Bertuzzi, “Why Is Ken Ham ATTACKING Fellow Creationists?,” posted March 14, 2023, by Capturing Christianity, YouTube, 1:15:56, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV9ijpamElY. For Stuckey’s interviews with Ham, see “Did Dinosaurs Exist? | Guest: Ken Ham (Part One) | Ep 861,” posted August 23, 2023, by Allie Beth Stuckey, YouTube, 48:30, https://youtu.be/U6Jd1SK5Ahk; and “Can Christians Be Evolutionists? | Guest: Ken Ham (Part Two) | Ep 862,” posted August 24, 2023, by Allie Beth Stuckey, YouTube, 35:27, https://youtu.be/Mt_IsyqhyAs. For Stuckey’s acknowledgement in November 2023 that she had not deeply studied the competing views surrounding Genesis 1–3 and the age of the Earth, see Stuckey, interview with McDowell, “Does the Age of the Earth Matter?,” 1:19–2:13.
27. Interview with Gavin Ortlund, August 7, 2026.
28. Truth Unites with Gavin Ortlund, “Young Earth vs Old: A Better Way? (with Dr. Marcus Ross),” posted June 23, 2026, YouTube, 151:02, https://youtu.be/50owu1NBEFw.
29. Do You Want to Live Forever? (2025) is available through Ratio Christi Press, https://press.ratiochristi.org/product/do-you-want-to-live-forever/.
30. Gerald Rau, Mapping the Origins Debate: Six Models of the Beginning of Everything (IVP Academic, 2012).
31. Interview with Julie Miller, August 10, 2026.
32. The labels theistic evolution (TE) and evolutionary creation (EC) are sometimes used interchangeably, though proponents may differ over such questions as whether God directly intervened at various points in evolutionary history or merely “front-loaded” creation with all its creative capacities at the moment of the Big Bang singularity.
33. See Peaceful Science, “Mission and Values,” accessed August 26, 2026, https://peacefulscience.org/about/mission-and-values/.
34. Interview with John Bloom, July 28, 2026.
35. Is Genesis History?, directed by Thomas Purifoy Jr., hosted by Del Tackett (Compass Cinema, 2017).
36. Interview with Marcus Ross, July 25, 2026. The three YEC organizations that Ross refers to here are Answers in Genesis (AiG), the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and Creation Ministries International (CMI).