Vibrant Dance: Communicating Science and Science/Theology Issues

There were three panel discussions at the conference, one on Wednesday morning, and two on Thursday morning, of which this is the first. I was generally able to summarize each statement made by each speaker, and so will present these as summarizing transcripts. Each speaker will be identified by their initials, listed after their name below. The listing below comes as presented in the symposium program. My comments will be bracketed.

This panel was entitled, “Panel Discussion and Q&A with Speakers: The Vibrant Dance of Faith & Science:  Communicating to our Churches, Communicating to our Cultures –Science and Science/Theology Issues,” and was moderated by Andy Crouch (AC). Panelists were Deborah Haarsma  (DH), Rob Norris (RN), Dinesh D’Souza (DD), Darrel Falk (DF), Hugh Ross (HR), Stephen Meyer (SM) and Ross Hastings (RH). {I apologize for all of the D’s, H’s and R’s! ugh!}

Start transcript summary.

Missed AC’s intro—apparently a survey that only 2% of scientists are evangelical. “How can we raise it?”

DF—We can’t convey an opinion that biology is fundamentally flawed—this is a missional issue as opposed to a scientific one

HR—Take a different survey:  instead of looking for evangelicals in science, look for those who respect the Bible

AC—True—what can we do to redeem the term “evangelical?”

RN—Teach Christian students in Christian schools not to be afraid of science. They also need to recognize there is a diversity of approaches to science/faith. This will discourage the defensive mentality we see among those coming from Christian schools.

DH—“AMEN!”

SM—Christian colleges should look at teaching models with flexible schedules to allow for research. The Discovery Institute has a research fellow program and try to help faculty at Christian colleges buy out a teaching schedule to allow research. We also have summer research institutes. Christians in academia and clergy should pay attention to the rising generation of scholars and mentor/nurture them.

DF—I believe strongly in Christian colleges. In effect, he seems to disagree with SM on balancing mentorship with research—taking SM’s comment to mean replacing mentorship with research

SM—Corrects impression—there is a need for Christian PhD granting institutions, also, not in place of Christian undergraduate only institutions.

AC--How can this group {the panel} interact with what’s going on at Christian colleges?

DH—Likes the current system of Christian colleges, but also sees need for Christian students in secular institutions—pastors can encourage students to be Christian scholars anywhere.

AC—{New topic} Instructed panel to offer ways to stay relatively well informed on new frontiers in science (WITHOUT referring to their own websites/books!) {jab at RTB in particular, who tend to mention a topic in passing, then send folks to their materials for the details before going to the next topic and doing the same thing. I understand they have such a vast amount of material and they give very similar talks repeatedly and it saves time. I get that, but they make such references so often, it becomes annoying to hear over and over and…GREAT folks, though! I recommend their stuff. Seriously.}

DD—The challenge for Christians is to be bilingual in secular culture. We think culture is made from the ground up, but it is often from the top down, especially in science, so we need to influence the influencers. Also, we tend to go from science to nature, rather than the other way around at times. Finally, we need to have ‘interpretive modesty.’ {i.e.-we should not be dogmatic about our interpretation, either of Scripture or the book of nature. Being tentative draws people in to examine our claims to see if they are true, rather than beating them over the head with them.}

HR—In his churches, they focus on teaching not preaching and they deal with controversial issues, which draws in unbelievers. Agrees with DD on top down—we need to engage the top scientists.

RN—As a pastor, he meets with the scientists who do keep up with the developments and has them give him a précis on what is going on, but pitched at his level. He needs to understand the issues so he can encourage others to face them.

DH—See the ASA journal on current science and faith. {ASA: American Scientific Affiliation—an association of Christian scientists}

AC—{New topic} DH’s husband has an article at bit.ly/fourmyths that gives 4 myths about ID and 4 about theistic evolution. Why don’t’ these issues engage both the scientific community and the faith community?

DH—Astronomy is starting to improve in this area. Women aren’t interested in the interface because few women are in either/both clergy and science. Also, they don’t see hard science as relevant or able to help people. {Comment based on general idea that women tend to be primarily concerned with compassion issues as nurturers.}

DD—sees this as a non-issue—the big issue is why evangelicals in general are drastically underrepresented in all areas of elite society. He calls for a well thought out strategy to infiltrate and engage debates legally and politically, not affirmative action. He objects to science books including metaphysical statements.

AC—Science and the church are some of the most diverse in society, yet the interface between them seems to be most interesting to European males.

HR—Are we merely dealing with demographics—are women are committed to supporting it, but maybe as a support role rather than reading the journals themselves?

DF—Sees origins as more of a hobby area than area of priority.

DH—True—people more concerned about evangelism than apologetics.

HR—Apologetics is part of evangelism.

DD—Do we meet needs of body or engage culture?

SM—ID does attack the foundations of the atheist culture, which is the public face of the secular worldview. He disagrees with DF, and thinks that origins is more than a hobby and is critical. It is one among several priorities or areas of interest.

AC—{Next topic} We should have public engagement with the way science is done—science has limits—what it can and should do. Scientists often want/try to push those limits. How do we make the case for those limits effectively and be part of the public debate, regardless of whether others come to faith?

DH—Best arena for these discussions is the professional scientific societies, which limits what the church can do.

DD—There are two things we can do 1)articulate the hidden faith-based assumptions of modern science (uniformity of nature)and  2) scientists think faith is a bad word, so we have to establish the reasonableness of faith (differentiate between evidence based faith and blind faith).

DF—The church needs to realize that science is capable of being pretty certain about some things.

HR—We need to not shackle the research of theologians, philosophers and scientists so that we can talk with each other.

RN—It is not the church’s role to police the scientific society, but to proclaim the kingdom of God, and equip the scientific members to responsibly act in their communities.

AC—There are lots of questions (pre-submitted from the audience) about details that we didn’t get to (such as was Adam really 900 yrs old, best dating systems, etc)

End Transcript summary.

SDG

Vibrant Dance: Science Supports Christianity

There were three panel discussions at the conference, this one on Wednesday morning, and two on Thursday morning. I was generally able to summarize each statement made by each speaker, and so will present these as summarizing transcripts. Each speaker will be identified by their initials, listed after their name below. The listing below comes as presented in the symposium program. My comments will be bracketed.

This panel was entitled, “The Vibrant Dance of Faith & Science:  Science Supports Christianity – Revealing the Congruence, Illuminating the Tensions,” and was moderated by Walter Bradley (WB) (Baylor). Panelists were Andy Crouch (AC), Ross Hastings (RH), Dan Heinze (DH), Hugh Ross (HR), Fazale Rana (FR), Darrel Falk (DF), Stephen Meyer (SM), and Deborah Haarsma  (DBH).

Start transcript summary.

WB—Design is synonymous with purpose, therefore, is Design scientifically detectable?

DF--“Entire process is God’s process and… has his fingerprint all over it” but in answer to the question, not yet, but maybe someday

FR—In principle, is it possible through objective methods

DF—If folks want to use science and go looking for evidence for design, go for it, but he’s skeptical, theologically if there is a way to do so—{sounds like he’s a fan of NOMA (non-overlapping magisterial—the idea that science and faith both answer questions about existence but they do not overlap in any way.}

HR—Should be possible-Scripture indicates that scientists should be able to, but we as scientists look for the wrong purpose, so miss God’s design.

WB—Unlikely to be able to prove God scientifically

AC—Disagrees with HR on point 1, we as human beings sense/intuit God from Creation, but detecting Him or Design through science methods/instrumentation, not likely.

DH— Atheistic physicists/cosmologists admit that the data runs against their favored viewpoint {i.e.- they detect design in the data}

SM—Which scientists are not convinced of it?-i.e. some have and are advocating for it. Why are some not convinced? Their methodological naturalism gets in the way

DBH- {missed due to phone call}

RH—Topic is subject to epistemology-what can we actually know? What is our level of uncertainty? What is the motivation behind one’s teleology? ‘Proofs’ are not sufficient due to people suppressing the truth

HR—Agrees with RH on proof, and asks, as we go forward and learn more, does God appear more likely or not?

WB—ID vs id (there is a difference between the Intelligent Design movement and the idea of intelligent design)—laws of nature not independent of God. He noted that folks are more comfortable with cosmological evidence for God and less with biological evidence for Him.

DF—We all believe in design and therefore in intelligent design, or id. As for the ID movement, it has helped focus the discussion, yet how helpful has what they have produced been in contributing to the science or has it discouraged the science community from buying into ID ideas.

SM—Consensus in the scientific community leads to diffidence.  We should be asking, what is the best model for the data? The shocking effect of Watson/Crick discovering that DNA was a digital code, that the cell uses same methods in coding info that programmers do— displayed a logic and elegance far beyond what we are able to do. Yet Francis Collins is still trying to hold on to naturalistic mechanism. {veiled dig at all theistic evolutionists?}

FR—In cosmology, the data confounded the naturalist philosophy; the same is occurring in origin of life research; The godfather {not sure who this is} of OoL (Origin of Life sciences) said it would be a miracle for RNA to form spontaneously in early Earth. They even acknowledge their research is inserting “id” into their work.

SM—We should use their work and celebrate it

HR—Agreed

FR—The data isn’t taking us in the direction of non-design

DF—All of us believe God is origin of life; the question is whether or not this is a gap or truly new doors; we should allow for natural mechanisms to be fully explored

WB—Shapiro {not sure who this is} believed that a naturalistic explanation would be found eventually; and was once asked how he can be a scientist and a Christian, and he said he is fine with it because he knows who did it and is now studying how. God works through process.

SM—Gaps arise from ignorance; however if it looks like design, then it isn’t a gap. ID is making provisional conclusions based on what we know, not what we don’t know.

WB—Even in the cosmological realm, we need to be tentative

SM—No distinction between cosmology and OoL in terms of issues, but it is matter of detectability

RH—What is/are the method(s) of design? The issue seems to be one of intervention and how it happens, not that God is involved. How do you detect natural or supernatural intervention? {see my posts Is it Nature or Magic?, Harry Who-dini?, or, The Problem of Expectation, "It's a Miracle!", and A Matter of Time}

SM—There are two types of power—‘ordinary’ power and ‘sovereign’ power; a difference between order and information, law and info; therefore God seems to favor a discreet intervention. {I believe he is saying that when a ‘miracle’ occurs, God is exerting His sovereign power over and above the ‘ordinary’ power of the natural functioning of His Creation. The main context of this discussion is the Cambrian explosion of vast amounts and very different types of lifeforms in a very short period of time geologically.}

AC—There is a difference between discontinuous intervention versus continuous intervention; we should be wary of attributing discontinuity to divine action; our instinct and sensibility about the world around us are as important as data; {In short, he renames SM’s dichotomy, and cautions against thinking that all discontinuities in the world are due to explicit divine action.}

SM—I’m not arguing from lack of data, but from sudden influxes of information.

HR—Discontinuities are opportunities for research to see which way {naturalism or design} is getting stronger

DH—There are no objective scientists; {that why we try for falsifiability} hence, the lack of interest in theistic implications; we as Christians and scientists should let naturalistic investigations go forward because they just give us more evidence that will ultimately lean against naturalism.

WB—Therefore scientists have lots of job security. Now let’s change topics and look at the Bible and science. Quoted Francis Schaeffer (that there is no final conflict)—we as scientific Christians have two non-negotiables:  that God created and there was a historical Adam & Eve; 

RH—Wish we had an OT theologian to address this; we tend to ask questions of Genesis it wasn’t designed to answer, so it becomes question of hermeneutics. There is no explicit biblical position on the age of earth. Genesis 1 and 2 are not about cosmology, but theology. There was a coronation moment at which God put His image into a fully evolved human.

FR—Paul refers to a real Adam, so if he’s confused about that, is he confused about Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection, if he is using it as a tie between the first and last Adam? {I Corinthians 15:45-46}

RH—I DO believe in a real Adam, but not a literalistic one.

AC—These are separate issues—the representative Adam versus a genetic Adam

DF—Collins would agree with RH

DBH—Clarify, please? About the separation? {Thanks! I sort of got it, but not really clearly.}

RH—It is confusing, but there seems to be a community of early humans known as Adam {known by whom?—i.e. is this a name backwards bestowed by modern scholars or what they called themselves or were known by this name to their contemporaries or…?}

WB—There may have been 1000 people on the early earth, but God picked out an Adam and Eve out to begin the relationship

DF—The Biologos perspective is that we’d be comfortable with that idea, but not limited to that idea.

DH—There is tension for me in any theological or scientific position. It also appears to be a possibility that a large supernova occurred ~50,000 years ago near Earth that could have changed our conclusions about early human life. {WHOA!? Elaborate please!}

HR—The book of Hebrews seems clear that GOD actively created Adam and Eve. The Bible indicates lots of offspring from them, so could have filled Earth if sin hadn’t entered.

AC—We must take the audience into account—we may take it literally, but how would an early middle east reader take it?

HR—But God wrote the Bible for all people, so it should have meaning for all

DBH—I agree with AC, chronology not important to many early folks, and the context we bring into it is important. The idea of God putting in hidden things that are only apparent to us is not consistent with Him. {Not sure I agree with this—much of the prophecy in the Bible doesn’t appear to be prophecy until after the fulfillment, yet the Bible declares it to be so. So, why not scientific info?}

RH—Hermeneutics says we should start by understanding how early readers read it first in order to inform our interpretation; to them the point was God reigns over chaos and brings order to it.

SM—Just as theological evidence is open to different interpretations, so also is the genetic evidence. Junk DNA is species specific, so it is evidence against common ancestry, so the science isn’t settled.

FR—ALU  sequences are shown to play a role in stress response-when species stress, ALU levels spike and appear to be functional after all. {See Vibrant Dance: “God’s Creativity and Providence” }

DF—Appeals to the scientific consensus of interpretation as a justification of his position and above developments do not stop those consensual interpretations.

WB—A pinball machine is an analogy—the ball can take many paths but ends up at bottom of table always, so can we say there is a similar idea in evolution—no matter what the path, there is the same end result? (A deeper design that directs final result like the gravity in a pinball machine) Can this reconcile some of the confusion?

FR—Discussed convergence in his book, The Cell’s Design, and it has theistic implications.

SM—Likes the general idea of convergence, but has questions about the implications of front loading information into the Creation to prefer a final outcome.

RH—God and Creation both act and interact.

End Transcript summary.

SDG

Vibrant Dance: Not Just Origins

The first plenary on Wednesday was by Deborah Haarsma from Calvin College, on “Not Just Origins:  Engaging Science in the Life of Your Congregation through Creation Care, Worship and Education.” It was designed to give the audience take home ideas for applying science to the various ministries of the local church—outreach, worship, and discipleship. As Haarsma pointed out, science and faith intersect on more than origins. As stewards of Creation, what we learn about it through science, illuminated by the practice of our faith inspired by the Spirit, should impact how we take care of the parts of the world with which we have influence.

Creation Care:

Many Biblical commands have a scientific component: care for the poor, sick, young, old (i.e. “least of these”), species extinction, deforestation/agricultural issues, pollution, sea level rise, natural evil, AIDS, global access to health care resources, cloning, etc.

Many Christians, when faced with this laundry list, ask, ‘what can the church do?’ The first answer is ‘not everything.’ However, every one of these issues is complex and neither end of the political spectrum has ‘the answer.’ Politics and media love sound-bite solutions, but the church uniquely understands that human issues are extremely complex, and should be equipped to bring a compassionate voice to minister to multiple parties.

Take deforestation/agriculture for instance. Third world farmers are trying to improve their standard of living and would like to do so quickly so they can enjoy the benefits we now take for granted. It is not reasonable, much less compassionate for us as the first world to dictate to them environmental policy for sustainability and biodiversity. Their justified response is that who are we to talk—we already raped our landscape, and can afford to go back and fix things. They are just trying do to more than survive. What the developed world needs to do is to come alongside with solutions to accomplish both purposes and get our hands dirty with them to help lift them up in a way that preserves the beauty and biodiversity, potentially helping them to capitalize on their unique biodiversity rather than just copying what works somewhere else.

The first step for us as believers is of course, is to pray. Second, get educated on an issue, really educated. Too often we shoot off our mouths on topics we have only a 30 second news bite understanding of things and we react. It is appropriate to respond rather than react. Start by reading 2-3 books on a particular topic that is on your heart. Prayerfully read from different perspectives to get a sense of the various issues involved and different takes on them, without neglecting those outside of Christendom.

A second step is to partner with ministries of denominational groups who address science issues. For most issues, there is already someone working as Christ’s hands there. Don’t start from scratch; help multiply what they are doing.

Remember, Creation Care is the application of stewardship-a response could result in changes in lifestyle, not just a collection of ideas. Don’t make it political. By reading even one competent book on a subject will make you more informed than pretty much everyone else, yet it is still only one book. Humility with a teachable spirit is key here, too.

Worship:

Science and faith should not be primarily about controversy or apologetics. In fact, most Biblical references to the natural world are in the context of worship and understanding God’s character—the ‘sense of the divine’ we experience when we look at the natural world. Therefore, we should encourage Christians to enter all fields of science. As Kepler said, we get to “think God’s thoughts after Him.”

There some pitfalls Haarsma warned against. 1) Don’t make a sermon a science lesson. Instead, weave it into one’s preaching/teaching. Use science in illustrations. She gave the following example—when describing the Holy Spirit as breath, describe what happens in lungs when we breathe air. Also, nature is a revelation about God—i.e.-a supernova explosion as a demonstration of God’s power. We can use science to discuss loving the poor with appropriate technology. Focus on God. Use science to illustrate points.

Science stretches the imagination. Seeing the wonders of nature inspires worship. One site to use as a reference/for inspiration—www.seasonofcreation.com She also recommended www.biologos.org/blog/categories/worship.

Science itself speaks of nature in neutral language. Some scientists will use atheistic language, yet Christians will speak of nature as God’s creation. It helps to understand the vocabulary. Science and technology reveal parts of nature that we cannot detect with our unaided senses and illustrate God’s attributes even more dramatically. Haarsma offered the idea of using science illustration/terms in congregational prayer that worships God as Creator.

Ptifall #2: Scientific explanations do not replace God and conversely, do not worship the god-of-the-gaps—i.e.- praising God mainly for things that science can not explain. The danger here is that when a scientific explanation is found, faith is reduced/damaged. Instead, praise Him for all of Creation, both what science can and cannot explain currently.

Haarsma pointed to Psalm 104, which sees things occurring both ‘naturally’ and by the Hand of God, and what’s more, does so interchangeably. Above all, she begged repeatedly and emphatically, “Please, PLEASE, do not praise God for your scientific ignorance!” (Pitfall #3!)

Education:

Other ways to include science in congregational life include going on a nature walk after a church picnic and ending with a song of praise, host a star party after evening worship where a local astronomer can set up their telescope and show what is in that season’s sky, use scientific images in sanctuary banners, work with local health care resources, convert vacant lots near church to gardens/parks, and so on. 

Regardless, always connect activities back to Biblical principles. Showing an informed interest in science will help break down barriers to the Gospel. It can also help equip our youth to better hold on to their faith when in college science classes. It gives us more opportunities to let Christ’s light shine to the world and gives opportunities to praise God for the Glory displayed in nature. Of all people, it is the Bride of Christ who should be the best steward of Creation.

Haarsma concluded with the admonition from Micah 6:8—“Do justice, and love mercy.”

RJW note:  I have very much merged my thoughts and extrapolations with Haarsma’s in this post, more than in others. The nature of the topic and length made it a bit pedantic to keep them fully separate. One thing I do want to add is a strong caution that some of these areas are sufficiently controversial that sincere believers are deeply emotionally connected to different sides of an issue, and just bringing up some topics can trigger strong responses. I recommend before embarking on a science-inclusion campaign that church leadership spend several months preparing a congregation for this, through occasional messages, notes in bulletins, emails, etc. Even bringing the topic of science up can invoke reactions because of the strong anti-science bias even on some elder boards. This is not meant as a discouragement, but an encouragement of a critical area of ministry—moving God’s people from darkness to light, milk to solid food. There will likely be growing pains, so extravagant love and grace are needed.

Similarly, particularly in environmental related issues, there is much that is popular but scientifically uncertain or even disputed or debunked. As you are getting started, stick to principles rather than concrete recommendations and as you learn more, gradually shift. Science is dynamic, and some ‘discoveries’ made one day are shown the next to have significant holes. Think about how often the medical journals report something as healthy or dangerous only to have it reversed in the next study.

For example, one area of which I am highly skeptical is that of the CFL lightbulbs. My experience is they rarely last significantly longer than traditional bulbs. Also, their manufacturing is much more involved, taking more resources to make them, use much more hazardous materials (primarily mercury) which are disposal hazards, are typically made in parts of the world where manufacturing standards are not as environmentally friendly, which makes them more dangerous than incandescent bulbs for the manufacturing environment, and the price difference is not offsetting for the supposed benefit. It is important to consider the ‘cradle-to-grave’ impact of ‘green’ technology, not just the user’s impact. I have a lot of hope in the new LED light bulbs. They are cheaper, more versatile, simpler, and less hazardous. Their key drawback now is brightness. In time, this should be corrected. In the meantime, I’m stocking up on incandescent bulbs before they are banned in 2012. There are similar issues regarding the electric and hybrid cars. Start with awareness and principles, love and grace, glorifying God, and see where He leads on specifics.

SDG

Vibrant Dance: Worship and Artistic Interlude

There were a couple of ‘features’ throughout the conference that I have heretofore ignored: several sessions of “Worship and Artistic Interlude” and testimonies of various speakers. I tended to miss some of these due to volunteer activities and frankly due to being unimpressed with some of the ‘artistic interludes.’ Several involved a liturgical dance group, and of all the arts, dance speaks to me least and can be distracting. However, some sessions were quite enjoyable and worshipful, and when I could hear the testimonies I tried to take notes, and will share them.

The evening interlude was a non-dance one—Deborah Haarsma from Calvin College (Astronomy) shared with us a worshipful devotion based on the beauty of the heavens and sharing in course various Scriptures, including the classic idea of the heavens declare His glory, power, and faithfulness.

Let’s ourselves take an interlude of worship and meditate on Scriptures that compare God and the astronomical Glory He has displayed there.

This is what the LORD says: ‘If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them.’” Jeremiah 33:25-26

Yet their voice[a] goes out into all the earth,

   their words to the ends of the world.

In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.

 It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,

   like a champion rejoicing to run his course.

It rises at one end of the heavens

   and makes its circuit to the other;

   nothing is deprived of its warmth.

                                Psalm 19:4-6

LORD, our Lord,

   how majestic is your name in all the earth!

   You have set your glory

   in the heavens.

Through the praise of children and infants

   you have established a stronghold against your enemies,

   to silence the foe and the avenger.

 When I consider your heavens,

   the work of your fingers,

the moon and the stars,

   which you have set in place,

 what is mankind that you are mindful of them,

   human beings that you care for them?

You have made them a little lower than the angels

   and crowned them with glory and honor.

You made them rulers over the works of your hands;

   you put everything under their[g] feet:

all flocks and herds,

   and the animals of the wild,

the birds in the sky,

   and the fish in the sea,

   all that swim the paths of the seas.

 LORD, our Lord,

   how majestic is your name in all the earth!

                                Psalm 8

Praise the LORD, my soul;

   all my inmost being, praise his holy name.

Praise the LORD, my soul,

   and forget not all his benefits—

who forgives all your sins

   and heals all your diseases,

who redeems your life from the pit

   and crowns you with love and compassion,

who satisfies your desires with good things

   so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s.

The LORD works righteousness

   and justice for all the oppressed.

He made known his ways to Moses,

   his deeds to the people of Israel:

The LORD is compassionate and gracious,

   slow to anger, abounding in love.

He will not always accuse,

   nor will he harbor his anger forever;

he does not treat us as our sins deserve

   or repay us according to our iniquities.

For as high as the heavens are above the earth,

   so great is his love for those who fear him;

as far as the east is from the west,

   so far has he removed our transgressions from us.

 As a father has compassion on his children,

   so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him;

for he knows how we are formed,

   he remembers that we are dust.

The life of mortals is like grass,

   they flourish like a flower of the field;

the wind blows over it and it is gone,

   and its place remembers it no more.

But from everlasting to everlasting

   the LORD’s love is with those who fear him,

   and his righteousness with their children’s children—

with those who keep his covenant

   and remember to obey his precepts.

The LORD has established his throne in heaven,

   and his kingdom rules over all.

Praise the LORD, you his angels,

   you mighty ones who do his bidding,

   who obey his word.

Praise the LORD, all his heavenly hosts,

   you his servants who do his will.

Praise the LORD, all his works

   everywhere in his dominion.

   Praise the LORD, my soul.

                                                Psalm 103

SDG