Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 3 results found
There are at least three things wrong with the idea that they don't. The view that science and religion don’t mix is guilty of at least three logical errors. First, it commits the either/or fallacy by asserting that a view is either scientific or religious. Design models have some evidential support. For example, we see the blending of science and religion in the existence of a Creator based on Big Bang cosmology as the beginning of the universe.
Acts shows Mark can be dated in the 50s, and the undisputed early dating of other books confirms that the Jesus of the Gospels was not the result of a myth evolving over time. The so-called "search for the historic Jesus" is over one hundred years old. Virtually nothing discovered during that time undermines the Gospel accounts. There is no "new evidence" supporting the idea that the miracle-working Son of God was the result of an evolution of myth over a long period of time. To the contrary, recent discoveries have given more credibilit
How to Read Less More, and Twice as Fast If you're like me, you really want to read more effectively, but you don't know how and can't find the time. Solomon wrote, "The writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body."* I agree. The stacks of unopened volumes in my own library weary me just looking at them.