Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 7 results found
The finely-tuned constants and conditions of the universe had to be just right to get a universe that would permit life. Here's a taste of some of this evidence.
Many evolutionary naturalists attempt to ground morality in naturalistic evolution. This is fraught with serious difficulties that form an insurmountable case against evolution as the foundation of morality.
When we look at the facts, we see that the response to Galileo in his time doesn't prove Christianity is anti-science. What we actually do learn from his story is important to keep in mind today.
On a recent episode of the Stand to Reason weekly podcast, a supporter of STR took issue with one of the ways Greg Koukl and I argue against theistic evolution. Specifically, the caller did not agree with our argument that some forms of theistic evolution are a contradiction in terms. What I’d like to do is model for you how I would respond. Don’t Be Offended by the Challenge
When I meet someone who claims that evolution is a fact, I have two questions for him. First, I need to find out what he means by evolution. To do this, I employ a variation of the first Columbo question: What do you mean by evolution? The term evolution can be used to mean a number of different things. Therefore, it’s important to find out precisely what they mean.
Last month I was asked to speak at a church on the question “Should Christians Embrace Evolution?” The way you answer this question depends entirely on what you mean by evolution. Broadly speaking, evolution can be divided into two categories: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution, or small-scale biological change, is obviously true and is virtually accepted by everyone. Macroevolution, on the other hand, is much more controversial.
It is very common among Christians to hear that all sins are equal. But is that really true? Are all sins equal to God?