the BLOG

Explore by Topic

Explore by Format

Search Results | 205 results found

Yes, the Evolutionary Process Does Depend on Randomness

Atheists will often assert that evolution is not random. (In fact, I was having this conversation just last night!) This is true if we’re talking about the natural selection part of the process, but natural selection can only select from what already exists. It’s the mutations that must provide the new genetic information, and mutations do not occur according to what is needed for an organism to survive; they can only cause the being to survive (and thus be selected) after they happen to occur.

Blog Post | Apologetics | Amy K. Hall | March 31, 2016

Challenge: The Bible Doesn’t Teach Scientific Insights

Here’s another challenge from “40 Problems with Christianity”—one I’ve heard atheists cite before:

Blog Post | Apologetics | Amy K. Hall | March 22, 2016

February Newsletters: Columbo, Evolution, and Adam

Alan’s, Tim’s, and Brett’s February newsletters are now posted on the website:

Blog Post | Apologetics | Amy K. Hall | February 24, 2016

Random Mutation, Natural Selection, and Information

This new video from the Discovery Institute is a clear and concise explanation of why we should doubt the power of random mutations and natural selection to build new, functional information content in DNA. Here are some excerpts, but watch the whole video (below) to see the helpful way they illustrate the truth of this:

Blog Post | Apologetics | Amy K. Hall | November 14, 2015

Challenge: In an Age of Science, It’s Silly to Believe God Created Everything

For this week’s challenge, here’s a quote from a Salon article: [I]t insults our intelligence to be enjoined to believe, now that we have split the atom, discovered the Higgs Boson, and sent a probe to Pluto, in the veracity of a supernatural account of the origins of our cosmos.

Blog Post | Apologetics | Amy K. Hall | October 20, 2015

Natural Selection Can’t Select a Future Function

In this short video from the Discovery Institute, Paul Nelson follows the development of a C. elegans worm from one cell to an adult, showing how “even these little worms, a millimeter long, humble little creatures out there in the compost heap…carry the signal of design unmistakably.”

Blog Post | Apologetics | Amy K. Hall | June 5, 2015

We Still Need the Old Answers

In a conversation on, historian Yuval Noah Harari discussed how society may change in the future due to advances in technology. He foresees a time of social change and unrest when the elite can afford advanced medicine (possibly even achieving eternal life on earth, he says) and the poor are left farther and farther behind. He compares his predicted social problems to the upheaval caused by the Industrial Revolution:

Blog Post | Christianity & Culture | Amy K. Hall | March 11, 2015

You Can’t Get Western Morality from Science

Atheist John Gray argues in the Guardian that atheists who think science alone can support their preferred system of morality are fooling themselves:

Blog Post | Christianity & Culture | Amy K. Hall | March 5, 2015

The Eye “Is Optimized for Our Vision Purposes”

We’ve posted before about the problem of atheists declaring that the design of this or that body part is sub-optimal (and therefore, isn’t designed). Electrical engineer Bill Pratt explained it this way:

Blog Post | Apologetics | Amy K. Hall | March 4, 2015

Anomalies Don’t Necessarily Disprove Christianity

Last week, Biola hosted a panel discussion between William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, and John Lennox (moderated by Hugh Hewitt) on the topic of “God, Science, and the Big Questions.”

Blog Post | Apologetics | Amy K. Hall | February 6, 2015