Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 287 results found
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:
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.”
The age of the earth is not a topic we discuss much on our website. We have an article by Greg on why he believes in an old earth, but not every employee we’ve had has agreed with that, and it’s not something we take a hard stance on as an organization. (We do, however, affirm the primacy of Scripture and a historical Adam and Eve, and we’ve argued against theistic evolution).
Here's my response to this week's challenge: COMMENTS
This challenge comes from the first item in the Pro-Choice Action Network’s article refuting “some common misconceptions about abortion”:
This past November I wrote that embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) had not led to any successful human treatments. I was wrong.
Here's my response to this week's challenge: COMMENTS Read more posts
Given what I’ve written in the previous posts (PART 1, PART 2, PART 3 and PART 4), I think the best model of interaction betw
In these last two posts, we will move toward the convergence of science and theology in providing knowledge of reality. However, before we discuss the proper relationship between science and theology, we must recognize an obstacle: definitions. When we talk about science and theology, we must know what we mean by each. This is no easy task.
In my first two posts of this series (PART 1 and PART 2), I laid a foundation with an epistemological account of the nature of explanations. Given that account, let us move to a more specific question: What constitutes a scientific explanation?