the BLOG

Explore by Topic

Explore by Format

Search Results | 6 results found

Darwinism Is Anti-Science

Alan explains how Darwinism is controlled by a presupposition that makes it closed-minded and anti-science. Darwinists around the world celebrated the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth on February 12, 2010. Darwin parties will continue all year since November 22nd will also mark the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s landmark book, On the Origin of Species. It’s a momentous year for all things Darwin.

Quick Thought | Apologetics | Alan Shlemon | March 6, 2013

Do Science and Religion Mix?

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.

Quick Thought | Apologetics | Greg Koukl | March 6, 2013

Why Does the Debate about Evolution Matter?

Ideas have consequences. And there are real consequences to the idea of evolution.

Quick Thought | Apologetics | Brett Kunkle | March 6, 2013

The Fossil Record Proves Evolution. Right?

No. The fossil record provides no evidence for macroevolution.

Quick Thought | Apologetics | Brett Kunkle | March 6, 2013

Evolution: The Big Question

Brett offers insight on the evidence--so the next time you hear about a major discovery for evolution, don't be intimidated. Why should we spend time on defining evolution (see “What is Evolution?”)? Here’s why. When we look at the evidence offered for macroevolution, there’s a huge, massive, gi-normous problem. Virtually every shred of evidence offered is evidence of microevolution. Change in finch beak size. Changing colors in peppered moths. Additional wings on fruit flies. Changing human genes.

Quick Thought | Apologetics | Brett Kunkle | March 6, 2013

Tactics and Common Ground

When a person asks me a question, I've found it helpful to try to frame my response in the context of his own discipline or profession. For example, when an attorney tells me he won't believe in the soul because it can't be measured physically, I ask him how can he prove in court that a non-physical thing like a motive exists if a motive can't be measured physically. Even laws themselves are not physical. They can't be weighed; they have no chemical composition; they aren't located in space. The attorney must face the fact that his own methodology defeats his objection.

Quick Thought | Apologetics | Greg Koukl | February 28, 2013