Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 5 results found
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.
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.
Ideas have consequences. And there are real consequences to the idea of evolution.
No. The fossil record provides no evidence for macroevolution.
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.