Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 137 results found
Some claim we at STR force people to choose between science and faith becuase we don't believe evolution is true.  That's a false dichotomy, or a false choice.  Evolution is a theory of science - it's not science.  And no, we don't believe evolution is an accurate account of origins because we don't think the evidence supports it, the Bible allows for it, and philosophy counts against it.
I've been watching a new TV show, Perception, on TNT.  It's the latest variation of one of my all-time favorties, Monk, where the main character's disability gives him a unique edge in solving crime.  The character Dr. Daniel Pierce is an accomplished professor of neuroscience who struggles with schizophrenia himself.  And he makes a mistake that expresses a logical fallacy common in science today.
Some scientists suggest so.  Before I can decide, I have a couple of questions: 1. What do they mean by science? and 2. What do they mean by religion?
I wrote yesterday about the inadequacy of the evolutoinary process to explain the development and complexity of life we observe.  Theistic evolutionists accept the proposition that the natural processes are adequate to explain this.  In practice, theistic evolution is a naturalistic view of the origins of life.  TE does allow for other miraculous events and God's sustaining power, but not God's intervention for creative purposes once the natural process has begun.  In an
Greg's guest on the radio program Sunday was Fuz Rana from Reasons To Believe to discuss theistic evolution. (Jump to the third hour as indicated by the chapter marks.)
Greg interviewed Stephen Meyer on Sunday's radio program, who had some very helpful thinking about theistic evolution.  He offered questions and problems from a biblical and a scientific standpoint.  (Here's the program - it's in hour three, which you can skip to in this enhanced version with chapter marks.)  Meyer is the author of Signature in the Cell
Sam Harris is attempting to offer a "scientific" explanation for morality. He's responding to the grounding challenge for naturalism - where do moral values fit in a purely material, physical world? This is a significant challenge for naturalism and atheism since morality is something human beings universally know is real. So any worldview has to be able to account for it or else it's a fatal flaw of that worldview. Harris attempts to explain how science can account for moral values.
Richard Dawkins says no.  “We don’t need to get morals from our religions … We don’t want to find morals from the holy books. We can have our own enlightened secular values.”
Alfred Russel Wallace was a 19th century scientist who came up with a theory of natural selection remarkably similar to Darwin's.  This made the men colleagues and comrades.  Wallace was a member of the close, inner circle Darwin and Huxley gathered around them in London.
John Bloom from Biola University reports that some theistic evolutionists are questioning whether Adam and Eve were historical.  He asks, why are they questioning the Bible when the evidence for Darwinianism is getting weaker?