Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 205 results found
Bill Pratt responds to atheists who claim that the sub-optimal design of biological organisms argues against the existence of the Christian God:
Darwinists will sometimes point to the high percentage of genes that humans and chimpanzees share as evidence of common descent. But it's not simply the similarities that matter, it's the qualitative differences in what the genes do that offers contrary evidence. Dr. Fazale Rana reports on a recent study from the Salk Institute that indicates that the similarities in genes humans and chimpanzees share is very significant because of other differences in how genes are expressed.
Christianity Today reports: [Scientists] have learned how to reprogram adult cells so that they can do many things an embryonic cell can do. No human embryos are destroyed in the process. Along the way, embryonic stem cells—just a decade ago hailed as the future of medicine—have largely been bypassed. Some researchers still use them, but for now, the future belongs to adult stem cells and iPS cells, which are adult cells genetically reprogrammed to express specific genes.
I listened to a fascinating discussion with Dr. Paul Nelson on the Michael Medved show about Dr. Craig Venter's work on the human genomes. Recent stories reported that he is on the verge of creating synthetic life. Not quite, since he's using biological material in the process.
A frequent objection to a Designer of the universe and life is junk DNA. Darwinists claim that this DNA that has no apparent purpose is leftover residue from epochs of evolution, and they claim that a Designer would not have been so wasteful. New studies are finding, however, that this DNA isn't junk, and actually has a purpose. A recently published study finds that it regulates the other genes that have a more obvious purpose. One person described this DNA as the operating system for the rest.
Stephen Meyer’s response to the charge that Darwin’s Doubt makes only a negative “God-of-the-gaps” argument (i.e., “We can’t explain it, therefore God did it”) is helpful in concisely explaining why this isn’t the case:
Joseph Spradley writes:
Someone brought this video to our attention and asked what our response is. It's a nicely made video, but the argument is so flawed the response seems simplistic.
The constant laws of nature that are the foundation of modern science and mathematics were a development of thinking around the 15-16th centuries - and grounded on theology, the God of the Bible. Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in nightGod said: "Let Newton be!" and all was light.
Though philosopher Bradley Monton does not believe God exists, in a book titled Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, he opens with this: This book is not providing a full-fledged endorsement of intelligent design. But intelligent design needs to be taken more seriously than a lot of its opponents are willing to.