Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 165 results found
People are stupid. They won’t accept evolution. Some still think plants and animals were designed and that God was somehow involved. But no worries – we’ve identified the problem. It turns out that evolutionists are using the wrong kinds of terms to describe how natural selection and mutation works. And these terms inadvertently imply design. Not only is this confusing to simple-minded lay folk like you and me, but apparently “it even leads scientists themselves astray sometimes…” Well, that needs to be changed!
Karl Giberson of The BioLogos Foundation wrote on CNN's Belief Blog that Jesus would believe evolution so we should, too.  His reasoning can be broken into a syllogism like this:
It’s Darwin Day, a day when evolutionists celebrate “science and reason,” allegedly.
A scientist claims he's undermined the fine-tuning argument for God's existence.  The fine-tuning argument says that there are a number of conditions in the universe for life to exist, and since these conditions must be met within a very small threshold, it's reasonable to conclude that they have been set that way by an intelligent being to make life possible.  These laws of physics are fine-tuned to such a degree that the odds of being met by chance are extremely great, beyond the realm of probability.  So since life exists, God must exist.
Did you notice the cover of the current Newsweek magazine for the article "Can You Build a Better Brain?"  The cover reads:  Grow Your Mind: The Truth about How to Boost Your Brain's Performance.  Equating the mind and brain - assuming the immaterial is only operations of the physical. Greg wrote about this tendancy for equivocation here.
"Science & Faith:  Are They Compatible?"In a recent webchat about Stephen Hawking's new book The Grand Design, noted biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins offered the following commentary on the physicist's findings: "Darwin kicked [God] out of biology, but physics remained more uncertain.  Hawking is now administering the coup de grace."
Stephen Hawking and his co-author Leonard Mlodinow were on Larry King Live last week.  Hawking was quite clear about some of the things that have been hashed about on STR's blog, namely his pyysicalism and determinism.
From the Discovery Institute - funny and takes Hawking's views to their logical conclusion:Hawking Not Needed to Explain His New Book, Says Universe
I want to make a distinction very explicit that I tried to make in an earlier post.  Stephen Hawking is a brilliant expert when he talks about science and physics.  He is not an expert when he talks about philosophy.  And when Hawking makes claims that lie outside of the boundaries of the physical universe, he is doing philosophy and those are the areas where I have critiqued him.  We need not rely on his expertise when he speaks on philosophic issues drawing from his science.
We got Hawking's new book, The Grand Design, delivered yesterday afternoon.  I've only had a chance to browse a bit, but I was very surprised to turn to this passage in the second chapter.