Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 106 results found
Those who choose to believe in determinism or physicalism don't choose to believe at all - they believe because of prior physical conditions. I want to talk about a concept that I've been rolling around in my mind. In fact, I've talked to you about it before, but it has come to the front of my mind because I've started to take classes again in my master's program over at Talbot under J.P. Moreland. It's a class on metaphysics dealing with naturalism.
Could it be the evolutionists who are being irrational? Is it possible that God design everything using natural selection?
Philosophy and math must come before you can do any science. Science depends on the tools of other disciplines.
When science reasons it reasons inductively and it reasons basically the same way as we would reason about the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Greg's response to a letter which asserted there is no qualitative difference between animals and humans.
Does science have the right tools to test whether prayer works? And is that the right question?
Greg shows that Darwin's General Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with science. I'm mystified by the opening sentence of an article in Friday's Union Tribune (October 25, 1996). It says, "In his most comprehensive statement yet on evolution, Pope John Paul II insisted that faith and science can co-exist."
There's a growing taboo infecting crisis pregnancy centers around the country. Pro-lifers are getting tight-lipped on abortion. Here's why even CPC's are shying away from speaking frankly about the moral crime of the century. The last few years have witnessed a stunning development in the pro-life movement. More and more crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) refuse to discuss abortion. A new wave of pro-life leaders insist that victory will not be gained in the court of public opinion if the debate centers principally on the morality of abortion.
A caller referred to Greg's views on when life begins as "the epitome of baloney." Here's Greg's response. It certainly isn't the case that I don't like opposing viewpoints. We have them all the time. In fact, the caller knew that he was put at the head of the line because his viewpoint opposed mine. I enjoy callers with opposing viewpoints. But let me respond to him and to what he called the "epitome of my own baloney."
I want you to think about Darwinian evolution for a moment. The neo-Darwinian synthesis necessarily entails a particular mechanism that determines (an important word) which changes are reproduced in the next generation of living organisms. This mechanism is called natural selection.