Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 79 results found
Recent studies suggest that animals are capable of rudimentary forms of moral behavior. God isn't the source of morality, evolutionists say; Mother Nature is. The evolutionary answer, though, does not explain morality; it denies it. Bongo is a chimp. He's being punished by other members of the chimpanzee band for not sharing his bananas. Bongo is selfish. Bad Bongo. Moral rule: Chimps shouldn't be selfish.
Can you give a good definition of biblical faith? How does it relate to science?
If science can't even disprove the existence of unicorns, how can it disprove the existence of God? I often hear the comment, "Science has proved there is no God." Don't ever be bullied by such a statement. Science is completely incapable of proving such a thing.
Jay Wesley Richards explains why theistic evolution is an attempt to join incompatible ideas. The view requires redefining one of the terms, which fundamentally changes the terms.
Evolution is dancing on the Titanic.
Is theistic evolution compatible with a historical Adam and Eve?
Is evolution compatible with Christianity? If Christians believe in evolution, what do we do with imago dei?
Quantum physics. Ugh. The term itself is enough to make grown men weep and send theologians scurrying. It can also send chills up the spine of the Christian marshalling evidence from science for the existence of God.
Can we discover morality through science?
There's a fundamental, self-refuting flaw in Stephen Hawking's argument in his new book.  He begins with the idea that the world is determined.  Everything, including human beings, operate according to mechanistic laws of nature.  Free will and agency is an illusion, he claims. But then there's a problem with the apparently rationally-based effort to persuade us of his view, which is the apparent purpose of the book book. The goal of his book is at odds with the determinism he is committed to.