Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 72 results found
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.
In July 1995, Time Magazine made a stunning announcement.  In an extensive article on the mind they wrote, “Despite our every instinct to the contrary, there is one thing that consciousness is not:  some entity deep inside the brain that corresponds to the ‘self,’ some kernel of awareness that runs the show”  (July 17, 1995, p. 52).  In other words, there is no soul.
If Darwinism is true, then there is no purpose or meaning to life, there is no morality, there's no qualitative difference between humans and animals, there's no life after death, and there's no purpose to human history. Now, are you trying to tell me that it doesn't really matter if people believe we evolved or not?
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.
How do you respond to the claim that the universe only has the appearance of design and we can’t draw any inferences about a Creator from that? var src = 'http://www.strcast2.org/videos/flash/player'; if(!DetectFlashVer(9, 0, 0) && DetectFlashVer(8, 0, 0)) src = 'player8'; AC_FL_RunContent('codebase', 'http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0', 'width', 320, 'height', 223, 'src', src, 'pluginspage', 'htt
In May of this year, a scientific paper was released that fanned the flames of the evolution/intelligent design debate to new intensity. It documented the discovery of an elegantly structured, beautifully preserved fossil of a haplorrhine, an ancient primate thought to be ancestor to both modern-day lemurs and “higher” primates, including human beings.
Brian asks: “Science can't say whether God represents a loving, vengeful or nonexistent being. But researchers have revealed for the first time how such religious beliefs trigger different parts of the brain.”How should we think about these efforts to locate religion in brain activity?
Some think they can solve the conflict between Darwinism and design by combining the two into one: theistic evolution, God using evolution as His creative tool. This idea may make Christians feel safe, but it has no traction for real Darwinists. To evolutionists, adding God over-determines the result. It’s like saying that water boils because of heat and leprechauns. If heat alone can do the job, though, why add elves? The leprechaun is superfluous.