Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 165 results found
Ken Samples explains how they are not only compatible, but integrally bound in a Biblical worldview.  You can read the entire article on his blog.  And excerpt is here:
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:
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.
Stephen Hawking's latest claim that God did not create the universe reminded me that sometimes very smart people say dumb things.  He's done so because he's playing outside the bounds of his field of expertise, trying to apply the rules of his field of study to an entirely different kind of playing field.