Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 91 results found
In a video interview, Oxford physicist (and atheist) David Deutsch argues against reductionism (the idea that material causes can explain everything), saying that information is not material and consciousness exists. In the process, he makes four very important points:
Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute writes an interesting article in response to a scientist’s statement that “the Intelligent Design hypothesis is untestable by science, exactly because we can never empirically know or understand the actions of God or any other Intelligent Designer.”
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.
Promising news from the stem cell front: Scientists reported Thursday they had developed a technique that can quickly create safe alternatives to human embryonic stem cells, a major advance toward developing a less controversial approach for treating for a host of medical problems.
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.
Creation, a film about Charles Darwin's personal life, is not a rant against God or even a story of the heroism of one man crusading for science against religion. Surprisingly, the movie is not polemical. It doesn't bother to argue against religion, nor does it spend time arguing for the truth of evolution. It's clear that the filmmakers assume this fight has already been won, and so the issues remain in the background.
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