Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 96 results found
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?
For those of you in Southern California, I’d encourage you to attend the premier of Metamorphosis, the new intelligent design video on the beauty and design of butterflies. Paul Nelson, from the Discovery Institute, will speak at the event.
People are stupid. They won’t accept evolution. Some still think plants and animals were designed and that God was somehow involved. But no worries – we’ve identified the problem. It turns out that evolutionists are using the wrong kinds of terms to describe how natural selection and mutation works. And these terms inadvertently imply design. Not only is this confusing to simple-minded lay folk like you and me, but apparently “it even leads scientists themselves astray sometimes…” Well, that needs to be changed!
It’s Darwin Day, a day when evolutionists celebrate “science and reason,” allegedly.
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.