Explore by Topic
Explore by Format
Search Results | 90 results found
I'll quickly summarize Richard Sternberg's critique I mentioned in my previous post and in my August 2, 2008 interview with Greg.
I was privileged to have dinner with Jonathan Wells Ph.D, Bruce Gordon Ph.D, and Richard Sternberg Ph.D (one of the "expelled" scientists from Ben Stein's documentary) while I've been
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?
I've started reading an interesting book that describes the details of a study conducted by two researchers, Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse. There were two goals of the study: 1) to determine whether a homosexual orientation can be changed and 2) whether participating in “ex-gay” ministries is harmful.
According to an article in the San Diego Union Tribune, only half of those surveyed in a recent Gallup poll "believed evolution is definitely or probably true." This baffles some evolutionists.
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.
Evolutionist Michael Ruse was the star of the show at last week's debate against intelligent design (ID) proponent Paul Nelson. He was witty, funny, gracious, and surprisingly theological. His ideas were wrong, however, but I expected that.
I had to chuckle at the opening line of a recent AP release on “artificial” life: “Around the world, a handful of scientists are trying to create life from scratch and they’re getting closer.” They think the effort “has the potential to shed new light on our place in the universe, [removing] one of the few fundamental mysteries about creation in the universe and our role.”