William Lane Craig calls Michael Behe a theistic evolutionist
Followup to Instapundit: Stuff you should know about the Scopes trial, fast
100 fossil group study overturns evolution claims? But so? Still business as usual for the Darwin lobby
Here’s That New Fossil Study That Found a Crack in Evolution
Animal groups do not evolve greater and greater new designs as time goes by, but rather are at their maximum level of diversity early in their history. And species must be constrained in how much they can change. The ignorant babblings of creationists? Ridiculous criticisms of IDs? True they have been making such claims for years, but this time it comes from evolutionists at the University of Bath who performed a massive fossil study. As one of the evolutionists explained: read more
When media get hold of the term “evolved” …
Darwin explains why women live longer than female apes
“Two simulations reach opposing conclusions about why monogamy evolved in primates”
How do you derive moral principles from theism?
Usually this is not a topic I deal with, but an UD commenter gently asked such interesting question in another thread. Theism states a transcendent Principle, which is One and Infinite. This Unity is the First cause of the universal existence, of all beings and all things (for this reason He is also the Great Designer of the universe). This Supreme Principle is the Self “who stays within the heart of any being; who is the principle, the mean and the end of all beings”. Besides, this Self is also absolute Truth and supreme Knowledge. Given this fundamental Unity, this Center, where “all beings are fused but not confused” – as M. Eckart said -, it is straightforward to derive Read More ›
Giant viruses cast doubt on a common ancestor of all life forms
Can the eye-tipped tentacles of starfish shed light on early eye evolution?
Protons smaller than formerly believed?
New at The Best Schools
Theism, atheism and morality
As I see it, the current discussion about the relation between theism, atheism and morality is bedeviled by two false and often unexamined assumptions. First, it is assumed that if an act is self-evidently wrong, then that counts against a theistic account of morality. Second, it is assumed that if a theistic account of morality is correct, moral injunctions must be derived from the fact that God exists. In support of the first assumption, it is sometimes argued that if an action (such as torturing babies) is self-evidently wrong, then not only theists but also atheists can recognize it as wrong – in which case, we can know that the action is wrong without having to invoke God’s will in Read More ›