Food for thought, here. (U/D: News has a poignant case in point, here.) =========== U/D Nov 9: In tracking responses and access elsewhere I see that the folks over at Anti-Evo have been busy with atmosphere poisoning ad hominems (here, especially the new talking point that I am a liar), sadly, amply documenting the main point of this post. I note for record: It should be clear to any responsible person: (i) that there are NO, ZIP, ZILCH responsible Bible believing Christians who support genocide, INCLUDING Dr Craig — that should not even be a question, (ii) the spreading of a false accusation against any significant number of such will lead to the spreading of a much broader false accusation Read More ›

In a comment to a recent post Timaeus makes a fantastic point about basing one’s ultimate beliefs on a scientific theory in a state of flux.  All that follows is his: If one were to try to derive knowledge of God from the latest discoveries of science, modern cosmology is not a good science to choose. It changes almost yearly. One cannot read the science news without discovering, several times a year, claims that major aspects of cosmology — quasars, black holes, the big bang, dark matter, dark energy — need to be radically rethought or perhaps even abandoned, due to new measurements which show that X can’t possibly account for what it was supposed to account for. Why would Read More ›

Here’s how a debate between Behe and Dawkins would go: Behe would present this. In response, Dawkins would counter: Once upon a time there was a squirrel-like creature that jumped from a tree at a certain height; let us call it H. Then, through random mutations, the squirrel-like creature got some flaps under its arms, which broke its fall. Just follow this logic and it’s easy to see how birds and bats evolved by random mutation and natural selection from non-flying ancestors!” Dawkins won’t debate Behe because Dawkins’s version of “science” is the above, and Behe’s version of science is actually evaluating the evidence.

In “BioLogos Blog Author Helps Darwin’s Universal Acid Burn God Right Out of Religion” (Evolution News & Views, November 3, 2011), Casey Luskin notes: In Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, new atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett famously describes Darwinism as a “universal acid” that “eats through just about every traditional concept” — including religion. BioLogos has now approvingly posted an article by evolutionary psychologist Matt Rossano disclaiming the idea that “evolution” poses any threat to belief in God. The article concludes: The more we understand evolution, the less it seems like neither the bogeyman creationists fear nor the universal God-dissolving acid some atheists crave. That sure sounds nice, but is it true? In Rossano’s recent book, Supernatural Selection: How Religion Evolved, he argues that religion itself exists because it evolved Read More ›