2011

What Darwinists don’t recognize is that, in the name of promoting science, they are actually promoting skepticism about what can be trusted in the name of science. Bears evolved into whales? No, that’s been rejected. “Scientists” suggest that whales might have evolved from a cat-like animal, or a hyena-like animal, or (fill in the blank). “It is thought by some that…” This is “science”? Evolution is a fact, if evolution is defined as the observation that some living systems are not now as they once were. According to this definition I count myself as an evolutionist. But Darwinists are unwilling to acknowledge their ignorance concerning how this all came about, and persist in presenting unsupported speculation in the name of Read More ›

http://vimeo.com/30921402

Here, 4 min, if you can’t make time for the 45 min version: Follow UD News at Twitter!

There are two and only two options with respect to the origin of the universe. 1.  An infinite regress of dependent existence. 2.  The universe was caused by “that beyond which nothing can be reduced,” to use Dr. Roy Clouser’s definition of God. More familiar terms for these categories are (1) an infinite regress of contingent causes; and (2) one necessary cause. Science demonstrates that option 1 is false.  The universe had a discrete beginning at the event popularly known as the “big bang.”  Since option 1 is false, it follows that option 2 is true. All scientific conclusions are provisional.  Therefore, this proof does not work to demonstrate the existence of God as a logical certainty.  It does demonstrate, Read More ›