Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
Researchers using neuroimaging technology claim to have found the cause for the conflict between science and religion (evolution and creationism) in the brain.
Children have an innate, natural, intuitive, and unlearned tendency to reason about the world as biblical creationists do.PDF Download
That psychological properties can be attributed to a brain is a popular notion, even among Christians. This paper argues that such claims are incorrect.PDF Download
On July 22, 2011, some readers of the Daily Mail UK were stunned by news that “Scientists have created more than 150 human-animal embryos in British laboratories.”PDF Download
Christians and the public at large cannot afford to accept what they are being told about themselves from the perspective of evolutionary psychology.PDF Download
The evidence to be considered will indicate that a fear of God and afterlife play a major role in the psychology of unbelief, and that points toward the realism of Scripture.PDF Download
Christians are caught up in theistic evolutionism without realizing that the worldview of theistic evolutionism is incoherent and inconsistent with the teachings of Scripture.PDF Download
To depart from Scripture at any point is neither safe nor right. Thus Estabrook’s discussion of my paper (Joubert 2011) in which he expressed his difficulties with my defense of the soul is welcome.PDF Download
The apologetic suggests that BioLogos should consider that the ultimate source of their “dis-ease” is the nature and character of the Creator.PDF Download
Theistic evolutionism is not only inconsistent with Scripture but also philosophically incoherent.PDF Download
A Christian view of the world entails that science is not a Christian’s ultimate or sole source of knowledge and the physical world is not the only world there is.PDF Download
What is at stake, if the idea of billions of years creation is true, is nothing less than the authority of Scripture and the character of God.
This paper will show that Christian professor Daniel Brannan’s arguments are based on faulty premises regarding Adam’s constitutional nature, the nature of Adam’s perfection and Adam’s free choice.PDF Download
Emergentism defies commonsense; there is also no scientific evidence that something material could produce an entity of a kind radically different from itself.PDF Download
Assuming that “natural kind” is a merely biological rather than metaphysical would be a mistake, resulting in Christians having difficulty evaluating and correcting rival views to created kinds.PDF Download
No results found in .