Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
In the creation/evolution controversy and battle over biblical authority, much of the dispute may become clearer if writers would carefully provide readers with precise definitions of terminology. These definitions may help clear up confusion.
Why is it that evolutionists are unwilling to allow for competing models, i.e., creation or even intelligent design? The hypothesis of evolution changes every year; if one theory is said to be fact, but then a year later is shown to be wrong, then how can it be fact in the first place? A true fact is something that never changes.
Can science and religion get along? Some secular scientists do seem to be making an effort to reach out; the problem is that they are only reaching out to religious individuals who won’t let their faith “get in the way” of science.
Russell Garwood in his article “Reach out to defend evolution,” complains that creationists present “perceived gaps in scientific knowledge as evidence in support of theistic world views.” Taking a biblical stand does not undermine science; it illuminates science, just like reliable eyewitness testimony enables a detective to correctly interpret the circumstantial evidence at the scene of a crime.
A recent two-part piece on The BioLogos Forum admits that meshing evolution and the image of God that all humans possess is a “challenging issue.”
An old French essay “On Liars” contains a little gem that may help you greatly in any debate about evolution and creation.
The debate with Bill Nye really illustrated the clash of two worldviews—choosing to decide truth for ourselves instead of trusting God’s Word.
Within the first three minutes of the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate, it was obvious how radically the creation-evolution debate has changed since the 1970s and 1980s.
Bill Nye maintains that any critical evaluation of evolution is tantamount to “fighting against science.”
Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey host wonders why Answers in Genesis critiqued his series and why anyone cares.
It seems they cannot stand the fact that we would even dare to question and expose their bias-filled conclusions for what they are.
Not only do Bill Nye and Ken Ham hold totally different positions on origins, they also have different accounts of the history surrounding the recent debate at the Creation Museum.
In a radio interview prior to the Ham-Nye debate, Dr. Terry Mortenson engaged the question “Is teaching creation to children harmful to them and to our society?”
In the debate, Bill Nye did not talk much about astronomy. But when he did, he made several erroneous statements.
ABC News covered the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham with segments in two of their major news programs.
The debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye “the Science Guy” on February 4 has evoked some strong and incredibly mixed reactions from the media, atheist bloggers, and Christians.
In what some observers have dubbed “Scopes II,” Nye and Ham sparred in a cordial yet spirited debate in front of a live audience that braved a winter storm.
Few events in the history of the creation/evolution issue have garnered as much attention from the public as Ken Ham’s debate last night with Bill Nye.
Two men who love science debate the question, “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?”
Bill Nye “The Science Guy” and Ken Ham prepare their cases in what has been dubbed “Scopes 2.”
This very title promotes a misconception that the debate should clarify for many.
Debates between spokespersons who come from different perspectives can help develop critical thinking in students.
Scientific facts work beautifully in a Christian worldview.
Critics have put forward creative but erroneous conjectures about the upcoming debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham.
Why are some atheists throwing a tantrum about the upcoming debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye?
Why not arrange to have this debate shown in your college—Christian or secular—and make it an outreach to the student body, faculty, and the community?
We are pleased to announce that the upcoming debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham will be available to view online—free of charge.
It’s remarkable to what lengths some secularists will go in order to create bizarre conspiracies out of nothing!
Tickets sold out within minutes for the debate between TV’s personality Bill Nye “the Science Guy” and Answers in Genesis president Ken Ham, to be held at the Creation Museum.
On February 4, 2014, TV’s famed “Bill Nye the Science Guy” will debate Creation Museum founder and president Ken Ham on the topic of evolution, creation, science, and origins.
It is often claimed that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than creation.
“My generation of evangelicals is . . . ready to be done with the whole evolution-creation debate. We are ready to move on.” Those are among the bold claims from a young evangelical who now “embrace[s] evolution.”
As much as evolutionists wish otherwise, life doesn’t evolve around Darwin—or at all.
Much has been made in the past several months of the former U.S. presidential and vice-presidential candidates’ views on origins. Now the current president weighs in.
Biblical truth should not be just a starting point—our whole philosophy and worldview should be submitted to the acid test of biblical authority. That includes our interpretation of scientific data.
U.S. vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin has made a comment or two that earn her the title of “worrisome character” from evolutionists. So is she really a creationist?