March 21, 2010 | Category: Worship
These words help us understand why faith in God is so important to seeing and understanding the world, and our place within it…Neither the world, nor we ourselves, are accidental or pointless. Nor do we simply inhabit God’s creation as if we could be indifferent to its beauty.
Comments (4)By Beckwith, Francis | March 20, 2010 | Category: Guest Features
It was probably around mid-2005 that I started to understand why I could never defend the Behe/Dembski arguments. This is when I began to play down these arguments and put a greater stress on anti-naturalism in the way I defined ID. Hence, in a September 2005 online debate with Douglas Laycock, I define ID in this way...
Comments (21)By Beckwith, Francis | March 19, 2010 | Category: Guest Features
When the ID movement first burst on the scene in the mid-1990s, it lacked the amateurishness of the creation-science movement while at the same time making its main goal to unseat philosophical naturalism. As a philosopher who had critiqued one sort of naturalist project in his doctoral dissertation, ID intrigued me, especially since its first major conference at Biola University in 1996 included many respected and accomplished philosophers.
Comments (35)By Ruse, Michael | March 18, 2010 | Category: Guest Features
Childhood Christianity just faded away in my early twenties. There wasn’t any kind of Road to Damascus experience in reverse, nor was it a direct function of taking up philosophy. The feelings and beliefs just went. They have never returned.
Comments (7)March 17, 2010 | Category: Video Blogs
In this video conversation, Pete Enns sheds light on the key difference between the ancient and modern mind with regard to interpretation of texts. A literal understanding of Genesis from an ancient mind frame would not necessarily be the same as what we now think of as a literal reading—where everything corresponds to reality in a one to one fashion.
Comments (6)