Science tells us that there was no Edenic paradise, no first couple, and no sinless parents of humanity. And while most scientists and some theologians and philosophers teaching at Protestant Christian colleges know this, very few are willing to speak out.
Members of a young Earth, fundamentalist Christian sect from the United States have found their way to Scotland and have been promoting their beliefs in a public elementary school. Part of their missionary work has been to distribute "science" books to the students.
On June 25, 2014, the following scientific study made the cover of the prestigious journal Nature: "Aspergillomarasmine A overcomes metallo-β-lactamase antibiotic resistance." Doesn't exactly sound earth-shattering, does it? But the discovery of a fungal compound that restores the efficacy of one of our antibiotics of last resort is, in fact, huge news.
How does "getting together" actually unify and strengthen, rather than scatter, a given movement for social change?
More often than not, women's economic dependence on men is bundled up with strong views against sexual promiscuity. But why? Are economic dependence and anti-promiscuity morality both symptoms of the same cause? Patriarchy, perhaps? Or does one bring about the other?
I believe people of faith need to imagine a world without God. We then might take greater responsibility for our own lives and the circumstances of others, as well as life on this planet.
When people believe that being religious means that some scientific concepts can't be discussed or accepted, damage is done to both religion and science.
When people think of film school curriculum, they don't usually think of cutting edge scientific collaborations with NASA and space launch experiments...
As a Taoist monk, I find the notion of the Earth as a superorganism to make perfect sense; I also find the notion of evolution as a propulsive, all-encompassing, and all-pervasive force to be completely congruent with the ancient Chinese concept of Tao.
The recent decision on contraception was not about the sanctity of human life, non-interference in religious freedom, or scriptural high ground. It was a victory, pure and simple, for those who want to control women's bodies.
By Sara Bokhari This post was originally published on the TNTP Blog. Last fall, I found myself standing in the back of a middle school science c...
At an international conference in Mexico a few years ago, Richard Dawkins, having expounded at length on how sexual natural selection explains life on Earth without any need for a "creator," went on to say, "And I am sure that something like the principle of natural selection operates in the physical universe as well." Sounds totally silly? Well, there's more to it: a huge irony.
To a passerby who peered through the window, we might have looked like a conglomeration of people just sitting at a table. But our home held a cluster of kind smiles, laughter bursting at inside jokes, hearty pats on the back, and fond memories recounted together.
Performing random acts of kindness makes you an example of what is possible. You become an inspiration, opening the awareness of others to their own potential. Most of us want our lives to inspire love in others.
My book's critics have been indoctrinated in the social-science creed that prohibits any role for evolution in human affairs. Social scientists believe that all differences between human groups are due to culture alone, and that to ascribe any part of these differences to genetics would lead to racism.
The whole concept of "transitional fossil," unfortunately, has a sort of linear connotation. Like, there is a sequence of species, one having evolved into the next and so on, but there's a hole in the sequence that needs to be filled. But that's not really how evolution works.