Given the coming year of Darwin, here is a $20 USD MP3 course you can buy and download…

The god-of-the-gaps argument is used most often as an objection to the arguments of natural theology advanced by philosophers and theologians who explain the gaps in scientific knowledge as specific acts of God. It is a variant of the argument from ignorance which is a logical informal fallacy. But there are some consideration which blunt the force of the objection.

If the Global Warming cultural phenomenon is not sustained by science, the question is what is sustaining it? Why has it gathered so much momentum? Some suggestions are made. As a case study of the interaction between science and religion, it is very interesting. Some further resources are given.

Answering the objections to the article “Argument from Evolution,” (4) the illegitimate use of probability calculations to substantiate fault in evolutionary models; (5) the illegitimate use of the second law of thermodynamics and (6) that these improbability calculations should equally apply to creation models.

Answering the objections of the article “Argument from Evolution” (1) being anti-evolution; (2) upholding a ‘web of lies’ by citing ‘bulling’ tactics from evolutionists that curtail of the freedom of inquiry; (3) The illegitimate use of a quotation by Stephen J Gould that speaks of a lack of transitional forms in the fossil record;

A follow-up answering some criticisms of “The Argument from Evolution” article, and the charge that the Bible offers nothing scientifically relevant. The refutation is threefold. There is discussion on how the Christian worldview has benefited science; the motivation for Christians pursuit of truth in science; and the discoveries in science that the Bible anticipated.

A follow-up answering some criticisms of “The Argument from Evolution” article. These include defending Premise 1-1: If evolution is true it requires a divine miracle; explaining there is no need for an explanation of the explanation; the science of Intelligent Design and its predictions; and broadly defending the criticisms of religious texts.

An analysis of the atheistic argument from evolution, including four criticisms of evolution as well as a close look at the assertion that evolution implies that God does not exist. An exploration of the more cautious argument that evolution is more likely given naturalism rather than theism, which leads to a startling conclusion.

Bnonn interacts further with Ken Perrott on the question of whether intelligent design can be considered a scientific inference.

The question of whether intelligent design is a scientific or philosophical inference is a contentious and oft-debated one. Using a recent discussion on Ken Perrott’s blog as a kick-off point, Bnonn offers a brief commentary on this issue, giving reasons for why it is arbitrary to dismiss ID as unscientific.