Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 143

From the world of “Trust the science… ”

Medical science division:

According to bombshell allegations from a group of highly respected experts, the medical world is rife with research fraud.

Their investigations suggest up to one in five of the estimated two million medical studies published each year could contain invented or plagiarised results, details of patients who never existed and trials that didn’t actually take place.

The problem is ‘well known about’ in science circles, says Richard Smith, former editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) – yet there is a reluctance within the establishment to accept the scale of the problem.

In a recent article, he suggested the only way to combat research fraud is for journal editors to view all studies submitted as potential fakes until they can be proven otherwise.

Speaking on The Mail on Sunday’s Medical Minefield podcast, Smith – who was involved in the investigations that exposed Malcolm Pearce – said: ‘It’s shocking, but common.

Many of these fraudulent studies are simply invented. There were no patients. The trial never happened.’

Barney Calman, “Exposed: The plague of fake medical trials putting lives in danger as experts reveal a FIFTH of studies published each year could contain invented or plagiarised results” at Daily Mail (October 30, 2021)

But it’s really only a snippet of a much bigger problem:

A few days ago journalist Barney Calman published a thorough and well researched article about the problem of academic research fraud. Although the contents will seem familiar to any long time reader of the Daily Sceptic, it’s great news that much bigger audiences are now being exposed to information about the scale and nature of the problems inside scientific institutions.

In July the Daily Sceptic published an article by me entitled, “Photoshopping, fraud and circular logic in research“. It discussed the problem of Asian paper forging operations colloquially nicknamed “paper mills”, the Chinese Government policies that incentivise forging of scientific research, and cited former BMJ editor Richard Smith’s essay on the problem of fictional clinical trials. For classical journalists to write about a topic typically requires them to find an insider or specialist willing to put their own name on things – indeed, one of the major weaknesses of newspapers vs blog sites like this one is their reluctance to do original research into scientific topics. Scientists willing to put their names on allegations is the permission journalists need to cover a story like this – and now the Mail has it

Mike Hearn, “The Mail Asks Serious Questions About Fraudulent Research” at Daily Sceptic (November 6, 2021)

And, Coolest of All, climate change:

Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.

A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.

Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain.

Tamara Cohen, “World’s top climate scientists told to ‘cover up’ the fact that the Earth’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years” at Daily Mail (September 19, 2013)

Maybe Earth’s temperature has indeed risen since then. But the kinds of people who need to play the story like this don’t inspire confidence in their judgment about what’s going on.

Reform is nearly impossible if the incentive structure remains as it is — rewarding publication in and of itself.

On the other hand, nothing stays the same forever and growing public cynicism might provide a spur to reform.

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Experimental physicist Rob Sheldon on CNN’s “problem” with the Big Bang Theory

We wrote about that a couple of days ago:

At CNN: The Problem with the Big Bang Theory: The story is really about the fact that inflation theory — way Cooler than the Big Bang — was not especially confirmed. Get this: it’s important to remember that “there are no sacred cows in science, and scientists are always checking and rechecking even their favorite universal models.” – Don Lincoln

Really, Don? Try doubting that humans are responsible for global warming and watch the herd of sacred cows stampede…

Now Rob Sheldon kindly writes to say,

Just to clarify, Big Bang theory is doing just fine, the Inflationary addition which is NOT part of the Standard Model, isn’t.

But the article is not even saying that. Hypothesized inflation + hypothesized spin 2 gravity wave + hypothesized coupling = Bmode polarization of CMBR in some models, which is not seen. This could be because there is no inflation, or no gravity waves, or no coupling, or some combination of the above. Negative observations are really not very informative. The fact that they got $M to look says someone was really doing a good sales job.

Wish I could get $M to look for the rainbow unicorns that live on the sun but can only be seen with polarized X-rays.

We wish we had an illustration of those rainbow unicorns, with sunglasses, no doubt.

Rob Sheldon is the author of Genesis: The Long Ascent and The Long Ascent, Volume II .

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

At Evolution News: C. S. Lewis and the argument for theism from reason

The argument from reason is an old one but, as Jay Richards shows, it stands the test of time:

Naturalists tend to believe that Darwin’s account of the evolution of life is roughly correct. And they think the evidence establishes it. According to the Darwinian story, the adaptations of living things to their environment are not the result of purposeful design, but are the result of a blind process of natural selection acting on random variations within a population. Natural selection preserves and then propagates those variations that provide organisms with a survival advantage, and weeds out those that don’t…

Lewis argues that this process — which preserves survival-enhancing features — is nevertheless non-rational, and so cannot be expected to produce rational faculties. Again, if naturalism were true, then one would not expect minds and agents, choices and intentions to exist at all. If these things did exist, surely they would be mere epiphenomena of physical states. But let’s grant their existence, and even allow the naturalist the luxury of assuming that beliefs can guide our behavior. The naturalist will then want to argue that our reason and belief-forming faculties have been shaped by natural selection over eons, and so should be quite reliable.

The problem is that there are millions of beliefs, few of which are true in the sense that they correspond with reality, but all compatible with the same behavior. Natural selection could conceivably select for survival-enhancing behavior. But it has no tool for selecting only the behaviors caused by true beliefs, and weeding out all the others. So if our reasoning faculties came about as most naturalists assume they have, then we have little reason to assume they are reliable in the sense of giving us true beliefs. And that applies to our belief that naturalism is true.

This argument wasn’t original with Lewis. it appears in the Gifford Lectures given by British statesman Arthur Balfour in 1914. At the time, Balfour’s lectures were well known. They were even reported individually in the newspaper, and eventually published as the book Theism and Humanism, which Lewis credits as one of the ten books that most influenced him. But it is Lewis’s form of the argument that is still published, and read, in the twenty-first century.

Jay Richards, “C. S. Lewis and the Argument from Reason” at Evolution News and Science Today (October 26, 2021)

The essay at Evolution News and Science Today is based on Jay W. Richards’s chapter, “Mastering the Vernacular,” in The Magician’s Twin. edited by John West.

See also: John West on C.S. Lewis (who was not really a “theistic evolutionist” as the term is understood today). West: “Indeed, [Ken] Miller insists that ‘mankind’s appearance on this planet was not preordained, that we are here… as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out.'” Needless to say, Lewis did not subscribe to anything similar to this and might not have recognized it as Christian.

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

And now… David Hume Cancelled? Jerry Coyne reports.

As so often, Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne (himself a Canceler) has the story. He’s perturbed that that famous Scottish anti-miracles philosopher David Hume (1711–1776) is being Cancelled. It appears that the wrong people are being Cancelled:

Just two notes, as you can read her piece for yourself—it’s free. [Allison] Pearson addresses the opprobrium descending on the University of Edinburgh when it renamed Hume Tower: “Dozens of donors have cancelled financial gifts to the University of Edinburgh since it renamed the David Hume Tower over the philosopher’s comments on race more than 250 years ago. The presiding genius of the Scottish Enlightenment, Hume held views which now look either radical and laudably ahead of their time or discordantly ugly. An opponent of slavery, he helped his patron Lord Hertford buy a slave plantation. Guess what, human beings were as complicated and flawed back then as they are now. Edinburgh said it had to act to protect student “sensitivities”. Many alumni disagree. “Hume was cancelled in life by the Scottish universities for failing to fall in line with the religious tenets of his day,” wrote one, “so I admire him in death for having the same effect on the grandees of this new [woke] religion.” “

Renaming Hume Tower is a supreme act of stupidity.

And, as I reported before, both Imperial College and Western Washington University are in the process of cancelling the great biologist and educator Thomas Henry Huxley…

Jerry Coyne, “Is Wokeness moving Brits to the right?” at Why Evolution Is True (November 5, 2021)

Jerry, what goes around, comes around. You did to Eric Hedin what the Woke are doing to your faves. They’ll Cancel them all. Then they won’t have to do any homework.

We didn’t tell them to. You did. We could all help stop it now but then you have to stop too.

See also: It begins at last… T. H. Huxley, Darwin’s bulldog, about to be Cancelled – other early Darwinists to get the chop soon, we hear. W. D. Hamilton, Ronald Fisher, and J. B. S. Haldane are also threatened. We never thought it would happen but it is happening… so fast.

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Barna profiles a generation on the cliff’s crumbling edge — 78 million US Millennials

Barna’s current report, “New Insights into the Generation of Growing Influence: Millennials In America,” is a portrait of a generation adrift, dancing on the edge of a cliff, and reflective of generations of civilisational betrayal by intellectual, policy/political, media and educational leadership leading to a destabilised culture. And so, this cannot wait, triple bereavement life crisis or no, this needs to be highlighted and preliminarily assessed here at UD:

The report’s snapshot summary tells the grim story in outline:

And:

Also, we may add on Religious identification, affinity and affiliation:

We can start with the obvious, as within living memory of those of us who were of age to notice, between 1989 and 1991, Marxism’s credibility as a principle of economic organisation collapsed before our eyes. So, if the immediately following generation does not understand such after its seventy years of chaos, tyranny, state led murder of over 100 millions and outright economic failure, we are dealing with a generation that were deliberately misled by ideologues who cared not a whit for that horrific track record. One that is actually worse than that of Communism’s kissing cousin, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (Nazi, for short). (And yes, they meant the “Socialist.”)

So, first and foremost we are dealing with a deeply manipulated generation robbed of objective truth about pivotal worldview, policy, history, ideology and personal matters. That indicts at least two to three full generations of intellectual, policy, media and educational leaders and influencers, with implications across the full span of the pillars of community influence:

[image error]

Likewise, the Overton Window speaks:

Where, the modified political spectrum is therefore also instructive on the peril:

So, it is unsurprising to see the overall outline being sketched. Selecting key points:

almost half of those born 1984 – 2002 prefer socialism to capitalisma majority (likely with a large opposed minority and that’s the obvious trend-direction) “held a positive opinion of Jesus Christ, the United States of America and the Bible”Confirming that inference, 40% “don’t know if God exists, don’t care if God exists, or don’t believe that He exists.” (God, the necessary and maximally great being at reality’s root is the single most important point of knowledge of reality; where, a serious candidate necessary being either exists as framework to any possible world or is impossible of being, the latter never having been shown. So the hyperskeptical indifference is telling on intellectual breakdown.)Unsurprisingly, in this light, only 1/3 claim to “believe in God as the all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect and just creator of the universe who still rules the universe today”parallelling this, “Roughly two-thirds . . . align themselves with the Christian faith” likewise, “[j]ust over one-quarter of them said they do not associate with any religious faith”“39% of 18-24 year olds identify as LGBTQ” (Historically, in the West, 1 – 3% have been practicing homosexuals but this proportion globally ranges from vanishingly small to 100% forced participation through institutionalisation, in different cultures.)“[t]hree out of four . . . believe all religious faiths are of equal value”on “social issues,” 40 percent [a now familiar figure] identify as liberal or progressivist, with 29% as conservative.they identify as Democrats vs Republicans 2:1, revealing the predominant ideological influencers of their formative years“[m]ost Millennials reject the existence of absolute moral truth and identify feelings, experiences, and advice from family and friends as their most trusted sources of moral guidance” (That is, they drift with the cultural flow and thus those who dominate education and media.)likewise, three out of four “said that they are still searching for their purpose in life,” reflecting the influence of worldviews and cultural agendas that are antithetical to purpose, other than arbitrarily selected desires“[o]f the nine cultural influencer categories tested, none of them were trusted by a majority to “always or almost always tell the truth or do what is right.” (This cynicism reflects disintegration of social and cultural capital built up over generations.)“[t]he least trusted entities were entertainment celebrities, popular social media personalities, and elected government officials” (So, the influences come through peers and opinion leaders in families and groups.)“The most highly trusted influencers were their parents and friends”2 out of 3 “admitted to avoiding interaction with someone if it was likely to produce conflict,” which tends to block change based on mutually critical reflection and to reinforce cultural echo chambersissues they prioritise indicate “never let a crisis go to waste” media domination of their thinking: “CORONAVIRUS MANAGEMENT, CLIMATE CHANGE, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, ABORTION, THE ECONOMY”

The need for a sound counter-culture is patent. END

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

At Mind Matters News: Why physicalism is failing as the accepted approach to science

The argument that everything in nature can be reduced to physics was killed by the philosophical Zombie, as Prudence Louise explains:

At Medium, Prudence Louise, a writer on philosophy and religion, explains that, in 1994, philosopher David Chalmers killed the Zombie in cold blood, igniting “a zombie apocalypse.” Sounds like an unusual role for a philosopher.

And the Zombie? : “The philosophical notion of a “zombie” basically refers to conceivable creatures which are physically indistinguishable from us but lack consciousness entirely (Chalmers 1996)” — Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy Louise asks us to picture that:

News, “Why physicalism is failing as the accepted approach to science” at Mind Matters News

Of the three alternatives [to physicalism] Louise lists, panpsychism seems to the one many scientists are gravitating to. Instead of “nothing is conscious,” they now think everything is conscious. Just recently, prominent biochemist James Shapiro titled a paper “All living cells are cognitive.” And prominent neuroscientist Antonio Damasio offered that viruses have some type of intelligence. Other well-known science achievers argue that electrons have a rudimentary mind.

In response to criticism from physicists Sabine Hossenfelder and Sean Carroll, philosopher Philip Goff points out that panpsychism is not in conflict with physics. It offers a simpler view of physics than dualism, with fewer gaps than materialism.

Essentially, panpsychism offers a way for scientists to address human consciousness, as currently understood, without explaining it away as an illusion. It would allow us to say that if Zombie-Jane existed, she would be missing something critical that Jane has (and so does everything else, to some extent). Whether that makes panpsychism a better explanation of reality than idealism or dualism is a separate question. Like all points of view, they have their own issues but the Zombie isn’t one of them.

Takehome: Physicalism which depends on a mechanistic view of the universe, was challenged by observer-dependent quantum mechanics. Then the Zombie started walking…

You may also wish to read: Theoretical physicist slams panpsychism Electrons cannot be conscious Sabine Hossenfelder’s view because they cannot change their behavior. Hossenfelder’s impatience is understandable but she underestimates the seriousness of the problem serious thinkers about consciousness confront. There is a reason that some scientists believe that the universe is conscious: It would be more logically coherent to say that you think the universe is conscious than to say that your own consciousness is an illusion. With the first idea, you may be wrong. With the second idea, you are not anything.

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

At Rational Religion, Umar Nasser critiques atheist Ricky Gervais on the laws of nature

Ricky Gervais takes on Stephen Colbert – we review bit by bit!

The video we’re reviewing:

Umar Nasser and his brother are Ahmadiyya Muslims. If you liked Michael Egnor vs. Matt Dillahunty (here), you’ll probably like this one too.

You may also wish to read: A thoughtful critique of Philip Goff’s panpsychism Umar Nasser: I was quite disappointed at his treatment of dualism. I felt like he listed some objections against it but didn’t really seek to give counter-objections, as it might hold up too well as compared to his preferred option of panpsychism [everything is conscious to some degree].

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

John West on C.S. Lewis (who was not really a “theistic evolutionist” as the term is understood today)

While 20th century Christian apologist C.S. Lewis (1898–1963) was open to the possible common descent of humans from lower animals, it is misleading, West notes, to call him theistic evolutionist because, usually, more is meant by that term:

Theistic evolution can mean many things, including a form of guided evolution, but many contemporary proponents of theistic evolution are more accurately described as theistic Darwinists. That is, they do not merely advocate a guided form of common descent, but they are attempting to combine evolution as an undirected Darwinian process with Christian theism. Although they believe in God, they strenuously want to avoid stating that God actually guided biological development.

For example, Anglican John Polkinghorne wrote that “an evolutionary universe is theologically understood as a creation allowed to make itself.” Former Vatican astronomer George Coyne claimed that because evolution is unguided “not even God could know… with certainty” that “human life would come to be.”

And Christian biologist Kenneth Miller of Brown University, author of the popular book Finding Darwin’s God (which is used in many Christian colleges), insists that evolution is an undirected process, flatly denying that God guided the evolutionary process to achieve any particular result — including the development of us. Indeed, Miller insists that “mankind’s appearance on this planet was not preordained, that we are here… as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out.”

John G. West, “C. S. Lewis and Theistic Evolution” at Evolution News and Science Today (October 28, 2021)

Needless to say, Lewis did not subscribe to anything similar to this and might not have recognized it as Christian.

Note: West’s article is taken from Chapter 6 of his The Magician’s Twin.

From the same page: Editor’s note: To mark the release on November 3 of the new C. S. Lewis biopic, The Most Reluctant Convert, we are running a series of articles exploring C. S. Lewis’s views on science, mind, and more.

SPECIAL LIMITED-TIME OFFER:  Get a FREE chapter exploring C.S. Lewis’s views of intelligent design from the book The Magician’s Twin

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

At Mind Matters News: 2. Neurosurgeon and neuropsychologist agree: Brain is not mind

Michael Egnor tells Mark Solms: Neuroscience didn’t help him understand people; quite the reverse, he had to understand people, and minds, to make sense of neuroscience:

Recently, distinguished South African neuropsychologist Mark Solms discussed the real state of brain research with Stony brook neurosurgeon Michael Egnor at Theology Unleashed (October 22, 2021) In the first portion, Solms, author of The Hidden Spring (2021), began by asserting in his opening statement that “the source of consciousness in the brain is in fact in the brain stem,” not the cerebral cortex, as is almost universally assumed. Dr. Egnor now responds that his clinical experience supports that view and the view that the mind is not simply “what the brain does” as some popular neuroscientists claim:

News, “2. Neurosurgeon and neuropsychologist agree: Brain is not mind” at Mind Matters News

Michael Egnor: When I got to medical school, I was thrilled at being able to study neuroscience. My first day of medical school, I bought all the textbooks for neuroscience… I was fascinated by the basal ganglia. And I was thinking that when I really studied neuroanatomy and neurophysiology, that I would understand the mind on a deeper level, not just the structure of the brain and the physiology, but what the mind was and what a person was. [00:16:00]

I thought this was the Rosetta Stone into understanding deeply what it is to be human. And I found in medical school, and then in my neurosurgical training, that it didn’t really help that much. In fact, it was almost the other way around. I had to understand what people were and what the mind was in order to make sense of neuroscience! And I still find that. [00:16:30]

Basal ganglia/Lim S-J, Fiez JA and Holt LL (2014) How may the basal ganglia contribute to auditory categorization and speech perception? Front. Neurosci. 8:230. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2014.00230. CC 3.0

So, I came to a very different perspective. I saw very much the same things that Mark wrote about in his book. I saw patients who didn’t have frontal lobes, or at least most of their frontal lobes, who were completely conscious, in fact, rather pleasant, bright people. I’ve had children who have hydrocephaly, who are most certainly conscious. They’re quite handicapped, but they have emotions. They obviously have profound mental states. [00:17:00]

I have a patient who’s had most of his brain destroyed. He’s a young man who had an arteriovenous malformation of his brain (hemorrhage) about 30 years ago when he was a small child, and it destroyed most of his brain. I see him in the office, he has a shunt for hydrocephalus, for fluid on his brain. He can’t speak very well and he sits in a wheelchair. But he’s actually an extremely perceptive person. His family says that he understands other people’s emotions and thoughts better than most people do. I’ve got a young girl who’s missing at least half of her brain, including a lot of her frontal cortex, who just recently graduated from high school as an honor student. She’s a brilliant child, a perfectly normal kid. [00:17:30]

So, what Mark says is completely true. Consciousness certainly doesn’t come from the cortex. Where it comes from is a whole another fascinating question. But I found that what’s in the neuroscience textbooks simply doesn’t match up to real everyday experience.

Takehome: Egnor saw patients who didn’t have most of their frontal lobes who were completely conscious, “in fact, rather pleasant, bright people.”

Here’s the first portion of the debate, where neuropsychologist Mark Solms shares his perspective: Consciousness: Is it in the cerebral cortex — or the brain stem? In a recent discussion/debate with neurosurgeon Michael Egnor, neuropsychologist Mark Solms offers an unconventional but evidence-based view, favouring the brain stem. The evidence shows, says Mark Solms, author of The Hidden Spring, that the brain stem, not the cerebral cortex is the source of consciousness.

You may also wish to read: Your mind vs. your brain:
Ten things to know

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

New introduction to intelligent design at YouTube

1: Introduction Part 1 (October 12, 2021), by John and Sandy Palmer

Part 1 begins with the basic concepts of Darwinian Evolution. Darwin’s theory related to heredity, but the science behind genetics was a mystery in his day. Darwin’s assumptions about heredity have proven to be mistaken.

Next: Part 2 introduces the foundational concepts of Intelligent Design. Evidence from molecular biology over the past 60 years completely upends Darwinism.

About the series as a whole:

In this series, we cover the most important topics of the Intelligent Design vs Evolution debate in six video sessions, each divided into two half hour segments.
1 – Introduction to Intelligent Design
2 – Recognizing Design
3 – Micro to Macro Evolution
4 – Darwinism’s Evidence
5 – Origin of Life
6 – Human Exceptionalism
7 – Review and Conclusion
We hope these videos can be used in Bible Studies, small groups, and Sunday School classes. They can be helpful for anyone interested in the creation / evolution controversy.

Group discussion questions for Part 1 are available here.

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana