Science

Jason Padgett was exactly as one would expect someone who has no interest in school to be. He was only interested in parties and bars and was a magnet for both fun and trouble. That’s how he ended up being expelled, which didn’t affect him too much. However, getting beaten savagely changed his life forever, in the most unimaginable way possible.

Around 10% of Americans and 7% of Brazilians believe that the Earth is flat, that the moon landing was a hoax, and that those vaccinated against Covid-19 unknowingly received a microchip along with the vaccine. Several more percent remain uncertain about the veracity of official information.

When a process is thought to be too slow or impractical to test experimentally, simulation science is a valuable tool for testing its validity.

Scientific progress in understanding the DNA molecule and in deciphering the molecular mechanisms by which cells function can only be described as revolutionary. In the first of our "Genetics and Evolution" series of articles we examine the implications of these discoveries for evolutionary and creationist perspectives on the origin of life.

Humans have only a fifth of the genetic material of an onion, and slightly more DNA than a mouse. Why would the Creator of life use five times more genetic information for an onion than for a human? And why would He create humans to be only slightly more genetically complex than mice? Aren't long and aimless evolutionary processes a better explanation for...

The first time he saw a living human brain, neurosurgeon Sanjay Gupta says it became “a powerful and life-changing experience."

Even if half of us refer to creativity as a rare trait that only the other half has, in reality, creativity is much like a muscle: the more we use it, the more creative we become.

It is commonly assumed that at least 96% of the genome of a multicellular organism has no functional role. A junk-dominated genome is the ideal place for evolution to randomly explore new functions and characteristics of the species. After all, who would ever think that a wise and all-knowing Creator would use 96% informational junk to define a human being or a mollusc?

The daily horoscope is sometimes seen as a quasi-scientific method of predicting the future, other times as a preoccupation of childish adults, a way of calming one’s curiosity about tomorrow.

The eye's intricate structure has long been a focal point in the creationism vs evolutionism debate, serving as a key example in the argument of irreducible complexity. More recently, methods of simulating the evolution of the eye have emerged, which claim to provide significant support for Darwinism. Who is right?

Very few ordinary people seem to be overflowing with passion for quantum physics, as the field involves a high degree of abstraction and relatively complicated mathematical equations.

I got acquainted with Ariel Roth as a writer, but I also got to meet him as a human being. I discovered neither fanaticism nor nervousness, neither doubt nor ideological speech in Roth, an octogenarian who still looks in detail at each new subject appearing on the agenda of the debate between evolution and creation. He maintains an unflagging desire for honesty and...

"[B]ut test them all; hold on to what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

Out of the endless series of events we experience, some we remember, and others we do not. Some often come to mind and we relish recounting them, while others we wouldn’t reveal for anything in the world.

Atheists frequently invoke the theory that in the Middle Ages, Christians (not just lay people, but even church leaders) believed in the myth of the flat Earth.