Is parapsychology a pseudo-science? Many believe that the Eighteenth century philosopher David Hume showed, in effect, that it must be. In this article, Terence Penelhum explains and endorses Hume's arguments concerning testimony of the miraculous, but also explains why he believes there is now evidence of sufficient quality concerning the paranormal to make further investigation scientifically worth-while.

In issue one, Richard Dawkins attacked the Alabama State Board of Education for pasting into biology schoolbooks an insert (reproduced overleaf) that explained that the theory of evolution is an ‘unproven’ and ‘controversial’ theory that ‘some’ scientists accept. The insert also raised a number of important questions that (the suggestion seems to be) the theory of evolution still struggles to answer. Here, philosopher Alvin Plantinga responds to Dawkins' criticisms of the insert.

Creationists believe that the Biblical account of the creation of the universe is literally true. God brought into existence the Earth and all its life forms in just six days. According to creationists, this event took place less than ten thousand years ago (they base their calculation of the age of the universe on the number of generations listed in the Bible).

Creationists have succeeded in persuading large swathes of the general public that their theory is at least as scientifically respectable as the Big Bang/evolution alternative. A recent Gallup poll indicated that about 45% of US citizens currently believe that God created human beings ‘pretty much in [their] present form at one time or another within the last 10,000 years’.

Two states, Arkansas and Louisiana, have even passed ‘balanced treatment’ laws requiring that creationism be taught alongside evolution in all state public schools. It was in Auburn, Alabama, shortly after that state required that a piece of paper be pasted into every biology school text book explaining why evolution is merely a ‘theory’ — and a highly questionable theory at that — that Richard Dawkins delivered the impromptu speech which forms the basis of the following.

Some argue that genetic engineering and other scientific practices are morally wrong because they are ‘unnatural’. Prince Charles took this line in his 2000 Reith Lecture. But as Mary Warnock here points out, attempts to justify the moral condemnation of a practice on the grounds that it is ‘contrary to nature’ are notoriously difficult to sustain.

Is truth ultimately made, not discovered? Is reality something we construct, by thinking about it? In this article, Robert Kirk gets to grips with the popular idea that truth and reality are, in the last analysis, our own invention.

Do some people have a paranormal power to ‘see’ into the future? There are innumerable anecdotes of events foretold, of course. But is there any scientific evidence of the ability? Fiona Steinkamp, a leading investigator of the paranormal, believes there is.

Is democracy a good thing? Most of us think so. And yet, as Jonathan Wolff here explains, Plato thought democracy was a very bad idea. If you favour democracy (and I'm guessing you do), then your challenge is to explain what, if anything, is wrong with Plato's argument. So can you?

Dean Radin, laboratory director at The Institute of Noetic Sciences (California, USA), argues that telepathy is real, and suggests that quantum mechanics may ultimately provide an explanation of how it works.

This article explains the various techniques that psychics can use to convince both their clients and themselves that they really do have occult powers. Tony Youens, the author, regularly demonstrates these techniques, and usually succeeds in convincing his audience of his amazing psychic abilities before he reveals all. On one recent TV show, a person who uses psychics was asked, after a long session with both Tony and a ‘real’ psychic, which of the two had genuinely psychic powers. They chose Tony.

The world is increasingly full of junk science. Pseudo-scientific claims are rife, and the public is regularly misled. Here, the physicist Robert Park points out seven warning signs of pseudo-science. Does parapsychology exhibit any of these warning signs? Read on to find out…

Has science shown that people are, in some sense, an illusion? According to Mary Midgley, that is precisely what some scientists now preach. Focusing particularly on a claim made by Richard Dawkins, she explains why she believes these scientists are making a serious mistake.

Edward Do Bono argues that while traditional logical thinking of the sort developed by the ‘Gang of Three’—Socrates, Plato and Aristotle—is immensely valuable, it is, by itself, inadequate. In this article, De Bono explains why he believes other, more creative forms of thinking need to be developed as new ‘software for the brain’.

Is it reasonable to believe in God? Many suppose that belief in God is a matter of faith, not reason. Here, Richard Swinburne, Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at Oxford University, argues that there are a number of arguments which, taken together, actually provide good grounds for supposing that God exists.

Peter King asks whether parapsychologists take too much for granted when they talk of ‘pre-cognition’ and indeed ‘para-psychology’. Even if there are measurable paranormal phenomena to be explained, it is unclear whether they have much to do with either cognition or psychology. Isn't it also about time, asks King, that investigators of the paranormal started coming up with theories to explain what they observe?

In this article, Alan Montefiore asks whether anyone could deliberately do something they knew to be wrong. He suggests, interestingly, that on this question we tend to divide into two groups, groups that hold fundamentally different perspectives on wrong-doing. The two groups muddle along unaware of the rift between them. Here, Alan Montefiore draws the rift to our attention.

Suppose that paranormal phenomena really exist. Telepathy, precognition, psychokinesis, clairvoyance, and communication with the dead actually take place. In this article, Timothy Sprigge asks to what extent this would impact on our world view. In particular, how would it affect science, philosophy and religion?

I think of myself as in large part free to do what I want. For example, I can now freely choose to raise my arm, or not to, as the fancy takes me. But perhaps this impression of freedom and control is misleading. In this article Helen Steward explains how the findings of science seems to suggest that we ultimately have no control at all over how our lives go.