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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Piers Benn, lecturer in medical ethics at Imperial College, London, discusses two recent medical cases involving the so-called ‘right to die’ explaining how the cases differ legally and, perhaps, ethically.

One of the most intriguing of philosophical puzzles concerns other minds. How do you know there are any? Yes, you're surrounded by living organisms that look and behave much as you do. They even say they have minds. But do they? Perhaps other humans are mindless zombies: like you on the outside, but lacking any inner conscious life, including emotions, thoughts, experiences and even pain. What grounds do you possess for supposing that other humans (including even me) aren't zombies? Perhaps less than you think. Anita Avramides tackles this fascinating question.

According to relativists, people who speak simply of what's ‘true’ are naïve. ‘Whose truth?’ asks the relativist. ‘No claim is ever true, period. What's true is always true for someone. It's true relative to a particular person or culture. There's no such thing as the absolute truth on any issue.’

This sort of relativism is certainly popular. For example, many claim that we are wrong to condemn cultures with moral codes different from our own: their moralities are no less valid. Similarly, some claim that while astrology and Feng Shui might be ‘false’ from a Western, scientific viewpoint, they are ‘true’ when viewed from alternative, New Age points of view. What's ‘true’ and what's ‘false’ ultimately depend on where one is standing.

Is this sort of relativism about truth tenable?

Is what's true ultimately relative to your point of view? So that what's true as viewed from over here might be false if viewed from over there? In this article, Simon Blackburn grapples with the suggestion that what's true is ultimately just a matter of perspective.

Many seek to play the lottery by crossing boxes at random across their card. But do they really choose their numbers at random? As John Haigh here explains, probably not. And, surprisingly, that is likely to affect how much they win. If you play the lottery and want to win big, then read on…

In this regular series Michael Clark, editor of the journal Analysis, presents some of the most intriguing philosophical paradoxes. Here we examine the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise.

Thinking Tools is a regular feature that introduces pointers on thinking clearly and rigorously. Here we get to grips with two everyday reasoning errors.

Some brief notes for those who might wish to use Think as a teaching resource.

Simon Critchley, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Essex, investigates humour. And tells some pretty good jokes.