Dr. William Lane Craig is probably the best debater for evangelical Christianity today. Rarely do Craig’s opponents address his arguments, much less provide coherent refutations. Dr. Peter Millican at least attempts to refute Craig’s arguments directly. This makes for a very spirited exchange.
For those of you who may not have time to watch the entire debate, the blogger Wintery Knight has summed up the exchange nicely here. He also provides links to the audio.
Ray Comfort has recently put out several provocative, informative and entertaining half hour videos. His latest called Evolution vs. God asks some top evolutionists to offer evidence for their view (included in this production is P.Z. Myers, one of the more aggressive proponents of macro-evolution). Their responses may surprise you!
It is certainly true that God could exist and macro-evolution also be true. However, this film exposes the difficulty macro-evolutionists often have offering evidence for their view without assuming what they are trying to prove. It seems to me that they have a lot faith. Maybe given more time they could make a better case, but they certainly don’t do so in this film (and in nothing I’ve read either).
You can watch the trailer and download the complete production right now here (over 247,000 trailer views and 6,000 downloads in about a week). For those of you that can wait, it will be available on You Tube on August 7. However, downloading it helps pay for production costs for this and future videos. Check it out. I think you’ll find it enlightening and entertaining!
Darwin’s Doubt, the brand new New York Times bestseller by Cambridge-trained Ph.D., Stephen Meyer, is creating a major scientific controversy. Darwinists don’t like it.
Meyer writes about the complex history of new life forms in an easy to understand narrative style. He takes the reader on a journey from Darwin to today while trying to discover the best explanation for how the first groups of animals arose. He shows, quite persuasively, that Darwinian mechanisms don’t have the power to do the job.
Using the same investigative forensic approach Darwin used over 150 years ago, Meyer investigates the central doubt Darwin had about his own theory. Namely, that the fossil record did not contain the rainbow of intermediate forms that his theory of gradual evolutionary change required. However, Darwin predicted that future discoveries would confirm his theory.
Meyer points out that they haven’t. We’ve thoroughly searched the fossil record since Darwin and confirmed what Darwin originally saw himself: the discontinuous, abrupt appearance of the first forms of complex animal life. In fact, paleontologists now think that roughly 20 of the 28 animal phyla (representing distinct animal “body plans”) found in the fossil record appear abruptly without ancestors in a dramatic geological event called the Cambrian Explosion.
And additional discoveries since Darwin have made it even worse for his theory. Darwin didn’t know about DNA or the digital information it contains that makes life possible. He couldn’t have appreciated, therefore, that building new forms of animal life would require millions of new characters of precisely sequenced code—that the Cambrian explosion was a massive explosion of new information.
For modern neo-Darwinism to survive, there must be an unguided natural mechanism that can create the genetic information and then add to it massively, accurately and within the time allowed by the fossil record. Is there such a mechanism?
The answer to that question is the key to Meyer’s theory and entire book. Meyer shows that the standard “neo-Darwinian” mechanism of mutation and natural selection mechanism lacks the creative power to produce the information necessary to produce new forms of animal life. He also reviews the various post-Darwinian speculations that evolutionary biologists themselves are now proposing to replace the crumbling Darwinian edifice. None survive scrutiny. Not only is there no known natural mechanism that can create the new information required for new life forms, there is no known natural mechanism that can create the genetic code for the first life either (which was the subject of Meyer’s previous book Signature in the Cell).
When Meyer suggests that an intelligent designer is the best explanation for the evidence at hand, critics accuse him of being anti-scientific and endangering sexual freedom everywhere (OK, they don’t explicitly state that last part). They also claim that Meyer commits the God of the gaps fallacy.
But he does not. As Meyer points out, he’s not interpreting the evidence based on what we don’t know, but what we do know. The geologically sudden appearance of fully formed animals and millions of lines of genetic information point to intelligence. That is, we don’t just lack a materialistic explanation for the origin of information. We have positive evidence from our uniform and repeated experience that another kind of cause—namely, intelligence or mind—is capable of producing digital information. Thus, he argues that the explosion of information in the Cambrian period provides evidence of this kind of cause acting in the history of animal life. (Much like any sentence written by one of Meyer’s critics is positive evidence for an intelligent being).
This inference from the data is no different than the inference archaeologists made when they discovered the Rosetta Stone. It wasn’t a “gap” in their knowledge about natural forces that led them to that conclusion, but the positive knowledge that inscriptions require intelligent inscribers.
Of course, any critic could refute Meyer’s entire thesis by demonstrating how natural forces or mechanisms can generate the genetic information necessary to build the first life and then massive new amounts of genetic information necessary for new forms of animal life. But they can’t and hardly try without assuming what they are trying to prove (see Chapter 11). Instead, critics attempt to smear Meyer by claiming he’s doing “pseudo science” or not doing science at all.
Well, if Meyer isn’t, doing science, then neither was Darwin (or any Darwinist today). Meyer is using the same forensic or historical scientific method that Darwin himself used. That’s all that can be used. Since these are historical questions, a scientist can’t go into the lab to repeat and observe the origin and history of life. Scientists must evaluate the clues left behind and then make an inference to the best explanation. Does our repeated experience tell us that natural mechanisms have the power to create the effects in question or is intelligence required?
Meyer writes, “Neo-Darwinism and the theory of intelligent design are not two different kinds of inquiry, as some critics have asserted. They are two different answers—formulated using a similar logic and method of reasoning—to the same question: ‘What caused biological forms and the appearance of design in the history of life?’”
The reason Darwinists and Meyer arrive at different answers is not because there’s a difference in their scientific methods, but because Meyer and other Intelligent Design proponents don’t limit themselves to materialistic causes. They are open to intelligent causes as well (just like archaeologists and crime scene investigators are).
So this is not a debate about evidence. Everyone is looking at the same evidence. This is a debate about how to interpret the evidence, and that involves philosophical commitments about what causes will be considered possible before looking at the evidence. If you philosophically rule out intelligent causes beforehand—as the Darwinists do—you will never arrive at the truth if an intelligent being actually is responsible.
Since all evidence needs to be interpreted, science doesn’t actually say anything—scientists do. So if certain self-appointed priests of science say that a particular theory is outside the bounds of their own scientific dogma, that doesn’t mean that the theory is false. The issue is truth—not whether something fits a materialistic definition of science.
I’m sure Darwinists will continue to throw primordial slime at Meyer and his colleagues. But that won’t make a dent in his observation that whenever we see information like that required to produce the Cambrian Explosion, intelligence is always the cause. In fact, I predict that when open-minded people read Darwin’s Doubt, they’ll see that Dr. Meyer makes a very intelligently designed case that intelligent design is actually true. It’s just too bad that many Darwinists aren’t open to that truth—they aren’t even open minded enough to doubt Darwin as much as Darwin himself was.
Most of our top universities continue their liberal learning right through the graduation ceremony. Todd Starnes provides a complete listing of university graduation speakers from Harvard on down. This despite the fact that many of these universities were founded by Christians on Christianity.
For example, Harvard, whose namesake was clergyman John Harvard, was founded to train ministers of the Gospel. This is from a website affiliated with Harvard:
Harvard University was founded in 1636 with the intention of establishing a school to train Christian ministers. In accordance with that vision, Harvard’s “Rules and Precepts,” adopted in 1646, stated (original spelling and Scriptural references retained):
“2. Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life (John 17:3) and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and Learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, Let every one seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of him (Prov. 2:3).
3. Every one shall so exercise himselfe in reading the Scriptures twice a day, that he shall be ready to give such an account of his proficiency therein, both in Theoreticall observations of Language and Logick, and in practical and spiritual truths, as his Tutor shall require, according to his ability; seeing the entrance of the word giveth light, it giveth understanding to the simple (Psalm 119:130).”
The motto of the University adopted in 1692 was “Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae” which translated from Latin means “Truth for Christ and the Church.” This phrase was embedded on a shield as shown to the right, and can be found on many buildings around campus including the Widener library, Memorial Church, and various dorms in Harvard Yard. Interestingly, the top two books on the shield are face up while the bottom book is face down. This symbolizes the limits of reason, and the need for God’s revelation.
Consistent with “Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae” and the purpose of Harvard’s founding, our fellowship is dedicated to discovering and experiencing Truth (Veritas) for the sake of Christ and his church.
Is it any wonder why the majority of students fail to attend church during college and many walk away from Christianity permanently? Students are fed liberalism throughout their college experience.
But why have our universities and much of our country gone liberal? It’s not because the truth supports liberalism or is contrary to Christianity. It’s largely because Christians went anti-intellectual and failed to defend the truth. When you turn out the light, darkness is right there.
An old debate, featuring Dr. Kenneth Miller and Dr. Paul Nelson, has found its way onto YouTube. The debate took place at the time of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in Pennsylvania in 2005. Moderated by Sally Satel at the American Enterprise Institute, it focuses on the question of teaching evolutionary theory and intelligent design in science classrooms.
Ken Miller’s presentation is predictable: He talks about the type III secretion system and the fusion origin of chromosome 2; about how ID is allegedly nothing more than a negative argument against evolution and really a form of disguised creationism. His arguments have been so thoroughly responded to here at ENV and elsewhere that further discussion is unnecessary.
I do, however, want to draw attention to a particular moment in the debate, which you can view for yourself by playing the above video from 39 minutes in. Miller quotes Phil Johnson as stating:
The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to “the truth” of the Bible and then “the question of sin” and finally “introduced to Jesus.”
On his PowerPoint slide, Ken Miller even provides a citation to Church & State magazine, and it turns out that this very article is available online.
You will find that the quote from Miller’s PowerPoint presentation is not from the pen of Phil Johnson at all. Rather, it is a paraphrase or (more accurately) a caricature of Johnson by Rob Boston, a critic of ID! Here’s the passage from the original article:
A second speaker itching to get his religious perspective into public schools is Phillip Johnson, a University of California at Berkeley law professor who has written several books attacking evolution. Asserting that Darwinism is “based on awful science, just terrible,” Johnson said the theory has “divided the people of God” and that means “the way is open for the agnostics to say, ‘We need to put all of this aside.'”Johnson calls his movement “The Wedge.” The objective, he said, is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to “the truth” of the Bible and then “the question of sin” and finally “introduced to Jesus.”
Surprisingly, this quotation is attributed to Johnson on several webpages (e.g. here, here, andhere), although Wikipedia does correctly attribute the statement.
This article was originally published at Evolution News & Views.
At the University of Dallas last month, a polite atheist (Carter) had four major questions/objections to my “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” presentation. Our nine minute exchange covered the following questions/objections:
The only completely innocent person in the history of humanity suffered for a greater good– the salvation of you and me. Trust in Him this resurrection day. If you never choose to do so, God will not force you into Heaven against your will. He will respect your choice and leave you alone, apart from Himself and everything good, for all eternity. If you do trust in Him, you will discover what you were created for– to know Him and enjoy Him and His creation forever!
Easter season is upon us and it is almost certain that some newspapers, magazine articles, documentaries, etc…will seek to discredit the resurrection of Christ or imply that Jesus’ disciples “made up” the resurrection. How do we respond? How should we respond? Did Jesus’ disciples conspire together to say that Jesus had risen from the dead, when in fact He did not?
Detective Jim Warner Wallace has been investigating and solving cold-case homicides in California for over 25 years. As this appearance on Dateline NBC shows, Jim solves homicides in which the trail of evidence has gone cold. He knows a thing or two about crimes and conspiracies. According to detective Wallace, successful conspiracies share five common characteristics: 
(1) Small number of conspirators – simply put, the smaller number of conspirators, then the greater chances of success with the lie. There were 11 eyewitnesses of the resurrection (not including the women and others who saw the risen Jesus), plus another 500. That’s typically too big to ensure a successful conspiracy.
(2) Thorough and immediate communication – without immediate communication, conspirators can’t hold their lies together or separate lies from the truth. The apostles were separated over hundreds of miles and didn’t have immediate communication. Had they been lying, one of them would have recanted under pressure and exposed the conspiracy.
(3) Short time span – If a lie is going to “work” then it must be told over a short period of time. It’s very difficult to maintain a lie over a long period of time. The New Testament writers lived up to sixty years after the resurrection—far too long to maintain a lie, especially under constant pressure to recant the lie.
(4) Significant relational connections – successful conspiracies have co-conspirators who are family members or related in some way. Family members are less apt to give one another up. But most of the eyewitnesses of the resurrection were unrelated and come from various socio-political backgrounds.
(5) Little or no pressure – a lie or conspiracy could be maintained if there was little or no external pressure for the conspirators to change their message. And yet, the eyewitnesses of the resurrection all experienced tremendous persecution and even death for maintaining that they had all witnessed Christ’s bodily resurrection.
Not only did they lack the elements needed for a successful conspiracy, the disciples had no motive to conduct one. What did the disciples have to gain by making up the resurrection story? According to Detective Wallace, there are three main reasons why someone would want to engage in a conspiracy (a lie): (1) Financial gain, (2) Passion (often sexual), (3) Gain power.
None of these were motives for the apostles. First, none of them earned a great deal of wealth for preaching that Christ had risen. Most of them had to rely on the support of others and lived “on the run.” Second, the relationship between Christ and the disciples was one of a leader and His followers and not one of sexual passion or otherwise. And finally, none of the disciples gained any powerful positions for maintaining that Christ had risen. In fact, most of them were in diametrical opposition to both the political and religious authorities of the day, and they suffered dearly for it.
For all of these reasons and others, no serious scholar today believes that the resurrection story is a lie—the result of a conspiracy among the apostles. It would take too much faith to believe that.
If you would like to learn more about how to defend Christianity with principles gleaned from a top-notch homicide detective turned Christian apologist, you can listen to our radio podcast interview with Mr. Wallace on 1/12 and 2/9 here or check out his new book, Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels.
Abortion advocates don’t want you to see this one minute video. They would rather suppress the truth than conform to it.
Had or encouraged abortion? There is healing. Please visit the CaseforLife.com
On this tragic anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, I would like to clear up a massive misunderstanding: overturning Roe vs. Wade will NOT make abortion illegal. The most likely result in a case overturning Roe would be that abortion would again become a state issue, the way it was prior to 1973. In other words, some states would vote to restrict or outlaw it, while others would vote to continue to keep it legal. Imagine actually being able to vote on an issue, rather that having unelected justices deciding the issue for you! That’s the way our representative republic is supposed to work! The current situation is undemocratic.
To those who say, “we don’t vote on rights!” Actually, we do. We voted on the Constitution and abortion is clearly not in the Constitution. However, there is a right to life in the Constitution, so why aren’t you advocating that? If you’d like abortion to be a Constitutionally protected right, then convince your fellow citizens to pass a Constitutional amendment. But don’t ask an unelected group of elites to impose it on everyone else. Such an unrepresentative process is precisely what let to our Founders to pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to rectify.
The “god-of-the-gaps” objection to intelligent design is one that we have addressed numerous times at ENV and elsewhere (most recently, here). Yet even though the argument has been convincingly refuted time and again, it lives on in the popular literature.
My friend Jamie Franklin recently published a post on his website explaining why he has come to reject the claims of ID. His main concern is that ID presents a god-of-the-gaps argument, one that is based on what we don’t know, rather than what we do know, about life. Because Jamie’s thoughts are echoed in many other sources, they deserve a reply.