Comments

1. RF says on Nov 3, 2008 @ 01:08 AM:

   NOTE: The audio quality suffered due to technical issues for this audio blog! We are working on the consistency and quality of the blogs - look for improvements soon.

   RF/ReasonableFaith.org

2. Pumbelo says on Nov 3, 2008 @ 02:23 PM:

   Finally a new blog entry. And a great one.

   By the way, I think Dawkins made a similar statement in a debate with Francis Collins.
   Is it possible to find this new debate with John Lennox or the rather old one with Collins on the web?

3. Stephen says on Nov 3, 2008 @ 11:15 PM:

   It seems like Dawkins is becoming a bit more rational with time then. His vitriolic attacks on religion achieved nothing, if anything they were a disservice to atheism as he appeared to be attacking religion for some sort of personal vendetta. The most rational stance anyone can take is agnostism or skeptical christianity. As science is presently so primitive as not to be able to even unite the laws of physics or answer questions like " what is consciousness?" or "where did the laws of physics come from?" it seems presumptious to posit that the universe was created by a supreme being or that the universe was fine tuned for intelligent life. It is also equally presumptious to state " there is no God". Thus in some real sense all these debates between theologians and atheisists are pointless though very entertaining !

4. Marty says on Nov 4, 2008 @ 11:36 PM:

   Thanks Stephen, "The most rational stance anyone can take is agnostism or skeptical christianity." This is exactly what I've been trying to say to both sides of the fence, and its great to hear someone else is seeing the same way.

   Also, While Dawkins said that, there is a good point that can be made saying he hasn't ludicrously changed his position. His entire point is we should be swayed by evidence, and if he is getting more open minded he is in fact being more consistent with his own principles than he was before. Good on him! And he's predominantly a christian atheist anyway, more against religion and religious dogma than god. Or maybe thats how I read it cos thats where I stand.

5. Richard says on Nov 5, 2008 @ 06:47 PM:

   anyone know if this is available to download yet?

6. Anonymous says on Nov 5, 2008 @ 06:56 PM:

   Richard,
   Try clicking on the "Get MP3 (6 MB | 6:43 min)" text link above and choosing "save as" to download the audio file.

   RF/ReasonableFaith.org

7. Stephen says on Nov 6, 2008 @ 02:12 AM:

   Dear Richard,
   I can't find this debate either. I can only find the old one. It is interesting to note that Dr Dawkins won't debate Dr Craig. I suppose he is rational enough to realise he would get eaten alive. Then again I don't really blame him. How you do go about proving the non-existence of an entity that can't be detected or observed?

8. Marty says on Nov 6, 2008 @ 05:14 AM:

   Not sure about that Stephen. The side is generally the negative of "There is a God", so he'd only have to prove that its possible there's not. And that's not so tricky to do.

   From his writing, a quote from another scientific atheist refusing a debate "That would look good on your resume, not so good on mine." Not saying its true, just possible.

9. Pieter says on Nov 6, 2008 @ 07:01 AM:

   I found it on RichardDawkins.net and go to the audio page. However, I did found a radio conversation with Lennox and Dawkins, but there they were just debating about whether faith is based on evidence or not. And then it came down to whether the historical evidence for the resurection counts as good evidence. I never heard Dawkins admit what Dr. Craig mentioned in this blog. Did I get the wrong one? Or was this an edited version?

10. Stephen says on Nov 6, 2008 @ 11:54 AM:

    Dear Marty,
    My understanding is that Dr Craig only debates opponents who state they are atheists or their equivalents - naturalists. To be an atheist you can't just claim it is possible there is no God. You claim their is no God. The problem is since you can't detect or observe God how do you prove he doesn't exist. The only way you could do it would be to prove that there was some logical contradiction in the idea of a supreme being. As there isn't any contradiction then what can the atheist do?

11. Janey says on Nov 6, 2008 @ 08:50 PM:

    anybody knows where you can listen to the new debate between dawkins and lennox?

12. Pumbelo says on Nov 7, 2008 @ 12:29 AM:

    Pieter, I think you got the wrong one.
    This was the first debate between them:
    http://www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com/
    There was a second big debate later.

13. Anonymous says on Nov 7, 2008 @ 09:10 AM:

    Stephen:
    "From his writing, a quote from another scientific atheist refusing a debate 'That would look good on your resume, not so good on mine.' Not saying its true, just possible."

    He was actually referring to debating creationists, not theists in general (not even Dawkins would be THAT presumptuous). Dawkins won't debate Craig because he would lose, period. This isn't to denigrate Dawkins, but it'd clearly be crazy for Dawkins, a biologist, to debate a distinguished philosopher of religion on philosophy of religion....

14. John J. Nursing-Student says on Nov 7, 2008 @ 02:58 PM:

    Stephen: I'm not exactly sure that science can answer questions like "What is consciousness?" or "Where did the laws of physics come from?" for these seem to be metaphysical questions, not scientific questions. These are the sort of questions that would probably be more up Dr. Craig's alley (at least the "where did the laws of physics come from" question; I've never seen him tackle much regarding the nature of consciousness). Science might be able to tell you THAT certain things exist, but it can't answer the ultimate question of WHY they exist. Furthermore, things like "the laws of physics" and "consciousness" are simply abstract nouns that we use to describe states of affairs that we observe within our universe, so they seem to lie within the realm of philosophy. (Even though scientists can do experiments to describe or enumerate these laws of physics, ultimately, such laws are not real entities that are "out there," but they are mental tools simply based on description of what we observe.)

    But then again, I'm a nursing student and not a philosopher, so I cound be wrong.

15. Stephen says on Nov 7, 2008 @ 08:54 PM:

    Dear John J. Nursing-Student ,
    When I say "the laws of physics" I mean how objects behave. Clearly when I drop a rock it falls. It doesn't behave in some random manner. Its position is described accurately by Galileo's equations of motion, later elucidated by Newton and Einstein. Now it is true that our understanding of nature is imperfect ( my original point) but the rock still behaves in a certain predictable way. So the "laws of physics" are not just abstract nouns. In addition since the laws describe how objects behave then one can resonably ask the question why do objects behave in this way and not in others. This is a question that science can address. The fact that electricity and magnetism were unified by Maxwell, the weak force and electromagnetism were unified by Weinberg, Salam and Glashow indicates that Science is making progress to answer these fundamental questions but it has not answered the ultimate questions - yet. It seems Dr Craig's style of debate is to occupy the areas where science is still in darkness and thus it is foolish to debate him as all an atheist can say in reply is " we honestly don't know why the universe began or why the laws of physics are the way they are. "

16. Stephen (not the Steve in the article) says on Nov 10, 2008 @ 10:48 AM:

    I have just read Dr Craig's "Scepticism about the Neo-Darwinian Paradigm". I want to stress at the outset that I am a huge admirer of Dr Craig's debates, and his work in raising the profile of Christianity. Unfortunately this recent article is not of his usual high standard.
    For example Dr Craig confuses metaphysical naturalism with methodological naturalism. The first says that the natural is all that exists and there is no supernatural. This is a philsophopical stand taken by atheisists and has nothing to do with the activities of Science. The second states in practicing Science a Scientist will use naturalistic assumptions to understand the world but make no philsophical commitment as to whether the supernatural exists or not. The second is the philsophical stance taken by the vast majority of Scientists(in practicing Science) some 40% of which are Christians in the United States. The reason why even Christian Scientists take this view is that if you use Supernatural assumptions in your hypothesis then there is no way of falsifying it.
    In addition Dr Craig states "Let’s first get our terminology clear. You misconstrue the notion of microevolution when you equate it with the claim of the fixity of species.Steve, not even six day creationists, not to speak of progressive creationists, limit microevolutionary change to variation within species!" and yet this is reprecisely what the term microevolution means as brief checking on the internet will demonstrate.
    Dr Craig also seems to be blissfully unaware of the existence of homeotic genes and in particular Hox genes. These are master genes which control the development of body plan. Further, Dr Craig asks questions like " By contrast, what is the evidence that a bat and a sponge are descended via mutation and natural selection from a common ancestor?". Here the evidence from genetics is powerful. Consider for example similar gene sequences even between sponges and humanity! http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T39-45Y6MPT-C&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=789f4a010e0107bbd7fae992d40699b6.
    Dr Craig's position is "It seems to me that even given the Thesis of Common Ancestry, a theory of progressive creationism fits all the facts and could well be true.". Sure it is possible but what can you do with such a theory? What Scientific advance in understanding or predictions will it lead to? How would you falsify it? Hence such a theory is rejected by scientists because it is scientifically useless.
    These are not all the errors in the article but just a sample.
    I am not an antheist and have found Dr Craig's debates and articles personally very helpful in my search for God but it is clear to me that Dr Craig is in this article guilty of many of the faults which he attributes to his opponents.

17. Mike says on Nov 10, 2008 @ 02:54 PM:

    Stephen:

    Interesting observations. I think your observations regarding naturalism are a little skewed. Your first definition regarding metaphysical naturalism is pretty much correct, but it doesn't say there is no supernatural, only that all basic truths stem from nature. It's your second definition regarding methodological naturalism that's a little off. Methodological naturalism merely uses the scientific method as a framework to test and explain scientific hypotheses by natural causes and events. It's still phylisophical in nature. As far as I know, neither makes any "commitment" for, or against the supernatural. There are other forms of naturalism that assert that science and philosophy can and should work together.

    I think your comments on the hox gene are lacking, because we both know that similarity doesn't necessarily imply descent. Because of this, there's really no way to falsify any of the various scientific arguments regarding common ancestry. How can we "prove" one way or the other that the elusive common ancestor was, or was not, a created being?

    In addition, because a subject may be "scientifically useless" might mean that science itself (at least in this area) is what is useless. Truth doesn't necessarily depend on what can be proven by science. If the ultimate goal of science is not to arrive at truth, but to merely validate its existence for its own sake, it begins to lack credibility and merit, becoming much like the Church was years ago as it argued that the earth was the center of the universe; refusing to look beyond its boundries.

    I'm convinenced truth lies somewhere in the middle resting between true science, and philosophical/theological truth. It can't be any other way.

18. Marty says on Nov 10, 2008 @ 04:26 PM:

    Mike:

    I think Stephen's main point (in the second bit at least), was that creationism is not a valid scientific theory given that it is unfalsifiable. Here we speak of creationism AFTER the creation "event", as it's not the job of science to comment on the supernatural. The later progressions should be able to be falsified for it to be a valid theory, and they cant be if its possible for the theory to continually invoke God.

    As to the origin of the common ancestor, evolution says nothing on this topic. This is abiogenesis, and a very different field. Evolution stipulates the progression once life is around, and the pathways it takes from there are theoretically sound (testable, falsifiable etc).

    I agree whole-heartedly with your final statement, but as a scientist am vehemently opposed to invoking "The god of the gaps" just because we don't quite get it yet. Science should be based on the natural world, with no comment on the supernatural. If philosophers then choose to intergrate scientific evidence into philosophy, then by all means let them, but keep it in the philsophy departments where it belongs.

    As to the Hox genes (awesome little buggers, I love them now that the test on them is over), we imply more common descent from similar genes because that is our observation of the only mechanism around today that results in shared genes (retroviruses notwithstanding, but they're not the point here). Scientific theory is based on observed facts - we see more similar genomes among those we know to be of common descents (families, races etc.) and thus track that back. We have not observed people with the same basic genome just popping into existence, thus we don't put it in scientific theories.

    Hope that was along the lines of what you where saying Stephen, and clears one or two points up for Mike, at least on my views of what science comments on with regard to the supernatural.

19. Stephen says on Nov 10, 2008 @ 06:18 PM:

    Dear Mike,
    I think if you check my definition in a dictionary of philosophy you will find my definitions hold.
    Your second problem is one of understanding the nature of Science . Science does not prove anything. You can not prove that one organism descended from another. What Science can do is provide greater and greater evidence for or against an hypothesis. For example in the opinion of most scientists including many Christian scientists the genetic, fossil, anatomical, and distribution of species provide evidence for evolution from a common ancestor which is very compelling. If you don't find the evidence compelling then there is little one can do. That is a personal choice which you are entitled to.
    You have also misunderstood what scientifically useless means. It doesn't mean that the theory is false. It just means that you can not falsify it and/or it makes no predictions which can be falsified. For example I could maintain that God intervenes in evolution all the time but he does so in ways undetectable to science. Well such a theory may indeed be true but it is scientifically useless because it cannot be falsified as Marty and I point out above. The real justification for science is not that it proves something or as you put it " merely validate its existence for its own sake" but that it works.

20. Mike says on Nov 11, 2008 @ 09:25 AM:

    Stephen:

    Science most certainly seeks to prove; whether it does or not is another question. You're definition is a modern definition of science that has largely changed over the years. Scientists such as Kepler, Newton, and Galileo started from a different supposition than you do. They assumed that God does exist, and sought to understand His mind and get closer to Him by understanding Him and His creation better. They framed their science within this context. Were they wrong? You come from a naturalistic viewpoint, and you've modified your understanding of science to fit that worldview.

    Think of what you're saying - if something can open itself up to be "falseafiable", it follows that it can also be shown to be "not false", which would make it "true" which would necessarily mean that it has the potential to be provable.

    You seem to have bought into the modern age definition of science, that says nothing can truly be "proven." However, that's not how the real world works. Facts are proven everyday in a court of law, and areas of science such as physics, astronomy, biology, and others. You seem to be saying that science can never:

    1: produce conclusive evidence.
    2: discover fact.
    3: produce certainty of judgement.

    I think that since you're confining your comments to Darwinian evolutionary theory, you error. There are areas of science that have "proven" themselves to be true. All that is required for proof is to show that a thing that is tested is true for all circumstances, and for all instances that it is being tested for. This is how we arrive at scientific "laws." For instance, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics have been proven to be true, and fact. They can't be changed in our experience. Now, if you're going to say that it might not apply in another universe, your point is irrelevant, and thus doesn't fit into any scientific discussion.

    When you talk Darwinian evolutionary theory, I agree, nothing can be conclusively proven - but it's not from any failing of true science (which seeks to find truth and fact), but from a failure of the theory itself, self imposesd limitations, and the particular failings of that area of study. It deals with origin science, and I'd agree little if anything can be conclusively "proven" from this discipline. This is why I'm amazed that so many scientits hold on to Darwin's theory with almost religious zeal. It's the self-imposed staging of the theory that lends it to the never ending "fairy-chasing" exercise we see Darwinian scientists engage in today. They've almost convinenced the public that nothing can ever really be "proven" - almost.

    I agree with your comments on the inability to falsify the existence of God. After all, who would want to follow after a God that could be scientifically proven to exist? What kind of God would that be? If you rethink your position on science, I think you'd find that adhering to something to discover truth (as I assume you do with science) without the ability to ever really arrive at conclusive fact, puts your argument into the "faith" category. As such, your efforts fall into the religion, or philosophy category as well.

    So we see that, by your own admission, some efforts to find what is true can never be falsified scientifically. That doesn't mean they can't be proven. Any suggested mechanism for abiogenesis, the necessary pre-cursor for Darwinan Evolution, can never be falisified, since it was a one time event that occured in the past. Yet the naturalistic assumption that implicitly colors all of Darwinan theory assumes that a naturalistic event took place to start life -a non-falsifiable framework. We find overwhelming evidence in information theory and the code in DNA to be fatal to Darwinan naturalism - and is ignored by evolutionary scientists today, even though a supernatural explantion is a BETTER explantion than Darwinian theory. This is what you should be looking for; what is the BEST explanation - not some impossible self-declared mandate for proof.

    Many scientists would accept as "truth" and "fact" any good court case that presented the preponderance of evidence in a murder trial, or a robbery, especially if that robbery happened to them, or that murder was of a loved one. Few would demand scientific "proof" to belive, convict, and send to death row, a killer that was implicated by an avalance of non-scientific evidence. We just can't live by your scientific proof standard, and there's no need to. You frame "science" unreasonably.

    This is my point: some areas of scienctific study do not lend themselves to providing "proof". Forensics is a good example. This would include Darwinian evolutionary theory. At some point, we need to rely on the preponderance of the evidence to demonstrate truth. If you're admitting that naturalistic science may, in some cases be "useless", then I'd agree. What matters is when we arrive at that conclusion - and I think that it's been shown that Darwinian evolutionary theory is "useless" as well.

21. Mike says on Nov 11, 2008 @ 10:43 AM:

    Marty:

    Today we see Darwinian evolutionary theory being portrayed as some sort of valid scientific field, as if it didn't depend on some sort of miraculous event that is just as improbable, and arguably more improbable than creation. If biological evolution depends on the very thing it acts on to come into existence, it's tied to it. Even though most evolutionists insist that Darwin's theory has nothing to do with creation or abiogenesis (whichever you adhere to) it does, because the implication is clear. It's like saying: "I'm an engineer, and the automobile I designed is completely seperate and apart from all other automobiles ever built before it - including the first one built, and I refuse to consider it." This would be nonsense, since it would be obvious that your modern model relies, at least in part, on the first model coming into existence, no matter how differnt your's appears today. You (given the visual evidence of wheels, steerin wheel, gas pedal, etc..)are dependent on prior design and the original member of the automobile family to come up with your "creation" fully formed. Evolution is dependent on a "fully formed" prototype. Descent with modification and natural selection can't perform wihout this necessary piece. Your comment that abiogenesis has nothing to do with Darwin's theory is disingenuous, because the orign of life has bearing on how that life appears, acts, and proceeds to this day. I'll say that your comment is, however, politically correct.

    Your self-imposed insistance that Darwin's theory is somehow insulated from the question of origin simply because it declares itself to be so - is weak at best.

    When do you finally say "It's not that we don't get it, but that our theory holds no water?" You'll never reach a point of difinitive proof for Darwinian evolutionary theory, becuase by its very nature, it can't provide it. Darwin's theory has become nothing more that a way of preserving scientific naturalism. True science seeks what is true no matter where it may lead, even if it leads to the supernatural. What we do have is a preponderance of evidence against Darwinian evolution - not the least of which is the information contained in the DNA sequence. How can you account for that information? Where in your scientific experience have you seen information that complex, (or any information at all)leap into existence on its own accord? I'd venture to say that you see it only through your naturalistic lens. You assume that information came about on its own, but you've never seen that to be the case in your experience, you can't prove that's the case, and it's not reasonable to assume that's the case - yet you do assume it anyway.

    This is what astounds me: You would have no trouble walking into your driveway tomorrow, and concluding that the broken windshield on your vehicle with the baseball bat sticking out of it was proof that your car had been valdanized - and that your neighbor who had threated to break it the night before, and you saw running from the scene, did the deed. You'd call the police, and upon their arrival you'd demand that the perpetrator be prosecuted given your visual evidence. The police arrest your neighbor, you demand justice. You'd think it silly, and wrong that the Judge denied your case, since you couldn't scientifically "prove" that your neighbor did the crime. You claim that you saw the whole thing, and that's just not enough for the Judge. "Science" will rule here. Unless you could come up with a theory as to how your neighbor broke your windsheild, and then test it, and prove it beyond doubt, your case doesn't hold water, and is deemed to be nothing more than "supernatural."

    My point is that it's sometimes enough to "apprehend" the evidence in favor of the best explnation. Sometimes science isn't enough. If this is what you're saying - I agree. Yet, "scientists" all over the world refuse to look at the evidence for creation, and they insist on fitting everything they know, or can know, into the naturalistic pot of pseudo-scientific study; all the while excluding what they perceive as the "supernatural." There's a lot of valid work going on out there that doesn't presuppose the supernatural, but still questions the evidence that is not explained "naturally." If science refuses to see this evidence, it's value is questionable.

22. Marty says on Nov 11, 2008 @ 04:53 PM:

    Ok Mike, I understand your point, but a great deal of your analogies are extremely facetious, and you've got some straw men creeping in there.

    Let me refer to the engineer analogy, and modify it to fit better - An engineer has made a plane. He knows, by comparing it to other planes, that it will fly, but doesn't necessarily know how such flight is possible (its still a bit unknown).

    The neighbour analogy - There's a decent chance unless I actually saw the neighbour smashing the car that my evidence would be written off as circumstantial, I don't quite get the point of this analogy.

    As to the issue of abiogenesis - I agree its vital. I agree it unlikely (not impossible), but I don't think we should ever invoke god in the place of science because to do so demeans the idea. Science has shown that the earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago (I'm assuming you don't argue with this), and that life appeared some time relatively soon after that (.5 billion years or so). We haven't figured out the exact process yet (Miller experiment shows that organic molecules can come spontaneously from inorganic, so its not impossible), but we hadn't discovered the Big Bang years ago, and instead God was invoked, and pushed back by it to before the big bang. The God of gaps encourages bad science, science that can put anything down to 'god did it' making it useless.

    As to definitive proof, no, you can't have it, because a theory of science is a model which best fits the available evidence. The same is true of the theory of gravity. In fact its a good example. We don't know where gravity came from (or matter for instance), but we still accept the theory as it makes the most sense given the available data.

    We stick with evolution and add or discard mechanisms, because it is the best model currently available, and is useful to make predictions. Creation (or intelligent design) is not a valid theory as it is unfalsifiable and extremely ill-defined. If a valid scientific theory is available that explains the evidence better I would very much like to hear it. I'm also interested in the evidence against evolution, if the theory I currently support is incorrect I would like to know about it.

23. Roger says on Nov 12, 2008 @ 08:50 AM:

    There really seems to be a sea-change under way in the atheist community with regard to the prior existence of some form of Intelligence that was responsible for the universe coming into being in the first place, and for the emergence of life. Anthony Flew's and Richard Dawkins' trajectories are actually not dissimilar in that respect, whatever Dawkins' protestations. One major difference is that Dawkins has actually (and bizarrely) posited the hypothesis of extra-terrestial intervention. I was also listening to a review of the most recent Dawkins v Lennox debate on the UK's premier radio. At the end of the programme there were a few interviews with people present at the debate. The last "interviewee" was a certain Paula Kirby. SHe first dismissed Lennox as a "Frightful old wind-bag". But rather than offer any responses to his arguments she went on to acknowledge the complexity of the cell and to admit that the impression of design is so overwhelming that she understands why people arrive att the conclusion that there was some sort of intelligence at work. Then she said "there are many possible intelligences out there", and the opotions should not be limited to the Christian God. Paula Kirby is an (ex-Christian) atheist, and yet after delivering an entirely unwarranted ad-hominem attack on John Lennox, not engaging for a moment with his arguments, she went on to articulate a position which is actually very like that of ID exponents, whom she and most atheists excoriate. (The exponents of ID do not actually argue for the Christian God - arguments for Christianity don't come into it. If they are Christians they (like John Lennox) argue for Christianity on the basis of the Christian narrative. Their arguments are not specifically Christian.) It is ironic that many of the most educated and articulate atheists are actually becoming IDers! What will their next step be?

24. Mike says on Nov 12, 2008 @ 11:15 AM:

    Hey Roger:

    Yup, several atheists have commented on extra-terrestial intervention, which is strange, since all that does is set the argument back one step. Who created the life form that created us? The atheist argument is turning into an argument not so much against a creator, but rather an argument directed against the Judeo-Christian God in particular.

    This raises an interesting point: Students of the Bible know that it predicts that there will be a dramatic healing, a supernatural healing of a deadly wound of the antichrist. I think that it could be that at that time, technology exists to bring back those who appear to be dead - thus making that healing acceptable to many. This technology may come from an extra-terrestial source, since for many "intellectual" and science types, any "supernatural" event would be dismissed, but a healing based on super technology would be accepted. It's just a thought.

    You're also right - the argument for ID has nothing to do with Christianity; it merely comments on the apparent design in nature.

25. Stephen says on Nov 12, 2008 @ 12:18 PM:

    Mein Gott!
    This is getting too weird. I'm out of here!

26. Mike says on Nov 12, 2008 @ 12:53 PM:

    Marty:

    Your comment that you can't have definitive proof of something is silly. You've been duped. The scientific model most definately accepts "proofs." Do you agree that the 1st and 2nd laws are science? If you do, then you must also recognize that they are scientific laws that have been proven to be true mathematically.

    While some argue that math is not really science, I believe it is, or is closely related to science - but is admittedly not a naturalistic science. However, this does not mean that science itself is not still bound by mathematics, and by mathematical proofs in particular.

    
    I understand your argument; that science is simply not equipped to deal with anything supernatural, or that which can't be demonstrated naturally. But is this so? How is it that credible scientists recognize the concept of time? How can I physically show by way of the scientific method that time exists, or doesn't exist? I can't. It's an abstract notion that is only demonstrated by its effects. But yet science makes use of time. Evolutionary theory MUST have long periods of time to even explain it's mechanism. If you adhere to your argument, time for you does not exist, because it can't be tested. Even better for you, the Christian claims that God created all things, including time. This is more evidence for you to dismiss time as a real thing, since I'm making the claim that it's supernatural in origin.

    Your argument seems to really be centered on the scientific method of investigation as it specifically relates to Darwinian theory and the origin of life, not science itself. This is where your difficulty rests. The truth is that the scientific method is less than adequate as a mechanism to arrive at truth regarding Darwinian evolutionary theory, because it can never produce anything other than a limited naturalistic conclusion. Life and reality just aren't completely naturalisitc. What we're really saying is that today's naturalistic scientist is not equipped, and not willing to admit that the naturalistic methods of investigation are largely impotent, and are less than adquate when studying the origin and subsequent development of life on earth.

27. John J. Nursing-Student says on Nov 17, 2008 @ 06:37 AM:

    Non-article Steve:

    I think that any mistakes Dr. Craig makes are probably due to his lack of training in biology. I personally don't argue creation/evolution at all anymore because I am just insufficiently trained to talk authoritatively within the domain of biology.

    However, I don't think that the sort of progressive creationism that Craig envisages is as useless as you think. You claim that it is unfalsifiable...possibly true, but given methodological naturalism, evolution of species by natural selection also seems to be unfalsifiable. For given methodological naturalism, if all the evidence contradicted evolution by natural selection, you would only be able to say "Species of life forms are just here. They just exist, and that's all we know," and that surely would not be a satisfactory answer for anyone--I think people using methodological naturalism would believe in evolution no matter how much evidence were against it, rather than believing that "we're just here, and that's all." (again, I am not arguing for or against evolution here, just making a philosophical point). Similarly, although the sort of progressive creationism that Craig envisages may not be scientifically useful or testable (since God is a free agent, can do whatever he wants, and can create things however he wants whenever he wants), that does not mean that people cannot still believe in such theories. Even if Craig's theory cannot account for exactly how God created things, and even if the theory is not testable, that does not mean that it is not rational to believe. If one has enough evidence against evolution by natural selection (the only naturalistic game in town), one would be perfectly warranted to infer that the answer to how these species developed lies beyond our science and in a transcendent God...this might not be a "scientific" theory, per se, but that does not mean that it is unwarranted.

28. Ray says on Dec 15, 2008 @ 11:30 AM:

    Though I feel strongly that we should be prepared for such tactics from people like Dawkins, I do not in any way shape or form feel threatened or intimidated by such manipulation of “crackpot views” , deliberate confusion of operational science and historical (origins) science, and strawdummy arguments to advance their agenda. Try as they will to supress and distort the truth, God’s truth (be it in science, mathematics, religion, philosophy, etc.) will prevail in the end—and that may be sooner than we expect. I cannot help but pity the folly of such educated men/women who resort to political scaremongering, ridicule, denial of academic freedom and inquiry, and open discrimination and persecution in order to preserve their cherished “frog-to-prince” fairy tale for grown-ups (actually philosophical justification for their professed atheism) which scientific examination shows to be anything but rational and scientific in terms of the actual evidence . "Christian atheist" (ex-Christian) atheist, Roger, sounds a lot like "square-circle" to me.

29. Anonymous says on Dec 19, 2008 @ 11:05 PM:

    The notion that Intelligent Design theory is fundamentally "unscientific" is based on the philosophy originated by Karl Popper (1902-1994), who postulated a set of rules for science known as "Falsificationism. Let us consider some of the implications of his "falsifiability" criterion.

    According to Popper's criterion, the hypothesis that "extraterrestrial intelligent life does not exist" is "scientific," but the opposite hypothesis, that "extraterrestrial intelligent life exists," is not. But wait a minute ... if the former "scientific" hypothesis is disproved, then the latter "unscientific" hypothesis is obviously proved! Hence, a hypothesis about the natural world can be proved true yet still be "unscientific" according to Popper's criterion. Popper's definition of science is therefore misleading at best.

    Several years ago the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project was initiated. Large radio telescopes were used to receive radio signals from space, and massive computing facilities were used to analyze those signals in search of "intelligent" messages that could be presumed to have originated from an "intelligent" life form. Apparently, nobody informed the SETI team that their motivating hypothesis -- that "extraterrestrial intelligent life exists" -- is "unscientific." Or did SETI go to all that trouble and expense only to corroborate the hypothesis that extraterrestrial intelligent life does not exist?!

    
    There are a number of predictions that each theory makes, which can be tested by further study of the universe and life on the earth.

    What are some specific predictions made by the two models?
    Predictions of Naturalism vs. Christian ID

    Anti-Supernatural

    Single transcendent beginning--- will be refuted

    Fine tuning--design will be shown to be an artifact, due to incomplete knowledge.

    Uniqueness of earth--many rocky planets with oceans and continents will be found,

    Existence of life in the universe--life will be found to be abundant in our galaxy, since it is simply the properties of chemistry and physics.

    Prebiotic chemistry--a naturalistic scenario for the origin of all biochemical pathways and replicative molecules will be found.

    Origin of life--Life emerged late, during ideal environmental conditions. Life began as simple systems (pre-bacteria)

    New designs in nature--Complex new designs would be rare and develop slowly whereas simple transitions would be common.

    Mass Extinction events---slow recovery

    Christian ID

    Transcendent Beginning--evidence will increase.

    Fine tuning--more examples of extreme fine tuning will be found, indicating true design

    Uniqueness of earth ---earth-like planets will be found to be rare or non-existent.

    Existence of life in the universe---extraterrestrial life will be rare or non-existent and advanced life will be found only on earth.

    Prebiotic Chemistry---the universe was designed to support living systems, but their creation required ID by God.

    Origin of life--Life emerged early under adverse conditions. Life has always been complex.

    New designs in nature---No restriction on designs with the possibility that new designs would be created "overnight.

    Mass Extinction events---No restrictions on "recovery" period as new species are created.

    What is the scorecard so far?

    Science tells us that:
    There is no evidence for more than one universe or more than one creation event.

    Examples of fine tuning continue to increase. Some parameters designed to within a part in 10120.

    No other rocky planets have been found. Most planets found are large gas giants orbiting very close to their stars.

    No other life found. SETI has been completely unsuccessful.

    It is impossible to chemically produce many basic molecules required for origin of any living system.
    Naturalistic synthesis of either biochemical nor replicative pathways have not been described. In fact, many scientists think that they could not have arisen by any naturalistic means.

    Contrary to the expectations of evolutionary theory, the fossil record is replete with complex transitions and new designs whereas simple transitions (intermediates) are rare. Evolutionary theory would expect the opposite to be true and to be reflected in the fossil record.

    Evolution predicts slow recovery following extinctions and that those recoveries will be filled by the species surviving the extinction event. However, the fossil record indicates rapid recovery with completely different designs and species appearing within a period of tens of thousands of years or less.

30. Isaac says on Dec 20, 2008 @ 08:53 PM:

    I'm replying to the last anonymous post.

    You seem like somebody educated on this topic and so I just want to ask some questions and make a comment.

    You said it is: "Naturalism vs. Christian ID." But is this the only scientific option? There are many who believe that naturalism is legit as a method of scientfic research and compatible with a Christian worldview. Theistic evolutionists would accept most of the mainline scientific theories, practices, and conclusions while embracing the Bible and Jesus Christ full heartedly. So how can it be naturalism vs. Christian ID? It seems to be more like atheistic naturalism vs. philisophcial supernaturalism. It seems to be like both sides are arguing two different fields. The atheist assumes he is arguing scientifically when he defends natrualism but he is really arguing philisophically. And the Christian ID people believe they are arguing scientifically when they are really arguing philisophically.

    So here are some questions:

    1. Do you think evolution is completely incompatible with a Christian and biblical worldview?

    2. How is Christian ID not another God of the Gaps attempt?

    3. How will it look if 100 years from now scientists have suceeded in naturally explaining the majority of things that ID people now say can not be explained naturally? How will this reflect the Christian gospel and its credibility to an already skeptical academic atmosphere?

    4. Should we associate the gosepl so closely with science? Is it wise to base the Christian worldview on some sort of scientific worldview as well?

    I'm intrested to hear what you have to say if you choose to respond. Thank you.

31. Anonymous says on Dec 21, 2008 @ 10:06 PM:

    The founders of operational science (that can be seen and tested in the present) were motivated by their belief that the universe was made by a random Creator. An orderly universe makes perfect sense only if it were made by an orderly Creator. They, like modern creationists, regarded “natural laws” as descriptions of the way God upholds His creation in a regular and repeatable way (Col. 1:15-17) while miracles are God’s way of upholding His creation in a special way for special reasons. “Natural laws” are descriptive, they cannot prescribe what cannot happen, so they cannot rule out miracles . Scientific laws do not cause or forbid anything anymore than the outline of a map causes the shape of the coastline. Moreover, is a naturalistic explanation really the only acceptable explanation for what really constitutes origins science (i.e. what amounts to educated guesses about how life began--example, abiogenesis), for which there is no "testable, observable phenomena." What about a true explanation since, as we have seen, even the motivating hypothesis of the SETI team that "extraterrestial intelligent life exists" was considered "unscientific" by Popper's definition of science.
    Or did SETI go to all that trouble and expense only to corroborate the hypothesis that extraterrestrial intelligent life does not exist?!

    Scientists (mostly theistic evolutionists), who are ID proponents, do not dispute the facts, since they have the same facts, although they dispute assertions claimed to be facts when they are certainly not. For example, evolutionists whose God is “naturalism” will extrapolate evidence from operational science (I.e. natural selection) to juxtapose their argument for vertical evolution ( fish-to-philosopher), all the while ignoring the key point that speciation (variation) due to natural selection and mutation results in loss of genetic information in the genome,not an increase as vertical evolution from simple to complex requires, so that it does not matter how much time you allow for the evolutionary process to take place (millions or billions of years), it will never produce anything other than a variety of the animal's own basic kind ( a biblical kind is far more than a modern specie) or else eventual extinction over time. Which is why Dr. Felix Konotey-Ahula, M.D. (Lond.), FRCP, DTMH, one of the world’s leading experts in sickle-cell anemia, a serious chronic and painful blood disorder, states, “Demonstrating natural selection does not demonstrate that ‘upward evolution’ (fish to philosopher) is a fact, yet many schoolchildren are taught this as “proof” of evolution.” He points out that “the sickle-cell gene is still a defect (an inherited random change or mutation), not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for.. and having more carriers of the sickle-cell genes results in more people suffering from this terrible disease. He concludes that science would be far better served by scientists working on “factual lines rather than theoretical evolutionary concepts” .

    Natural selection is completely useless for explaining away most of the things that appear to have been designed for a purpose. The billions of uphill mutations that produce new information only exist in the faith of evolutionists

    Moreover, scientists who are proponents of ID invoke the miraculous only for origins science, but this does not mean they will invoke it for operational science, or that they are in any way hindered in any real operational scientific research. They would try to find natural laws for every aspect of operational science. For example, believing that the genetic code was originally designed does not preclude them from believing that it works entirely by the laws of chemistry involving DNA, RNA, proteins, etc. Conversely, the fact that the coding machinery works according to reproducible laws of chemistry does not prove that the laws of chemistry were sufficient to build such a system from a primordial soup. Nevertheless, as is often the case, evolutionists whose God is “naturalism” will extrapolate evidence from operational science (I.e. natural selection) to juxtapose their argument for vertical evolution ( fish-to-philosopher) from the primordial soup which really comes under origins science.

    
    We need to consider some huge areas in which natural selection cannot explain appearance of design at all. Is natural selection really a better explanation of why things look designed, as Dawkins claims?

    Natural Selection Cannot Explain The Universe
    The universe looks like it was designed, but atheists claim that it was produced by a completely undirected explosion called the “Big Bang.” All undirected explosions that have been observed have brought disorder instead of order, but those who believe in the Big Bang have faith that it was different. It moved in the opposite direction of all other explosions, producing an ordered universe that appears to have been designed. Trying to avoid the problem of an explosion unlike all other explosions, some atheists say, “The Big Bang was not really an explosion, it was just rapid expansion, like when you blow up a balloon.” Sure! All it lacked was the balloon! Either view of the Big Bang is contrary to fundamental laws of science. Neither can it be observed or reproduced in the laboratory. It is simply held by faith.

    Natural Selection Cannot Explain the Earth
    To us, the earth is the most important part of that universe that many believe resulted from the Big Bang without the involvement of God. This idea directly contradicts the Bible which says that God formed the earth to be inhabited: “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:18. Does the earth give evidence of having been designed to be inhabited by living beings? You decide!
    Liquid water is necessary for life. Most of the universe consists of flaming gasses or frozen desolation and has no liquid water. If water in liquid form exists elsewhere, it is rare. It not only exists on earth, it exists in an amount that permits life, even human life. The oceans contain enough water to cover a spherical Earth to a depth of about 4000 meters. If the surface of the planet varied only a few kilometers in elevation, Earth would be devoid of land. … Continents would not extend above sea level.”
    To keep the land up out of the water: “required the formation of land masses made of relatively low-density materials that could permanently “float” on the denser underlying mantle while parts of them extended above the sea.”
    {Peter D. Ward, Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe, 2000, p. 51-54}
    The moon has the right mass and distance from the earth so the tides help keep nutrients circulating in the water, but don’t cover the continents at high tide. The correct temperature is essential to life. If we were closer to the sun, or had longer days we would fry. If earth were farther from the sun or if the nights were longer, we would freeze and earth would have no liquid water. The correct atmosphere is necessary for life. If earth had a bit less gravity we would loose our atmosphere. To much gravity and it would crush us. Too much CO2, or several other gasses and earth would have been more like Venus, too hot to host life. Earth is also protected from deadly radiation. It is situated at the right distance from the center of our galaxy. Closer to the center, there are too many deadly gamma rays and X-rays. The gravity of a big planet nearby sweeps up much of the space trash that might otherwise crash into the earth with devastating force. The earth’s metal core produces magnetism which is helpful in protecting earth from harmful radiation. {Peter D. Ward, Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe, 2000, p. 28-29}. I could go on.

    One evidence after another shows that the earth was purposely designed to sustain life. Do atheists also see this evidence for design? Yes, we all see it. Some atheists refer to this evidence as “appearance of design.” Remember their knee jerk explanation for what causes the appearance of design? It’s natural selection, but natural selection only exists among living things that can pass their genes on to their children. Natural selection has no effect whatsoever on the evidence that the earth was intelligently designed to sustain life. When this weakness to the natural selection solution is pointed out, some say earth was self organizing like a hurricane. To say this they must ignore the precision control of the water, temperature, gravity, atmosphere, radiation, etc. Sceptics understand the evidence that the earth was designed to sustain life, but refuse to believe it because they are in rebellion against God, their judge. It is a bit like a driver loudly cursing the cop who is deciding whether to give him a ticket or to let him off with a warning.

    Natural Selection Cannot Explain Life
    Atheists say that chemicals came together, and by unguided chemical reactions eventually made a first living cell. This imaginary process was called spontaneous generation, but is now usually called abiogenesis. Intelligent scientists have been trying without success for years to form life in the laboratory (the Miller experiment which was concoted to create a "trap" to capture the "good" elements and preserve them from destruction in order to achieve the desired results simply proved that it required intelligence by way of design in the first place, not random chance evolution. Why? Both life in a test tube and abiogenesis are contrary to the scientific principle of biogenesis which says that all life comes from previous life. Chemicals, which are claimed to have produced the first life, do not have life to pass on. Natural selection can not help explain the first living cell because it could not have operated until there were at least two living cells to select between. Here is another startling fact: The hypothetical first living cell that abiogenesis is claimed to have produced would have to have popped up with an already fully functional reproductive system. Otherwise there could never have been a second cell.

    At this point we have seen that there is no way that natural selection could have had anything at all to do with most of the things which appear to have been designed; the universe, the earth, and life itself. Dawkins’ speculation that natural selection made things look like they had designed for a purpose, at best could only apply to a small percentage of the things that appear to have been design.

    Yes,I believe strongly that evolution is completely in- compatible with a Christian and biblical world view. They are diametrically opposite and mutually exclusive. Christian ID is not another God of the gapts attempt.
    All intelligent design theory claims is that there is evidence in the world that some features of living things are designed. The identity of the designer (God, or alien life forms) is a philosophical question out of the range of science, which ID proponents, for good reason, have distanced themselves from. As Dr. Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from Cal-Berkeley and author of the groundbreaking book "Icons of Evolution " points out: "If it's scientific to say you have a theory that shows things are un-designed, then it's also scientific to say you have a theory that shows things are designed." The Bible and Christians have never depended on scientists or "naturalism" for it's credibility in the eyes of the academic community. Indeed, the Bible had withstood constant criticism and a barrage of attacks from the biggest guns, both within and outside the church( particularly the scientific community), for the past 2000 years and has emerged the stronger (and more credible) for it. I (and many others) believe that in the next 100 years, it will be science that will catch up with the Bible and the frog-to-prince fairy tale of the General Theory of Evolution (macroevolution)will be exposed for what it is--a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. The Christian gospel is not based on some scientific worldview--which is why Darwin rejected outright the idea of theistic evolution, as "superfluous" and totally outside the realm of science. But that does not mean it is not true. Again, what about a true explanation versus a naturalistic explanation. Though the Bible is not a scientific textbook and was written thousands of years ago, it nevertheless contains accurate statements that reveal knowledge of science that is thousands of years ahead of what was known in the world when they were penned and that are impossible to explain apart from Scripture's own claim to be supernaturally inspired by God. There are many examples, but for space: the record of Genesis 1:1 that our universe did not always exist, but had definite beginning (long before the so-called Big Bang); the spherical shape of the earth (Isaiah 40:22); the hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7; 11:13); our complex circular global wind patterns that determine weather (Ecclesiastes 1:6); our deep and huge oceanic currents, such as the Gulf Stream )Psalm 8:8); huge springs of freash water pouring out of our ocean floor, as revealed by underwater exploration in the last thirty years (Job 38:16); the scientific connection between lightning, thunder, and the triggering of rainfall (Job 28:26); a "Hole in Space," as recently discovered by astronomers in the area to the north of the axis of our earth, and the very advanced and scientifically accurate statement by Job that God "hangeth the Earth upon nothing' (Job 26:7). I could go on, but for space and time.Let's be perfectly clear. Science is not the enemy of the Bible; indeed, it is it's best friend because all truth is God's truth, be it mathematics, science, philosophy, religion, and, as has been the case in the past, science (i.e archaeology, astronomy, biology, geology, physics, palaeontology, biochemistry, etc.), as well as history, will continue to collaborate and confirm the truth in the Word of God--the Bible.

32. Isaac says on Dec 22, 2008 @ 01:25 AM:

    Anonymous,

    I want to say thank you very much for your thoughtful and gracious response. It certainly is a lot to think on. I did want to make a quick comment concerning two things you said in the last paragraph.

    First, you said you think in 100 years evolution will be rejected and seen for being nothing more than a fairy tale. You may be right about this but I just do not see that happening. As much as I have heard ID and creationists speak about evolution being a dying theory I just don't see that at all. Evolution is solidifying itself more and more as the true academic theory. Darwin is held in the same category as Einstein and is seen as one of the geniuses of science. Not only is the academy embracing it full-heartedly but so is the media and hollywood. In fact, in the West, only America is divided between creationism and evolution. In Europe this is hardly a debate or topic. I just don't see it happening. The truth is the vast majority of scientists embrace and promote evolution, many of them Christians.

    Second, You also said that "The Bible and Christians have never depended on scientists or "naturalism" for it's credibility in the eyes of the academic community." I think this goes way beyond the academic community. We live in a time and a nation where science is seen as the authority and revealer of truth. Science is held in high-esteem, and by that I mean methodological naturalism. If evolution continues to be the predominate theory and Christians continue to insist it is false, Christians may begin to look more and more suspicious to a nation that is already beginning to view it as barbaric and out of date. And this judgment will not be based on the claims of Christ or the gospel but instead on our opinion of scientific matters. I just am not comfortable with putting so much weight or emphasis on a certain scientific view point, the concern should be the gospel. Besides all that, though it is good to provide answers most peoples problems with Christianity are much more than intellectual. I myself am comfortable with accepting evolution as part of the mythology (assuming it is false which I am not convinced yet of) of the culture and showing even through evolution how God reveals himself. It's just another form of contexualization.

    Thank you again for your hard work.

33. Anonymous says on Dec 22, 2008 @ 08:23 AM:

    Thanks Isaac. You are not wrong about your observations concerning the way society, for the most part, percieves Christianity and science. The Bible predicts that intolerance, even persecution, will increase. We, in the western world, still have our freedom to practice our faith, but then, it is possible that could change. In any case, committed Christians will continue to practice their faith. I do not know what the future will bring, but I know the sovereign Creator-God who has revealed Himself in His Word in the Person of Jesus Christ (John 8:58; John 1:1, 14). He is in control of what happens,whether it be the Middle East, the nucleur threat from Iran (and other Islamic countries), economic collapse, or religious persecution. And He has clearly promised in His Word (John 14:1-3;Rev. 1:7) to return to overthrow all the enemies of God and forces of evil, and to establish His everlasting kingdom on Earth, perhaps a lot sooner than many expect. Personally, I feel it could happen before the next 100 years. Just a thought. I'm sure you heard Psalm 1 at some time in your life. I will close here with the last two lines: Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous,For the Lord knows the way of the righteous; but the way of the ungodly shall perish".
    I would like to wish you a joyous, safe and blessed Christmas."And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shall call his name Jesus:for he shall save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21).God bless, Ray.

34. Paula Kirby says on Dec 23, 2008 @ 04:08 AM:

    Just found this!

    
    Must take issue with Roger's post of Nov 12th.

    
    As the interviewee in question, I can tell you categorically that I do NOT believe in any form of ID. I can understand why people are tempted to think there must have been an intelligent designer, but just because I can understand an opposing point of view does not mean I subscribe to it myself. There is NO evidence for an intelligent designer of any kind, and therefore I don't believe in one.

    
    We can account for the complexity of the cell using natural explanations. That doesn't for one moment reduce its awesomeness. Again, I can understand why people look at it and think, "Wow! This HAD to be designed!", but I would suggest that they simply don't understand enough about the natural processes by which such complexity arises.

    
    The reason I mentioned "lots of other possible intelligences out there" is because it was John Lennox himself who, during the debate, had tried to make the leap from an intelligent designer to, hey presto!, the Christian God. I was merely pointing out that, EVEN IF we accepted his argument about design (which I don't; and which Richard Dawkins didn't during the debate either, despite the way the Lennox camp has tried to twist his words since), that STILL doesn't get us anywhere close to the Christian God. IF there were a designer, there's not the slightest reason to think it would be the Christian one: there are lots of other contenders (none of which, I repeat, come burdened by the slightest scrap of evidence to support their existence).

    
    By the way, Dawkins has NOT suggested there may have been extra-terresrial intervention. I actually interviewed him on this very subject at the Edinburgh International Book Festival in the summer (you can find the video on YouTube). He has been asked on a number of occasions whether, hypothetically, ET intervention could have been possible. The answer is, of course, yes! Of course it could have been POSSIBLE. That doesn't for one moment make it PROBABLE, nor does it mean for one moment that Richard actually believes it. He stated quite categorically in Edinburgh (and elsewhere) that he doesn't, in fact.

    
    However, the existence of ET life is far more likely than the existence of the Christian god. The universe is of such immense size that it has to be POSSIBLE that the conditions for life exist on other planets too. We could at least explain how intelligent ET life would have come about (by some equivalent of evolution by natural selection). There is absolutely no explanation for how an intelligent SUPERNATURAL creator would have come about, and this is why ET is more likely than God. But again, we currently have no evidence to suggest that there IS life out there, so it's just an idea. Categorically NOT something that Richard has ever said he believes, and not something I believe in either.

    
    Which is more likely? That there's a tarantula under your bed, or that there's a unicorn under your bed? Of course, the tarantula is more likely, because we know that tarantualas actually exist and therefore it's possible to work out how, hypothetically, one might have found its way to your bedroom. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to find an equivalent explanation for the unicorn. It is perfectly possible to identify that one of the options is more likely the other, without for one moment suggesting that EITHER of them is actually true.

    
    As for Lennox being a frightful old windbag, well, I was present at the debate and had heard him and I don't get the impression that Roger was, so I don't think he's in a position to say whether my comment was "warranted" or not. Besides, the interviewer's question was something along the lines of, "Did you enjoy that?", not "How would you answer Lennox's point about ...?" For the record, Lennox WAS an appalling old windbag :-) The event was filmed and will be available online in due course, no doubt, so you'll be able to see for yourself then.

    
    Paula.

    Apologies, by the way. Although on the writing screen this post appears to be broken up into readable paragraphs, they seem to disappear when I do a preview and it becomes one large solid block. Not sure how to change that.

35. Richard Dawkins says on Dec 23, 2008 @ 06:00 AM:

    I don’t know who owns the irritatingly triumphalist and supercilious voice in the MP3, but whoever it is I obviously need to reply to him.

    First, the relatively trivial point about the London buses. Almost every detail this man speaks is wrong. The buses are not double-deckers but single-deckers. The banners do not say “There is no God, now have a nice day”, they say, “There is probably no God: now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” The voice says that the buses will be going about London, courtesy of Richard Dawkins. In fact, my contribution is a relatively small matching grant. When I was told by the organizer of the campaign that it would cost £5,500 for 30 buses for one month, and that she was hoping to raise all the money by subscription from members of the public, I offered to MATCH any public donations up to a ceiling of £5,500. I needn’t have bothered. In the event, £100,000 was subscribed within the first three days. The subscription total so far is more than £130,000, and it has almost all come from small donations. My matching grant is a drop in the ocean, by comparison to the total. Such inaccuracies are trivial, but they are an indication of the credibility that we should place in this person, whoever he is.

    Now, to the more substantial part of his allegations about my Oxford debate with John Lennox. His source is the infamous Melanie Phillips. Anybody in Britain could have told him that she is widely dismissed as one of Britain’s most notoriously bigoted and unreliable journalists. This triumphalist commentator swallows her lies, hook, line and sinker, and I must reply.

    I did not make a ‘concession’ to deism. I made no ‘startling admission’. When I said that “A serious case could be made for a deistic god”, the context was the attack I was mounting against the theistic god, and especially the Christian god, in which Lennox believes. Lennox even believes that Jesus turned water into wine! Now THAT was a startling admission, if you like. That an academic who aspires to be taken seriously as a scientist should publicly admit that he believes Jesus turned water into wine is something approaching a public disgrace! In exposing this remarkable fact about Lennox, I used the standard rhetorical device of bending over backwards to make a contrast. In effect I was saying, “Maybe you could make a case for DEISM (although I would still not accept that case, I would at least consider it serious enough to be worth replying to). But to believe that Jesus turned water into wine, that is ridiculous by contrast! I was most emphatically not saying that I ACCEPT the serious case for deism. I do not accept it.

    Melanie Phillips cornered me at the drinks afterwards, and I worked hard to make her understand this simple point, but she turned out (to my surprise) to be stupid as well as bigoted (which was no surprise). She seemed to think she had uncovered some great scoop in my ‘admission’ that there was a serious case for deism. In fact all I was saying was that I could just about respect a deist enough to argue against him. I mentioned such a deist solely in order to CONTRAST him with a man who claims to be a scientist and a theologian, while simultaneously admitting that he believes Jesus did cheap conjuring tricks like turning water into wine.

    Antony Flew, it appears, really has become a deist. But he has admitted that the book in which he appears to do so was in fact written by somebody else called Roy Varghese. Flew has admitted that he scarcely knows what is in the book to which he put his name. Now, it is one thing for a footballer or a pop singer to have his book ghost written. We expect that. But for a PHILOSOPHER to have his book ghost written (on the admitted grounds that he is too old to write it himself) . . . well, at very least, the philosopher should read through what the ghost writer has written, before putting his name to it. All the evidence suggests that Flew didn’t even bother to do that.

    Antony Flew may or may not have become a deist. Antony Flew may or may not know what he is. But I do know very clearly what I am, and I am not a deist. My position is exactly as stated in The God Delusion. I saw through the arguments for deism at the age of about 16, which was about three years after I saw through the arguments for theism.
    Now finally, “little green men”. The increasingly excitable voice of this commentator regards it as ‘jaw-dropping’ that I should regard it as more plausible that an extra-terrestrial intelligence should have designed life on Earth than that God did it. His tone of near-hysterical excitement sounds so pathetically sincere and eager that I must excuse him of dishonesty on the grounds that he is obviously too stupid to understand the point I was making. I never said I believed that an extra-terrestrial intelligence designed life on earth. I do not even think it is remotely plausible. But, however implausible it might be, it is nevertheless MORE plausible than the supernaturalist theory that Goddidit. The reason it is more plausible is precisely that I do NOT “leave aside” the question of where the extra-terrestrial intelligence might have come from. That is the whole point! That is exactly the question that makes God so implausible. The answer in the case of the hypothetical extraterrestrial is, of course, evolution. An intelligence advanced enough to design anything has to come from somewhere. Evolution is the only source we know of such complexity. We know evolution happens on this planet. If there is life on other planets (and most scientists think, on statistical grounds, that there is) the only way we know for it to come into existence is evolution, by something equivalent to natural selection.

    Once again, I was not accepting any kind of case for extraterrestrial design. I was saying that a serious case could be made for extraterrestrial design, not a case that I accept, but nevertheless a serious case that is interesting enough to be worth discussing. And however implausible I regard extraterrestrial design, it is at least more plausible than the totally implausible supernatural design theory. The difference is that the god-LIKE extraterrestrials would not be supernatural; they would have a scientifically explicable provenance, namely evolution.

    Richard Dawkins

36. Ray says on Dec 23, 2008 @ 12:12 PM:

    Is it a "public" disgrace" for Professor John Lennox to invoke the miraculous (Jesus turning water into wine), if he believes, like millions of other Christians, that Jesus was the Son of God--and that His miracles (among many other evidences)served to authenticate His claim to Deity? I think not. Since we still have religious freedom and, at least to my knowledge, no one to date, not even Professor Dawkins, has proven an absolute negative (that God does not exist), it is rational and logical for Christians, including John Lennox, to publicly affirm his faith in Jesus Christ. Undoubtedly, Professor Dawkins would most likely say the same about William Lane Craig, if he publicly declared his faith in Jesus Christ, including his miracles, but I doubt if he (Dawkins)would debate Craig because most people feel he would lose.

    As to who is an "appalling old windbag", Paula, I believe we should leave that to the readers to decide. With all due respect to Professor Dawkins, if it is a “public disgrace” for Lennox to publicly declare his faith in Jesus Christ and His miracles, then what about the faith of evolutionists? As Dr. Dr Jonathan Sarfati , whose Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled ‘A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules’ and has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules, has so poignantly stated concerning the faith of evolutionists:"It takes a lot more faith to believe in a rational universe having an irrational beginning from nothing; in L-proteins [left-handed molecules] that defy chance formation; in the formation of DNA codes which if generated spontaneously would spell only pandemonium; in a primitive environment that would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; in experiments (i.e Miller) on the origin of life that prove nothing, but the need for intelligence in the beginning; in a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken but would hopelessly dilute chemicals; in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; in fossils that embarrassingly show fixety through time, regular absence from transitional forms, and stringent testimony to world-wide water deluge; in time which proves only to promote degradation in the absence of mind, and in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist arguments to zero and enforcing the need to invoke the supernatural creator

37. sim says on Dec 23, 2008 @ 12:20 PM:

    i am definetly not as smart or well read as many of you all are, but after reading some of the things written, I wonder. If there is no god and all there is, is nature...then whats the purpose of life. What is the purpose of all the discoveries of science, if all we are going to be in the end is dust, whats the purpose of all the medical advances in trying to save lives, when all of us are going to die...whats the point of it all. If there is no point why bother with all this education and discoveries. Why spend all this money, why laws for societies, lets all live as we like doing what ever we like for life has no meaning.
    Why does anyone in these posts want to be alive to see another day, why do you want to get married, why do you want the best for your children, when all is just dust in the wind?
    if life has no meaning, why not end the world today, what difference does it make if life as we know it ends in dust a million years from now or it ends in dust today....

38. sim says on Dec 23, 2008 @ 12:30 PM:

    i am definetly not as smart or well read as many of you all are, but after reading some of the things written, I wonder. If there is no god and all there is, is nature...then whats the purpose of life. What is the purpose of all the discoveries of science, if all we are going to be in the end is dust, whats the purpose of all the medical advances in trying to save lives, when all of us are going to die...whats the point of it all. If there is no point why bother with all this education and discoveries. Why spend all this money, why laws for societies, lets all live as we like doing what ever we like for life has no meaning.
    Why does anyone in these posts want to be alive to see another day, why do you want to get married, why do you want the best for your children, when all is just dust in the wind?
    if life has no meaning, why not end the world today, what difference does it make if life as we know it ends in dust a million years from now or it ends in dust today....

39. Paula Kirby says on Dec 23, 2008 @ 02:11 PM:

    "As to who is an "appalling old windbag", Paula, I believe we should leave that to the readers to decide."

    You've lost me, Ray. How can the readers of this site decide whether John Lennox was or was not an appalling old windbag on the night of the debate, which was the context of my comment? Unless you were there, you have no way of knowing. Not until the video of the event is available, anyway.

    You may not want to believe that he was an appalling old windbag at the debate, you may suspect that, in fact, he wasn't - but you are not in possession of any evidence to support those beliefs.

    The same applies, of course, to all sorts of things that Christians assert as fact: 6-day creation, heaven, hell, original sin, atonement, the existence of God at all. There isn't a shred of evidence to support belief in any of them. This is one of the harmful things about "faith" - it teaches people that it's ok to reach (and fiercely defend) conclusions based on what they "feel", what they "believe", and what they would "like to believe". That may do you just fine in the airy-fairy world of religious belief, but won't pass muster when it comes to statements about the real world.

    Which reminds me - 99.9% of respected scientists FULLY accept the truth of evolution. Yet you choose to quote one of the vanishingly small minority (all influenced by their prior religious beliefs) who take a creationist line. (Not that Sarfati is, in any case, a respected scientist - he has been accused of blatant propaganda and being hopelessly confused about developmental biology.) Instead of relying on Answers in Genesis, why don't you try reading some proper science and finding out how evolution really works and how we can be really, genuinely confident (thanks to evidence, not dogma) that it's true? There's a new one just out, by Jerry A. Coyne, called Why Evolution Is True. It's available for pre-order via Amazon. That might be a good place to start.

    Paula

40. Paula Kirby says on Dec 23, 2008 @ 02:15 PM:

    "As to who is an "appalling old windbag", Paula, I believe we should leave that to the readers to decide."

    You've lost me, Ray. How can the readers of this site decide whether John Lennox was or was not an appalling old windbag on the night of the debate, which was the context of my comment? Unless you were there, you have no way of knowing. Not until the video of the event is available, anyway.

    You may not want to believe that he was an appalling old windbag at the debate, you may suspect that, in fact, he wasn't - but you are not in possession of any evidence to support those beliefs.

    The same applies, of course, to all sorts of things that Christians assert as fact: 6-day creation, heaven, hell, original sin, atonement, the existence of God at all. There isn't a shred of evidence to support belief in any of them. This is one of the harmful things about "faith" - it teaches people that it's ok to reach (and fiercely defend) conclusions based on what they "feel", what they "believe", and what they would "like to believe". That may do you just fine in the airy-fairy world of religious belief, but won't pass muster when it comes to statements about the real world.

    Which reminds me - 99.9% of respected scientists FULLY accept the truth of evolution. Yet you choose to quote one of the vanishingly small minority (all influenced by their prior religious beliefs) who take a creationist line. (Not that Sarfati is, in any case, a respected scientist - he has been accused of blatant propaganda and being hopelessly confused about developmental biology.) Instead of relying on Answers in Genesis, why don't you try reading some proper science and finding out how evolution really works and how we can be really, genuinely confident (thanks to evidence, not dogma) that it's true? There's a new one just out, by Jerry A. Coyne, called Why Evolution Is True. It's available for pre-order via Amazon. That might be a good place to start.

    Paula

41. Ray says on Dec 23, 2008 @ 05:18 PM:

    Really, Paula. I've heard (and given answers to ) these old straw dummy arguments about Christians, the Bible, that evolution is true because the majority accept it, about the scientists in Answers in Genesis (which I did not rely on) not being reputable scientists to the point that they sound redundant. No matter, how much you answer them, there is always someone who just doesn't get it. If you like, please go to blog "Dawkin's Ironic Hyprocisy", Christian New New Zealand , where I discussed some of these issues. You can also check out "New temle of Science" (My comments are under "Ray", or "anonymous"), if you really want to find out whether there is evidence for what Christiand believe and whether or not I have studied the evidence (or lack of it) for evolution. As to the "appalling old windbag" I did not say that I had decided that John Lennox was not an "appalling old windbag." (or that Richard Dawkins was).I simply said, "As to who is an "appalling old windbag", Paula, I believe we should leave that to the readers to decide," by which I meant that those who would read (or listen) to the debate would decide that for themselves (when the video comes available, of course). Have a good day.

42. Ray says on Dec 23, 2008 @ 07:48 PM:

    Paula said,"Not that Sarfati is, in any case, a respected scientist - he has been accused of blatant propaganda and being hopelessly confused about developmental biology." If the only evidence you can come up with, as to why Jonathan Sarfati is not a respected scientist ("Not that Sarfati is, in any case, a respected scientist...")is based on unproven accusations(" accused of blatant propaganda and being hopelessly confused about developmental biology"), then I doubt that you can tell me " how evolution really works." This undermining of the credibility of respected scientists,because they believe in creation( or intelligent design theory), is so typical of proponents of evolution when confronted with the lack of evidence for their precious frog-to-prince fairy tale. I would not be surprised if you told me that Dr. John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA, and the chief developer of the Terra code, a 3-D finite element program for modelling the earth's mantle and lithosphere, currently a member of the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) committee and an adjunct faculty member of the Institute for Creation Research, is also not a respected scientist. I tell you what. I will read Jerry A. Coyne's "Why Evolution Is True," if you will read biophysicist Lee M. Spetner's "Not By Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution (1997). I hope Nobelist and evolutionist, Dr. Robert A. Millikan will also read Coyne's book "Why Evolution Is true" because he once commented: "The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can prove."

43. Isaac says on Dec 23, 2008 @ 08:41 PM:

    I think it's amazing that Richard Dawkins (if it was him, which I doubt)finds it at least scientifically feasible that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe based merely on many scientists saying there is good "statistic ground." He says he doesn't necessarily advocate it but he at least says a case could be made based merely on statistical probability. Yet the same statistical probability of the universe being the way it is without a designer he willingly ignores. This shows a classic picking and choosing what to accept as credible or non-credible based on a bias while at the same time disguising your beliefs in scientific terminology. If statistical probabilities are enough to at least allow for a case to be made then fine tuning of the universe points to a high statistical probability that the universe was designed from something outside of it. The statistics are far too great for a mere naturalistic universe that Dawkins imagines and yet he willfully gives a "Darwin of the gaps" theory that perhaps someday science will be able to explain the fine tuning of the universe in mere naturalistic terms. That's great faith in naturalism and blind faith at that.

44. Ray says on Dec 24, 2008 @ 08:21 AM:

    Right on the mark, Isaac. I couldn't agree with you more.

    Sim, that is the best comment I have heard to date. You have demonstrated more wisdom (and common sense) than most whose faith is in unplanned, undirected, meaningless evolution.

    In closing, I would like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New year.

45. Howard says on Oct 7, 2009 @ 12:51 AM:

    Dr. Craig, Richard Dawkins is not the "arch-apostle"
    of reason. Where did his "fairy" particle ( in which he
    has great faith ) come from? Only the shadow knows,
    to repeat an old joke, based on an even older radio show.