Richard Dawkins Interviews/Debates Wendy Wright

This is one of the few times I will admit a clear win for Richard Dawkins. While I appreciate Wendy Wright's stance and can sympathize with many of her concerns, she just didn't know her position well enough (nor Dr. Dawkins') to get into the technicalities of evolution. In my opinion, Dawkins was overall polite and reasonable with his questions and objections. And while Miss Wright was polite, she not only refused to admit that her understanding of evolution was quite limited; but she regularly dodged direct questions.

For example, Miss Wright asked a number of times, "Where's the evidence?" And Dawkins would politely reply with several examples of so-called "transitional fossils." It was obvious that Miss Wright knew little to nothing about these fossils. Instead of admitting her ignorance and agreeing to look into these further, she pridefully dismissed Dawkins' attempt.

This does make me wonder why Dawkins would agree to interview someone like this who has no credentials in science. Wouldn't this had made for a much more useful exchange had he interviewed a creationist or ID proponent with a Ph.D in his or her respective field? Otherwise, what do interviews like these really accomplish except for an excessive number of facepalms to those viewing?

If you're going to discuss the technicalities of evolution with someone, here's a tip: know what you are talking about and/or be willing to look into something for which you are unfamiliar. Otherwise, you are causing more harm than good.

Does Evolution select false beliefs?

Though I can't cite a specific example, I have heard atheists and evolutionists suggest that religion is a product of evolution.  That is, somewhere in the past, men invented religion as a source of comfort in "having something to believe in."  As I understand it, the evolutionist would contend that such a view could produce survival value.  A number of reasons might be implemented to support this.  Perhaps religious persons had less stress and depression than non-religious, since they had characteristics such as hope, peace, and joy; traits that could possibly lead to older age.  Furthermore, since such beliefs would flourish throughout different cultures, the following generations would likely hold to these beliefs.

One thing that makes this interesting is that those subsequent generations sincerely hold to these beliefs without believing they are false.  But let's say for the sake of argument that all these religious beliefs are false.  The conclusion; because of survival value, evolution selects false beliefs over true ones.  Some might argue that such beliefs are not a product of evolution, but of human invention.  But this is not necessarily so.  Why could it have not been the case that a neuro-chemical reaction in the brain produced a sudden need for a "higher power" without the recipient's knowledge of such an event?  Perhaps the recipient interprets this chemical reaction as a calling from a god?

Again, the outcome remains the same: evolution produces false beliefs and passes them down to subsequent generations by means of natural selection.

Here is the problem; if evolution produces false beliefs that the recipients are convinced of and likewise interprets as truth, then on what basis can anyone trust the reliability of their reasoning faculties?  Even the belief of evolution could, in turn, be a false belief.  That is, if evolution is true, no one could know it given that evolution can and does produce false belief.

You could say this is very similar to Plantinga's EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENT AGAINST NATURALISM, but with a slight modification.  The point is to show a significant defeater within the evolutionist's own epistemology.  That is, evolution is self-defeating in that one cannot know it, even if it is true.

I've never attempted this and will gladly accept any criticisms which may contribute to modification or abandonment of the argument.

Atheist Michael Shermer discusses creation with AIG biologist Georgia Purdom

What a great discussion!  Georgia Purdom, who is a Ph.D molecular biologist working for ANSWERS IN GENESIS engaged popular atheist/skeptic Michael Shermer on issues relating to Science, the Bible, evolution, and the age of the earth.  One of my reasons for posting this is because of the way the conversation was conducted.  Shermer was more than respectful in pressing Purdom on these issues and she was gracious to respond accordingly.  Actually, Shermer was the one asking questions the whole time as it seemed to be some kind of interview.

But what I found so great about this is not so much the fact that Purdom provided a biblically sound apologetic (though she certainly did!), but that both parties never let their emotions get involved.  That is, Shermer never asked anything like, "Why is your organization lying to children?  Why is your organization so dishonest?  Are you people really this stupid?"  Instead, he treated Dr. Purdom like an adult.  Both non-believers and Christians can very well learn from this conversation that is so commonly accompanied by heated argument.

Also, if you are one who is interested in seeing how a Creation scientist responds to questions relating to evolution and the age of the earth, I think you'll find this conversation very helpful.

Evolutionist Keith Fox debates ID proponent Michael Behe

For some reason, discussions like these are rare.  And I can't say that's the fault of Intelligent Design advocates in their willingness to debate these issues openly in public forums.  It seems to be the evolutionists who are either insecure in their defense or not wanting to give "creationists a platform" that keeps them from debating.  Imagine if ID'rs and Creationists ruled the scientific establishment and evolutionists were in the minority (this probably was the case in the not-so-distant-past).  If ID'rs and Creationists refused to "debate" and "give evolutionists a platform," what would you conclude about them?  Especially if all these closed-minded creationists published books, appeared on TV, traveled around the world giving lectures, but refused to interact with those they criticized; what would any reasonable-minded person conclude about such persons?  Yeah...I was thinking the same thing.

While he is not an atheist, KEITH FOX strongly opposes ID in such a way that you really couldn't tell the difference.  And thankfully, Dr. Fox is one of the brave few (perhaps because he's a professing Christian) who chooses not to avoid ID'rs as if they're lepers.  And to be even more thankful, JUSTIN BRIERLEY is brave enough to regularly host such interactions.  In this discussion, Fox and Behe engage one another in a fast-paced hour long dialogue on the feasibility of ID and irreducible complexity.  Both sides were respectful to one another and really covered some ground.  This is one of the few ID discussions (perhaps because they are so few) that I would highly recommend to anyone interested in the subject.

You can find the mp3 HERE and the itunes podcast feed HERE.

Debates by Stephen Meyer

STEPHEN MEYER is arguably the leading proponent of Intelligent Design in the world today, especially after publishing the book, SIGNATURE IN THE CELL.  In my opinion, if you are such a leading voice in a movement such as this, it is extremely important to be able hold your view up to public scrutiny.  And contrary to men like Richard Dawkins, who has been more public than Meyer will probably ever be, Meyer has been willing to accept challenges in the form of public debate.

Experiencing public debate is one of the most beneficial things you can do in making up your mind on a controversial issue.  And thankfully, Meyer has provided plenty of opportunity for the viewer to decide on whether ID is viable, true, false, improbable, or whatever.  HERE, Meyer's website has provided some very informative debates for free so that anyone can listen and come to their own conclusion.  I've listened to most of these and have found them to be very helpful.  And I would recommend you do the same:

1. Debate with Peter Atikins on Premiere Radio UK

2. Debate on Origins of Life featuring Stephen Meyer, Richard Sternberg, Michael Shermer, and Donald Prothero

3. Debate with Chris Mooney on The Michael Medved Show

4. Debate With Peter Ward on The Dori Monson Show (KIRO)

5. Debate With Peter Ward at Talk of the Times (TVW)

6. Debate With Michael Ruse on Ben Wattenberg’s Think Tank (PBS) part 1  part 2

7. Debate with Michael Shermer on Faith Under Fire

Interesting article by a Ph.D young earth creationist

If you are interested in reading an article of the scientific methodology of a Ph.D scientist who believes the earth is thousands of years old, you can download the PDF HERE.

Kurt P. Wise is Professor of Science and Theology and Director of the Center for Theology and Science at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He earned a Ph.D. in paleontology from Harvard University and previously served as Assistant Professor of Science and Director of the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee. Dr. Wise is the author of Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms About Creation and the Age of the Universe (Broadman & Holman, 2002).

Intelligent Design/Expelled discussion between Stephen Meyer and Peter Atkins

Not too long ago, I listened to this radio discussion between Atheist Peter Atkins and Stephen Meyer. The discussion was supposed to center around the movie Expelled, but it ended up being about the validity of Intelligent Design.

Though I don't know enough of the details to defend each and every case Ben Stein brings up in the film, I didn't hear anything from Peter Atkins that actually challenged the legitimacy of the claims of Expelled. And until I can observe a cross examination between advocates of both sides whereby the defender of Expelled cannot answer the charges, then I have no reason to doubt the legitimacy of the claims raised in the film.

Second, I found Peter Atkins criticisms of Intelligent Design to be extremely fallacious. Case in point: Atkins' idea that mere order is the same thing as coded, digital, information (such as that found in the DNA). Meyer's response to this was quite noteworthy in raising the question, "So you're suggesting that the spiral 'order' that is created in the water when a toilet flushes is of the same type as that of the information found in the DNA?" As far as I could tell, Atkins affirmed such fallacious reasoning. I wish Meyers would have pressed Atkins further on this, because every time Meyers described the nature of information in that all experiences display that it comes from an intelligent source without exception, Atkins would always respond with, "That's nonsense." The conversation never went from point A to point B. I would have pressed further and asked Atkins, "In your view, how would we be able to distinguish information coming from an intelligent source verses a non-intelligent?" That is, if I walked into a cave and found intricate writing carved on the walls, even if I didn't know what the language meant, would I be out of line in suggesting that it probably wasn't the result of unintelligent geological forces? Of course not. Therefore, I would like to ask men like Atkins or anyone else who denies the validity of ID to provide an alternate criteria in identifying intelligent information from so-called non-intelligent information.

Much more could be said about this discussion, but i'd like the listener to determine for himself whether ID is a legitimate idea.

You can listen to the entire discussion HERE.

(ht: APOLOGETICS 315)

A very informative discussion on intelligent design

Recently, on the Unbelievable radio program, intelligent design proponent William Dembski conversed with atheist Lewis Wolpert. In most debates, there is a lot of monologue but very little dialogue. In this one hour radio program, it was a non-stop cross examination. In fact, this was one of the best discussions on the subject that i've ever heard. Personally, I thought Dembski was pretty disingenuous in not allowing Wolpert and the host more time to speak. But I thought that Wolpert was far worse in a different respect; he was incredibly irrational and closed-minded in the most negative sense of the word. According to Wolpert, the only thing that would make evolution false would be if he gave birth to a dog. This should give you a glimpse of where this man is coming from. I also found myself about to drive into a ditch when I heard Wolpert claiming that design could never be detected in biology, nor can one form probabilistic arguments.

I don't want to give too much away. You can listen to the full discussion HERE.

An interesting question by Cornelius Hunter

I really enjoy reading the thoughts of Cornelius Hunter, as he is really good at taking off the iron mask of evolutionary presuppositions when encountering evidence. In his RECENT POST, he poses a very interesting question for the naturalistic materialist on the limits of science. Since scientific methodology is not necessarily my area of expertise, i'm writing this blog for curiosity's sake. So, if you hold to naturalistic materialism, i'd like you to read and answer the following:

Joe Felsenstein, and most other evolutionists, tell us that science must be restricted to law-like causes and explanations. In a word, they require the scientific method to be restricted to naturalism. While this methodological naturalism seems like a reasonable way to do science, it is an incomplete instruction. There remains the question of what to do when methodological naturalism doesn't work.

Clearly, methodological naturalism will fail if it attempts to explain a phenomenon that is not completely naturalistic. For instance, imagine that human consciousness and will amount to more than mere atoms in motion. Perhaps, for example, there is a soul that transcends the material world. Then science's attempts to explain our thinking will rule out the right answer if science is constrained to methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism would be wrong, and the question is: how should we handle such cases if they are encountered?

I can only think of four possible answers to this question, so this amounts to a simple multiple choice option:

A. Don't worry, methodological naturalism never fails because nature is always fully materialistic.

B. If methodological naturalism ever fails then science, constrained to methodological naturalism, will lead to the wrong answer. Don't worry, it is fine if science is sometimes incorrect.

C. If methodological naturalism ever fails then science should back away from the problem at hand. Science should only address phenomenon that are fully naturalistic.

D. Science should not be constrained to methodological naturalism.

Big Surprise: Evolutionists decline debate challenge

According to a recent Creation Ministries International ARTICLE:

The 2010 Global Atheist Convention will be held in Melbourne, Australia, at the prestigious Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre, over the weekend of March 12–14, 2010.

Titled “The Rise of Atheism”, it is being billed as the “biggest ever atheist event in Australia’s history”. The more than twenty presenters include some of the “cream” of the world’s most prominent and vocal atheists. These include the notorious “ethicist” Professor Peter Singer who has made it plain that some animals have greater “rights” than human infants, who can even be killed after birth in certain circumstances.

Also, the fanatically anti-creationist biology professor PZ Myers, who runs a well-known “science blog”—and of course self-styled “devil’s chaplain” and Darwinism promoter extraordinaire Dr Richard Dawkins will be there in full force. As will a whole array of representatives of various rationalist, humanist, skeptic and freethinker groups.

As would be expected by men like Richard Dawkins, the debate invitation was rejected. Though most of the documentation is spelled out in the above CMI article, I thought the RESPONSE from PZ Myers was most noteworthy.

Though I believe a public debate such as this one would be extremely beneficial to open-minded individuals who are capable of intellectually discerning debate tricks from good arguments, the fact that the debate was refused gives me even more confidence in my position. And this seems to be the case all over the map. That is, one side is always willing to publicly expose themselves and one side isn't.

Oh yeah, I get it. Why would anyone want to waste their time debating something like Creationism?

"I really can't see Professor Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers or any real scientist taking seriously or bothering to debate about alien abductions even though millions believe it to be true. There are just no credible studies on this as there are no credible scientific studies that support creationism."

Right. So you can turn down the challenge to debate such a silly idea, but you'll spent countless thousands of dollars holding seminars (think about how much airfare this costs!), publishing books and magazines, appearing on radio and TV; all to expose a silly idea. But no, we cannot and will not publicly debate those whom we devote this much time and money on.

The day when evolutionists stop spending so much time and money focusing on Creationism and ID is the day when I stop expecting them to debate.

The wonders of Evolution!

This is truly magnificent! Evolution is so beautifully displayed in these instances! Thanks to Darwin and modern genetics, we now know how random mutation and natural selection, plus a really really long time, can produce such amazing feats of engineering genius. I don't mean "engineering genius" to imply "intelligence." No, that would violate naturalistic materialism. The reason being, science cannot operate on anything but that. Therefore, I can conveniently conceive of any biological design, even the most mind-boggling complexity, and perceive an explanation as long as it is within the realm of my materialistic worldview. Praise science!

For once, Dawkins sticks to his expertise

Amazingly, in THIS INTERVIEW, atheist Richard Dawkins refuses to give anything other than a "hunch" when asked to deal with issues that fall outside his field of expertise. Now, I have to commend Dawkins for this. As I WROTE a few days ago, you shouldn't argue something when you haven't done your homework. That is, stick to what you know. And when Dawkins is pressed to answer questions like, "what existed before the beginning of the universe," Dawkins rightfully refused to answer, since his field is in evolutionary biology. And since "Hunches aren't interesting, hunches aren't valuable. What's important is scientific evidence," it would have been futile for Dawkins to engage in issues that fall outside his field; at least not in public forums in front of thousands of viewers.

But what I don't understand is why Dawkins would write a book hundreds of pages long, namely, The God Delusion, dealing with arguments that he describes as "hunches." Sure, there is a substantial amount of information that falls within his field. But it would be no stretch to say that the bulk of the material falls completely outside his realm of expertise. Is Dawkins going to admit that the vast majority of his book is merely a "hunch?" I highly doubt anyone reading The God Delusion would ever get that impression. Instead, they will read the words of an author who is "almost certain" that his views are correct (in particular, his view on God's existence).

Let's put this into perspective with Dawkins' words in regards to "hunches," i.e. things that fall outside his field. And in this example, I will show what Dawkins is really implying when we substitute "the bulk of the material in The God Delusion" for "hunches":

"[Most of what I wrote in The God Delusion] isn't interesting, [Most of what I wrote in The God Delusion] isn't valuable. What's important is scientific evidence"

As I stated in my BOOK REVIEW of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins needs to be challenged to hold his arguments to a higher standard. And to be fair, i'm not suggesting that Dawkins cannot argue philosophical points unless he has a philosophy degree. If that were the case, then i'd be in trouble. But what I am suggesting is that if you are going to write a best-seller and appear on major TV and radio outlets in dealing with subjects that fall outside your field, then you should at least do your homework. That way, you wouldn't have to refer to areas outside your expertise as mere "hunches."

(ht: Ray Comfort)

If you are going to debate the details of Darwinian Evolution, please do your homework.

Kirk Cameron, God bless him and his ministry. But I found myself smacking my forehead raw on this one. This guy just uses really bad arguments. I mean, who in the world would argue that speciation doesn't occur? If I were an evolutionist, I wouldn't believe Cameron either. He just hasn't done is homework and seemingly refuses to be corrected when he's in the wrong. I've never been about "winning" or "losing" in discussions, but this girl completely mopped the floor with Cameron. I hate to say this, but i'm ashamed of the manner in which Cameron has shown disrespect to his opponents by not taking the time to really evaluate their arguments. As Christians, we have no excuse for this. Our arguments should be based on the best possible reasons.

I realize that one can get lost in the details of biology and such. But why argue things that you have no business arguing? If you haven't taken the time to study biology, then don't dive into the details pertaining to speciation or DNA transcription. Instead, argue the big picture points, or discuss an area where you have more experience. And in Cameron's case, it would be talking about the gospel and what sinners must do to be made right with God. That is what all Christian's are admonished to do. And none of us have any business talking about things that we know nothing about. That goes for me and you.

If you want some specifics on some of the things that Cameron should not have said, please check out this article on ARGUMENTS CREATIONISTS SHOULD NOT USE.

Why Dawkins brings Ruse into Disrepute

This is certainly not the FIRST TIME atheistic philosopher Michael Ruse has expressed his feelings and sentiments towards the "new atheists." Recently, an ARTICLE appeared in The Guardian U.K. titled, "Dawkins et al brings us into disrepute," where Ruse explains in more detail why he believes that the "new atheists" are a "bloody disaster".

"There are several reasons why we atheists are squabbling – I will speak only for myself but I doubt I am atypical. First, non-believer though I may be, I do not think (as do the new atheists) that all religion is necessarily evil and corrupting."

I'm glad to finally hear an atheist admit that religion doesn't "poison everything." Its unfortunate that the "new atheists" give atheists like Ruse such a bad rap. While Ruse is hardly a friend to theism, its good to hear that he doesn't treat it like a disease.

"Second, unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously."

It doesn't get more bold than that! And for the most part, Ruse is right on the money. Take "The God Delusion," for instance. How many times did Dawkins reference and interact with the likes of William Craig and other prominent theistic philosophers? I could probably name the number of references on one hand. Sure, Dawkins doesn't think their arguments are "worthy" of a response. But Aquinas was?

"I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it. Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means. Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them. Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, "What caused God?" as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery."

I realize that Dawkins might respond with, "Sure, people might think my arguments are simplistic, but they never explain why or offer a refutation." But Dawkins misses the boat completely. If you check out the more serious and scholarly responses to theistic arguments, you will notice one key difference from Dawkins: they actually interact with them. Dawkins, on the other hand, shows almost no evidence that he is even willing to read what the best of the other side has to say. In my opinion, Dawkins' arguments are just as lame as the Christian, "Goddidit" response.

"I don't have faith. I really don't. Rowan Williams does as do many of my fellow philosophers like Alvin Plantinga (a Protestant) and Ernan McMullin (a Catholic). I think they are wrong; they think I am wrong. But they are not stupid or bad or whatever. "

Ruse is right. The "New Atheists" need to clean up their act. As wrong as I think atheists are, I do not for a second think that they are dumb.

"I want evolution taught in the schools and I can think of no way better designed to make that impossible than to spout on about religion, from ignorance and with contempt."

Exactly. I'm convinced that the "new atheists" are doing far more harm than good for the cause of evolutionary education and atheism in general. Richard Dawkins, for instance, can't seem to talk about evolution without finding some way to bring religion into the mix.

"But don't worry. In the God Delusion, we have a message as simplistic as in The Genesis Flood."

While many of the scientific arguments in "The Genesis Flood" are probably out of date (i'm sure Ruse, or any other atheist would categorize all the arguments as false, but that's beside the point), I get what Ruse is saying. If you are an atheist and want to step into my shoes, then consider this: the manner in which you view a 50 year-old book like "The Genesis Flood" is the same manner in which I view a 2 year-old book like "The God Delusion."

Atheists: its time to step up your game and call each other to a higher standard. Don't settle for garbage. Read what we have to say and interact with us. Show us that you have a willingness to investigate our best arguments and respond to them. This will do much for your cause. I promise.

(ht: RichardDawkins.net)

Fascinating interview with Evolution Critic, Dr. David Berlinski

Below is a series of short clips from an interview with Dr. David Berlinski. Apparently, Dr. Berlinski is not a Christian nor a theist as far as I can tell (correct me if i'm wrong on that). He seems to identify himself as more of an "evolution critic." In this interview, Dr. Berlinski presents a very compelling case for the unanswered questions in Neo-Darwinian theory. When this video is finished, click on the right arrow to go to the next. I think there is a total of about 19 short clips. You should be able to get through the whole thing in about 30 minutes.

Censorship by Evolutionists or Coincidence?

Darwin’s Dilemma: Evolutionary Elite Choose Censorship over Scientific Debate

by Casey Luskin

When a conservative group, the American Freedom Alliance (AFA), recently contracted to premiere a new documentary titled “Darwin’s Dilemma” at the Smithsonian-affiliated California Science Center, they couldn’t imagine the brouhaha that would ensue.

As soon as word of the screening went public, the Darwinian thought police started complaining about a government-supported science center renting its facilities to a group showing a film that challenges Darwinian evolution.

Why the outrage? Isn’t there academic freedom to express scientific viewpoints that dissent from the evolutionary “consensus”?

To give some background on the controversy, the fossil record shows that about 530 million years ago, nearly all major animal groups (called “phyla”) abruptly appeared on earth. Dubbed the “Cambrian explosion,” this dramatic burst of biodiversity without clear evolutionary precursors has created headaches for evolutionists ever since Darwin’s time.

There are two ways that modern evolutionists approach the Cambrian explosion, or what has been called “Darwin’s dilemma”:

A. Some freely acknowledge that the Cambrian fossil evidence essentially shows the opposite of what was expected under neo-Darwinian evolution.

B. Others deal with the Cambrian explosion by sweeping its problems under the rug and trying to change the subject.

Succumbing to pressure from Darwinian elites, the California Science Center chose option B.

The AFA had contracted with the Science Center, a department of the California state government, to show “Darwin’s Dilemma” on Sept. 25th at the center’s IMAX Theatre. The film explores the eponymous problem of how the Cambrian explosion challenges Darwinian theory and features scientists arguing that the best explanation is intelligent design (ID).

Apparently this was too much for the California Science Center, which abruptly cancelled the AFA’s contract just a couple weeks before the screening. The center claims it cancelled the event “because of issues related to the contract” but refuses to identify the issues.

Contract “issues” always make a nice pretext for censorship, but a little digging into history uncovers what likely took place.

The California Science Center is affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution, which has a long history of opposing academic freedom for ID.

In 2004, a pro-ID peer-reviewed scientific article authored by Stephen Meyer was published in a Smithsonian-affiliated biology journal. Once the Biological Society of Washington (BSW) realized it had published a pro-ID paper, it repudiated Meyer’s article, alleging the paper “does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.”

Of course the BSW cited no factual errors in the paper; they just didn’t like Meyer’s conclusions.

Then in 2005, a critical New York Times story inspired anti-ID censors to pressure the Smithsonian to cancel the screening of a pro-ID film, “The Privileged Planet.”

To its credit, the Smithsonian honored its contract to show the film but publicly disclaimed the event, stating “the content of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian Institution.” Smithsonian spokesman Randall Kremer said the institution objected to the documentary’s “philosophical conclusion.”

(Of course, when the Smithsonian featured Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” documentary in 1997, it volunteered no objections to the film’s bold opening statement that “The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.”)

The story picks up in 2006, when a congressional staff investigation found that "Smithsonian's top officials permit[ted] the demotion and harassment of [a] scientist skeptical of Darwinian evolution.”

The persecuted scientist was Smithsonian research biologist Richard Sternberg, who experienced retaliation for overseeing the publication of Meyer’s paper.

The Smithsonian Institution seems willing to go to great lengths to oppose ID and send the message that scientists who sympathize with ID will face consequences, but how does this relate to the current debacle with the California Science Center?

For one, Drs. Sternberg and Meyer are featured in the “Darwin’s Dilemma” documentary advocating ID. And second, Smithsonian spokesman Randal Kremer has reappeared, stating that he “spoke” with the California Science Center after becoming “concerned by the inference … there was a showing of the film at a Smithsonian branch.”

Though Kremer officially denies it, all appearances indicate pressure was applied from on high at the Smithsonian, and the California Science Center caved in and cancelled the event. Once we move past the customary pretexts, this is an open and shut case of censorship and the banning of free speech that dissents from evolution.

Darwin’s dilemma isn’t just about a lack of transitional fossils in ancient rocks. It’s about how the guards of evolutionary orthodoxy will treat contrary scientific viewpoints.

Will they silence minority views, or will they grant dissenting scientists freedom of speech and scientific inquiry to make their case?

That is the real question posed by Darwin’s dilemma. Let’s hope the California Science Center reverses its decision to cancel the contracted screening of “Darwin’s Dilemma” and chooses freedom of speech over evolutionary dogmatism.

REFERENCE

(ht: Evolution News and Views)

Already Gone?

In a recent Answersingenesis.org Article, the following was discussed:

Nearly two-thirds of students will one day walk away from the church. You’ve read these well documented statistics from Ken Ham and Britt Beemer in the book Already Gone. But what can Christians really do?

For many, the answer is just as scary as the numbers: let youth ask questions. Children and adults alike are seeking answers to the issues confronting them. Is there really a God? Can dinosaurs be explained by the Bible? Why should the Bible be believed? Hasn’t science shown the earth to be billions of years old?

Answering those questions, however, is essential to engaging the culture. And Answers in Genesis wants to help.
As a part of the redesign and expansion of the Answers Outreach web presence (previously Events), we are excited to announce the launch of our new DareToAsk.org website for our youth “Q&A Live” presentations. The site itself is designed with young adults and youth in mind, which is why the look is edgy and relevant. But it’s not just about looks.

You’ll also find video answers to some of the common questions all of us have asked. There are links to free resources and even a free DVD download.

Beyond that, you’ll also hear why singer Mark Hall (Casting Crowns) and actor Kirk Cameron (Fireproof) believe AiG’s “Q&A Live” sessions are so important in reaching young people with the message of biblical authority. And that same message can come to your church.

I checked out the Daretoask.org Website and found it to be pretty impressive. The videos are extremely professional and contain some of the most commonly asked questions about creation, evolution, and the age of the earth by some experts in those fields.

I have the same hopes that ministries like Answers in Genesis have in being equipped with answers to the questions of our day. And I pray that more will jump on board with this rather than contributing to some very unfortunate statistics.

Richard Dawkins Interviewed at The Royal Ontario Museum

Go HERE to watch the interview.

I have a few comments about this interview. First, notice all of the assumptions and passing comments that are made, such as, "Oh, this is the cousin of that over there." Imagine how a creationist would be criticized for making the same sort of passing remarks and assumptions if he were doing so in a creation museum. Evolutionists would not have it!

A few other observations about the interview:

"They don't look at the evidence. If they did look at the evidence, they would be persuaded."

Who is "they?" Perhaps the vast majority of those who deny evolution? The same people who have a high school or college education? The same people that wouldn't have passed their tests if they didn't "look at the evidence?" It would be like someone passing a test on the Civil War without having any prior knowledge about the event. Surely Dawkins isn't going to argue that no evolution-denier has ever not looked at the evidence?

"I'm interested in persuading those who are perfectly capable of understanding and looking at the evidence and haven't gotten around to doing so. And why should they?"

If this is the case, then why not deal with our arguments from our best resources? Why pretend that his most educated critics do not exist?

"How sad that children should be brought up in ignorance of this amazing fact of our existence and how it came to be."

Who's children? Sure, you might find some fundy, independent Baptists living in the woods somewhere, who homeschool their children and tell them that dinosaurs never existed. But i'd be willing to bet that these make up a very small percentage of evolution-deniers. For the rest of us, we go to public schools that teach evolution as a fact, and our parents take us to museums. So who exactly is Dawkins referring to here? If he's referring to informed Creationists, we actually encourage children to learn about evolution. Can Dawkins or any evolutionist show me just one Creationist or Intelligent Design organization that condones bringing up our children in ignorance?

"I jokingly refer to myself as Darwin's Tyrannosaur...I [have] these yappy Terriers snapping at your heels refusing to look at the evidence and much worse, browbeating and brainwashing children into not looking at the evidence too. Its so sad and such a waste of time."

More evidence that Dawkins is living in a dreamworld. Again, who is "refusing to look at the evidence?" Can Dawkins prove any evidence that this is the case?

I think Dawkins just can't understand how we can deny evolution. And because of this, he creates a false reality where all his informed critics are simply an illusion. Perhaps the following syllogism will illustrate:

I. Anyone who looks at the evidence for evolution will be convinced.

II. There are people who look at the evidence, but aren't convinced.

III. Therefore, evolution-deniers don't exist.

Dawkins vs. Colbert

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Richard Dawkins
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Michael Moore

Richard Dawkins continuing to keep is eyes closed.

In this interview, Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and the recent best-seller The Greatest Show on Earth: Evidence for Evolution, continues to close his eyes to reality and persuade others to do the same.

"These people need to put up an argument of their own, rather than just badmouthing the people who are criticizing them. Let's hear their argument."

This reminds me of a child holding his ears screaming, "La la la la! I can't hear anything," when their parents are telling them to clean up their room. Later on, when they are asked why they didn't clean their room, they say, "Unless you tell me to clean up my room, i'm not going to know that i'm supposed to do it."

If this is the reality that Dawkins wants to present to his readers, as if ID'ers and Creationists haven't presented arguments "of their own," and instead are only "badmouthing," then Dawkins is living in a dream world. Dawkins is either completely oblivious or intentionally deceptive. I'm going to vote for the latter.

Its unfortunate that Dawkins has made a career out of atheism and evolution, but refuses to give a fair representation of his critics. Perhaps in Dawkins' ethical system he doesn't think its a problem to spend a lifetime arguing against his critics and then pretending they don't exist; but then again, i'm a Christian who thinks that men are made in the image of God and should be treated with dignity and respect.

"As you know, respectable theologians and bishops and vicars and people all believe in evolution anyway, so no religious person should have no quarrel with this, unless they are the truly ridiculous kind religious person who believes that the world is only 6,000 years old."

First off, they don't "all believe" in evolution. But even if they did, who cares? With the exception of Catholics, JW's, and Mormons, who are under obligation to believe whatever their organization tells them, theists generally don't reject or accept evolution solely based on what their leaders tell them. Some people actually think for themselves. But Dawkins doesn't want his readers to know that.

"There's no informed opposition. The opposition is all entirely from ignorant people who know nothing about it."

This is the epitome of ignorance. Are all evolution-deniers people who know nothing about it? Really? This is truly absurd and Dawkins should be ashamed of himself for presenting such a fabrication of reality.

"All living creatures are cousins of each other. That is a fact."

Gravity is a fact, Mr. Dawkins. It is something that we can measure or detect through repeatable experiments. This is contrary to the claim that my distant cousin is a banana tree.

(ht: RichardDawkins.net