New Zealand Apologetics People

Please see this page.

Reclaiming Science from Darwinism: A Clear Understanding of Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Des

Foreword: William Dembski, PhD.

Darwinism is a 150–year–old icon that has been
propped up by unproven suppositions. The scientific discoveries of
the last few decades are now kicking out the props.

Dr. Kenneth Poppe is convinced the icon is ready to topple.
Providing extensive scientific evidence of Darwinism’s
failures, this career biology instructor uses enlightening
analogies and examples to explain the theory’s problems:

• blind–luck assembly of the first cell
• mathematical improbabilities
• the laws of thermodynamics
• hypothetical sudden mutations
• biased mind–sets

Spiced with humor and helpful graphics, this popularly targeted
text shows readers that—in regard to objections to
evolution—the science is truly there.

A superior resource for students, parents, and private–
or public–school educators

Amazon.com have it
href=”http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Science-Darwinism-Understanding-Intelligent/dp/0736918337/sr=1-1/qid=1167495388/ref=sr_1_1/002-0345490-9644014?ie=UTF8&s=books”>
here.

Evolutionary Logic

Argument by assertion is unanswerable. If, for instance,
some vague waffle about an evolutionary transition does not satisfy
a recalcitrant student, the instructor simply says, “This point
should be intuitively obvious. I’ve explained it as clearly as I
can. If you still cannot see it, you will just have to think very
carefully about it yourself, and then you will see how trivial and
obvious it is.” The instructor at this point might also want to
add, “What are you, a creationist?” or “Are you one of those
Christian fundamentalists?” or “Where have you been brainwashed?”
Arguments by demonization like this are particularly
effective when one or a few students get unruly, but the majority
sides with the instructor.

Source: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.09.evologic.htm

A few thoughts on Richard Dawkins’ thoughts

Richard Dawkins appears to be on the war-path against faith, his rallying cry: if it ain’t testable, it ain’t science and it oughtn’t be believed.

But is this a well reasoned offensive, or is Dawkins fooling himself?

I wonder whether he takes a faith position or a reasoned position regarding the following:

• Can he show, using science alone, that his ‘faith statement’ above is scientific?
• Can he show, using science alone, the existence of other minds, that he is not part of ‘The Martix’, or a ‘brain in a vat’ probed with electrodes.
• Can he show, using science alone, that the world is more than five minutes old, created with the appearance of age?
• Can he show, using science alone, why there is something rather than nothing? (Nothing being what rocks dream about).
• Can he show, using science alone, what caused the universe to begin? Big-bang cosmology seems to suggest that universe had a beginning where space, time, matter and energy were created and logic would suggest that an temporally infinite universe is impossible (see Craig, William-Lane, Hilbert’s Hotel).
• Can he show, using science alone, why moral values objectively exist? Dawkins has labeled God and ‘faith’ people as bad and possibly even evil, but to do so requires a moral code which does not exist if God does not exist. This is not to say an atheist like Dawkins cannot live a moral life — he can — but he cannot justify using logic (or science) why that life is better than any other life. As Ravi Zacharias has pointed out: ‘In some cultures they love their enemies; in other cultures they eat their enemies.’ Dawkins cannot reasonably pontificate on right and wrong with his atheistic fundamentalism as a foundation.
• Can he show, using science alone, how life began? Dawkins is on record as saying that life gives the appearance of having been designed. Yet his ’science’, based upon observation and inductive reasoning, concludes life happened by unguided chance processes.
• Can he show, using Occam’s razor, how belief in God creating all life is more complex than belief in macro evolution? Since there are many thousands of books describing how evolution may have occurred compared to one or two chapters in the Bible that state how creation did occur, it would seem obvious which is the simpler.

Peter Williams discusses Richard Dawkins’s ‘The God Delusion’ (MP3 files)

Grab the MP3s here.

The Dawkins Delusion

“I do not, by nature, thrive on confrontation,” declares Richard Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and one of the world’s leading skeptics concerning Christianity and belief in God.

More here.

Logic — needed for right thinking

Logic is the science of the relations between propositions. Logic can tell us what can be inferred from a given proposition, but it cannot tell us whether the given proposition is true in the first place. All philosophical systems rely on logical deductions from starting assumptions—axioms—which, by definition, cannot be proven from prior assumption. For our axioms, it is rational to accept the propositions revealed by the infallible God in the 66 books of the Bible.

Source: here.

More Richard Dawkins on National Radio

It seems most of his atheist friends think he is doing more harm than good to their cause — which is the total elimination of all religion from planet earth (This was made plain at the recent atheist conference Dawkins attended).

On top of that, many ID people think Dawkins is doing a great job — because he is so obnoxious and extreme, they think he is doing more damage to the atheist religion than he is doing good.

But never fear: Kim Hill and National Radio will be doing their best to promote him tomorrow:

8.30am: Richard Dawkins
British ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and popular science writer who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. An outspoken atheist, humanist and sceptic, he has been making waves across the world with his new book ‘The God Delusion’ (Bantam Press, ISBN: 059 305 5489).
www.richarddawkins.net/

You can listen to it or get the podcast.

Comments to National Radio/Kim Hill at saturday@radionz.co.nz

The podcast page is here: http://www.radionz.co.nz/nr/programmes/saturday

The Design Inference Part 1 of 2

Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design Vs Evolution [BBC]

Followed the Dover Case? Check this humour out…!

http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/id/JJ_school_of_law/

The Dawkins Delusion?

Coming soon on Amazon.com href=”http://www.amazon.co.uk/o/ASIN/0281059276/ref=pd_rvi_gw_1/203-7877020-0610362″> here.

Dawkins v God - stop the fight

The atheist has some good points to make, but his attack on religion is objectionable

Thomas Aquinas ’s proofs of the existence of God “don’t prove anything, and are easily . . . exposed as vacuous”, wrote Richard Dawkins in The Times this week. Aquinas also offered, inadvertently, one of the strongest cases against Christian orthodoxy. In order that the happiness of the saints in heaven be made more delightful, he argued, they will be “allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned”. I would go to some trouble to avoid the company of those who take pleasure in others’ torment. I would do almost anything to eliminate the risk of eternal fellowship with those who believe such a spectacle is their reward for righteousness.

Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-2433033,00.html

December 2006 Meeting

Next meeting is on 5th December 2006, 7pm at the usual location. Topic will be Moral Relavitism and will be presented using video. Presenter is Greg Koukl of www.str.org. Q&A will follow.

The New Atheism

Book title: The God Delusion

Author: Richard Dawkins

Publisher (h/b): Bantam Press (UK); Houghton Mifflin (USA)

Pub. date (h/b): 18 September 2006 (USA); 2 October 2006 (UK)

 

Book title: Letter to a Christian Nation

Author: Sam Harris

Publisher (h/b): Knopf

Pub. date (h/b): 19 September 2006

 

Book title: Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon

Author: Daniel Dennett

Publisher (h/b): Viking (USA); Allen Lane (UK)

Pub. date (h/b): 2 February 2006 (USA); 2 March 2006 (UK)

While theism has made impressive inroads into academia (especially in academic philosophy) since the middle of the twentieth century,[2] one would hardly expect non-theists to take this state of affairs lying down. A vocal minority of atheists (primarily scientists) have recently attempted to launch an aggressive counter-strike. Wired Magazine dubbed it ‘The New Atheism’ in a November 2006 cover story:

The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it’s evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there’s no excuse for shirking. Three writers have sounded this call to arms. They are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett.[3]

All three authors have released high profile books attacking religious belief in 2006 (Dawkins’ The God Delusion[4], Dennett’s Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon[5] and Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation[6]). They seem determined to revitalize the stereotypical confrontation of ’science vs. religion.’ It is stereotypical because it depends upon the false assertion that, as naturalist Tom Clark writes in an attempt to clarify things, ‘The root conflict is rather between science and faith, two different ways of justifying beliefs about the world which lead to naturalism and supernaturalism, respectively.’[7] Most fundamentally, as Albert Mohler observes, ‘It is not so much that Dawkins is attempting to convince believers that they should no longer believe in God. To the contrary, Dawkins is attempting a very different cultural and political move. He wants to make respect for belief in God socially unacceptable.’[8] This approach has proved to be as controversial among atheists and agnostics as it is among theists.

Beyond Belief

On 5 November 2006, what amounted to the first New Atheist conference, ‘Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival’, was held at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in California (with Dawkins, Dennett and Harris in attendance).[9] This well-publicized gathering, covered by The New York Times and New Scientist, addressed three questions: ‘Should science do away with religion?’, ‘What would science put in religion’s place?’ and ‘Can we be good without God?’

The consensus view on the first question was naturally that science should do away with religion (narrowly defined as naturalistic explanations of natural phenomena) (defined in terms of a ‘blind faith’ which is quite unrecognizable to mainstream Christian orthodoxy). The agreed answer to the second question was, unsurprisingly, that science should replace religion with science. On the matter of being good, the consensus was that we can be good without God because of evolutionary group dynamics. In other words, as New Scientist said, ’science can take on religion and win.’[10] The spirit of New Atheism was perfectly encapsulated by the meeting’s opening speech, in which Nobel laureate physicist Steven Weinberg offered the concluding exultation that: ‘Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.’[11]

Source: http://www.damaris.org/content/content.php?type=5&id=508
Full video lectures: www.beyondbelief.com (Whoops, looks like Josh McDowell)
Try this one for the videos: www.beyondbelief2006.org/watch/