A free-for-all contest on the central issues of the Intelligent Design controversy.
October 4
Intelligent Design theorist Dr. Paul Nelson takes on a preeminent Darwinist philosopher, Dr. Michael Ruse in a wild, head-to-head debate on the most controversial aspects of the scientific and philosophical issues. This could be the most entertaining and informative evening you experience this year!
Where: Sutherland Auditorium, Biola University
When: 7:30-9:30 pm
Cost: $20
Seating very limited for this rare debate, tickets will sell out quickly.
Source: http://www.biola.edu/academics/professional-studies/apologetics/events/
17 Comments
For a Darwinist to change his mind, all you need to do is give him verifiable evidence. Most of the quotes used by creationists come from discussions in which evolutionists examine the evidence and change their minds to fit the new evidence. This is how they arrive at views that “contradict” earlier conclusions. If they didn’t do that, where would creationists get their quotes?
Dear Professor. You personally believe many things without verifiable evidence. In Jesus’ day, people saw miracles firsthand but later rejected them.
Evidence is somewhat of an excuse because however much evidence you are given, you will always demand more because of your underlying presuppositions and bias against the supernatural. Enjoy the debate.
As for evolutionists changing their minds — so why do you believe them if their evidence keeps changing? Do you have sufficient evidence that it is true or are you taking it on faith? If so, I would point out that perhaps a double standard is at work.
The quotes comment is a cheap shot I think
Thank you for your reply. I must say, I’m a bit surprised to find such apparent hostility towards “evidence” coming from a Christian Apologetics site. If you truly believe evidence to be so pointless, what’s the goal of your apologetic?
As for my “underlying presuppositions and bias,” I originally approached the creation/evolution debate with evangelical, conservative, Bible-believing assumptions. I was strong enough in my faith that even after I reluctantly came to the conclusion that creationists were misrepresenting the evidence, I continued to trust in Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior.
I’m curious what you mean about the quotes comment being a cheap shot. Do you mean it was so obviously accurate that it wasn’t worth mentioning? Or did you think that I incorrectly characterized the major source from which creationists draw quotes from evolutionists? If the latter, perhaps we could look at some specific quotes?
Your question about “changing evidence” was interesting; I made a full blog post about it on realevang.wordpress.com. Thanks.
Professor, Apologetics breaks into at least two streams: evidentialism and presuppositionalism. No evidence is interpreted in a vacuum; it always comes thru a filter of some type.
I’m not sure where you are going re quotes. Many ‘creationist quotings’ from evolutionists refute the evolutionist position because some evolutionists are honest enough to push their presuppositions out of the way for a moment and tell it as it is. Have you read not any ID material from the likes of Philip Johnson? Or Michael Denton? Cheers.
Professor, if you have the guts, why not post your questions on our forum? Your replies about evidence are patent nonsense. Do you even know the difference between a creationist and creationism?
As for evidence, there is plenty: just look out your window and you will see it. Look at your body and you will see design. Evolution, you say? Well, there you go. It is all about interpretation then isn’t it.
Sorry, but the evidence is moving against atheism (I assume you are in that camp since you link positively to Richard Dawkins whose latest book is said to be an embarrassment to his own fellow atheists). You have to believe the universe made itself out of nothing (a faith statement), life had to begin by itself (a faith statement), and probably that objective moral values exist (plainly untrue if atheism were true).
Regarding creationist quotes: Creationists like to claim (expressly or implicitly) that the reason so many people accept evolution as true is because there is a vast conspiracy among scientists to ignore and even suppress any evidence that would discredit evolution. At the same time, they claim to have quotes from famous evolutionists, not suppressing the evidence, not ignoring the evidence, but being “honest enough to push their presuppositions out of the way for a moment and tell it as it is.” Now, if we have so many leading evolutionists “being honest enough to tell it like it is”–and there’s scarcely a leading evolutionist, including Darwin, who hasn’t been quoted by creationists–doesn’t it strike you as a very odd and ineffectual way to conspire to suppress the truth? It seems rather inconsistent to claim that scientists are suppressing the facts when one’s main source of facts are the published statements of the scientists who are supposedly suppressing them.
By the way, yes, I do have faith–evidence-based faith. It’s the only kind of faith that is worth having, because faith that is nothing more than wishful thinking or naive gullibility is simply self-deception. Truth is consistent with itself, and therefore faith in the truth is always going to produce belief that is consistent with what we find in the real world (i.e. the evidence). And because evidence-based faith reflects actual real-world truth, it’s always going to be the most rewarding faith you can have.
Thanks once again for your comments, they have given me some more good material for my blog at realevang.wordpress.com. I may take you up on your invitation to join your forum. I’m rather busy as you might imagine, but I can spare a post or two if you really want it. Plus it would be a good source for posting material on my own blog.
Cheers.
Regarding quotes, I think you are playing with words.
‘Evolutionism’ is system that we are all educated to believe in — I was — and never consider challenging since it is the truth of God — whoops, I mean scientists.
Have you read Michael Denton? He is an agnostic and was influential in the conversion of Michael Behe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton
Actually, I have his book here, and it was withdrawn from a local library. I wonder why?!
What about David Berlinski? Another non-religious agnostic?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGAAQfZ0AwE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iFnyCjcodY
It is plainly obvious that Darwinists are playing dirty with their little theory. Just look at how they are refusing (in general) to debate, and suppressing dissent, e.g. denying tenure, sacking people, name calling, refusing to publish pro-ID or anti-Darwinian papers in scientific journals. These are the tactics of a super-power that is losing the battle for minds imo.
You talk about evidence in your next post; what are you referring to here? The origin of life? Proof God doesn’t exist? Proof of the origin of the universe? The design of the cell? Morality? Other minds? Please give me some evidence for these things and please be specific
Cheers.
You asked for evidence? I think it is the Darwinist that should be answering that charge:
See here.
Thanks, that’s a great link to a story describing how evolutionists respond to new evidence by revising their understanding of biology instead of by seeking to suppress the evidence.
I don’t have the time to engage in cheap-shop comments from you, Professor. You can post what you like on you website and gain a few comments from your followers, however the facts march on. You mention suppressing evidence. Have you not watched the Peter May versus Stephen Meyer debate. Your guy lost. Or get the MP3s or watch the video here. It is plain to see who wants the evidence suppressed. Cheers.
If you want to see how the EVIDENCE is working against evolutionism, have a look at this page. This describes the hopelessness facing evolutionism and the dismay at the levels of complexity that could not possible have evolved by RM + NS.
Speaking of dirty tricks, have you seen this? Apparently a creationist ministry has been filing false copyright violation claims against creationism’s critics in order to suppress their video rebuttals to creationist claims. That’s a clear case of using dirty tricks to suppress dissent, wouldn’t you agree?
Professor, perhaps you are right about the YouTube thing; I don’t know much about this particular case. But really:
I mean, YouTube are a saintly group, aren’t they, with all the pornography and stuff on there. Very pro-Christian.
All that aside, if you are arguing from an atheist worldview, why are you even complaining about this. Can’t you see, it is just survival of the fittest — entirely consistent with that worldview don’t you think?
Ah, but evolutionists don’t preach survival of the fittest as a moral code. “Survival of the fittest” is a popular term for the scientific observation that environmental conditions have a selective influence on the distribution of characteristics within a population from one generation to the next. So the question is not why I think there’s something wrong with creationist ministries bearing false witness, but why more Christians do not.
Well, it’s been fun, but I think I’ll be running along now. I’m more an anti-apologist than an anti-creationist–after all, if God actually showed up in the real world, would Christians need to resort to quibbling over what happened millions of years ago in order to try and create a pretext for claiming that something like a divine being might once have done something real? The existence of a debate over creationism gives us significant evidence that God does not show up in real life, so I’m happy to let it continue. But it does get repetitious, and the flaws in creationist thinking are already well-documented and publicly refuted, so there’s really no need for my contribution.
Maybe I’ll see you around the blogosphere again some time.
The answer is, Professor, that you are right. Christians should be appalled, and far more opposed, to those who bear false witness in the name of Christ. What do you suggest I do about it from here in New Zealand?
For example, money-preaching televangelists like Benny Hinn survive because a lot of Biblically-ignorant people give the guy lots of money. Many Christians ministries have critiqued and heavily criticized this cretin but what do you do next? Blow up his home? Assassinate him? That may be the Islamic way, but not for Christians.
One reason people follow Hinn is because they think he is genuine. Why? Because most Christians are theologically ignorant. They go to church for years and never learn anything — and you SHOULD criticize them for that. It is, quite honestly imo, a disgrace. But having said that, intellectualism is returning to the church now and Biblical Christianity is returning to academia. So, exciting day lie ahead for us.
As for God not showing up — well, I think it is totally understandable that you would make that claim. Looking thru the glasses of Christian theology and apologetics, we would certainly not see it that way. As I think I mentioned in a previous post, when we look out the window and see something, perhaps a beautiful woman, we see creation as being a reflection of God’s beauty. And if we see war or disease, it reminds us of the fall and the fact that the creation groans, awaiting redemption. What do you see? What are you looking for? Death, then nothing? No justice for Hitler or the various other atheistic murderers that have killed 130,000,000 (see Wikipedia) people in the last 100 years.
As to the age of the earth, go over to our forum and have a look at the thread dealing with that. It has had about 500 views — and this is in little New Zealand?!
Returning finally to science — I note you didn’t answer or even engage with my points about science having no answers to the origin of life, or the universe, or morality, or human rights. This is why I am an ex-atheist — because atheism is bankrupt; it provides no answers. And you can rubbish Intelligent Design, but give it 10 years and I think it will be mainstream (think Galileo).
Thanks 4 the conversations. Bye 4 now.
8 Trackbacks
[...] I notice the Manawatu (New Zealand) Christian Apologetics Society has a post entitled “What would it take for a Darwinist to change his mind?” Even though the post is just an announcement about a debate between Paul Nelson and Michael [...]
[...] to change his mind.” To my delight, the “admin” approved my comments, and responded: By admin on Sep 14, 2007 | ReplyDear Professor. You personally believe many things without [...]
[...] Admin of the Manawatu Christian Apologetics Society. In response to my last post and comment, Admin replies: Professor, Apologetics breaks into at least two streams: evidentialism and presuppositionalism. No [...]
[...] Manawatu 4: Inside the creationist mind… September 25th, 2007 — The Professor The Admin at Manawatu Christian Apologetics Society is proving to be a boundless source of good material. Let’s look at some more of his comments. [...]
[...] how much longer the Admin at Manawatu Christian Apologetics Society can hold out, but it looks like he’s reaching the point where he’s not getting as much satisfaction out of witnessing as…. I don’t have the time to engage in cheap-shop comments from you, Professor. You can post what [...]
[...] Meyer lost the Ward/Meyer debate September 27th, 2007 — The Professor At the recommendation of my good friend Mr. Admin at the Manawatu Christian Apologetics society, I’ve looked up the [...]
[...] 2007 — The Professor Just on a whim, I decided to swing back by our old conversation at the Manawatu Christian Apologetics Society, to see if he responded to my last comment there. He did indeed. The answer is, Professor, that [...]
[...] November 7th, 2007 — The Professor There was one point at the end of Mr. Admin’s last comment. It was a change of subject, so I’m putting it in a separate post, but I think it would be [...]