Muddling Toward Maturity Blog

Stephen Meyer and Michael Shermer discuss Meyer's latest book—Return of God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe

Stephen Meyer, author of  Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design and Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, has now published yet another major book, Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe.   Meyer is one of the foremost advocates of Intelligent Design and his latest book constitutes perhaps the most comprehensive book available on the subject.  In this video, well-known skeptic Michael Shermer and Stephen Meyer carry on an irenic, valuable conversation.  If you are like me, you will be highly impressed with Meyer's mastery of his subject matter.

PERFECT ECLIPSES: COINCIDENCE OR CONSPIRACY?

A strong argument can be made that the universe points beyond itself.  

Jay Richards, co-author of The Privileged Planet: How our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery, writes about the 2017 eclipse viewed by many of us today in the United States and elsewhere.  He writes:

On August 21, we Americans get to see a total solar eclipse. As I mentioned in a previous piece, we can see solar eclipses only because our planet, our Moon, and our Sun sometimes come together in a straight line in space. When the Moon passes between the Sun and Earth, those in the Moon’s shadow see an eclipse.

But the story doesn’t end there. A rare alignment of events allows Earthlings to witness not just solar eclipses, but what we might call perfect solar eclipses. Our Moon just barely covers the Sun’s bright photosphere. Such an eclipse depends on just the right sizes, shapes, and relative distances of the Sun, Moon, and Earth.

There’s no law of physics that dictates this layout. There are 65 major moons in our Solar System, and many smaller ones. But only we enjoy perfect solar eclipses. If there were Martians or Uranians, they wouldn’t see such eclipses.

The Moon is about 400 times smaller than the Sun. But the Moon is also about 400 times closer to the Earth than is the Sun. As a result, the size of the Moon on our sky matches the size of the Sun. And since they appear as round disks, they match in both size and shape.

What’s more, the tight match between Moon and Sun only happens during a narrow window of Earth’s history. The Moon is slowly moving away from Earth — at roughly the same speed that fingernails grow.

In brief, the best time and place to view total solar eclipses in our Solar System is just when and where there are observers to see them.

Let that sink in.

JOHN LENNOX: WHY GOD? DO WE NEED GOD IN THE GOOD TIMES?

I love John Lennox for his clarity of thought, genial personality, and forthright evidence-based Christian faith.  The video below is not of the best quality, but if it proves too bothersome, one can just listen without watching.  I have blogged about Lennox before with other (and better quality) videos on various topics.

 

JOHN LENNOX, OXFORD MATHEMATICIAN, SPEAKS AT HARVARD ON "MIRACLES: IS BELIEF IN THE SUPERNATURAL IRRATIONAL?"

Without a doubt, Dr. John Lennox's talk at Harvard remains one of my favorites; I have blogged about it before as well as other talks of his.    It's very much worthwhile to listen to the talk in its entirety and to the Q&A session at the end wherein he relates a couple of unique experiences of divine guidance as a postscript (he was asked a question) to his more intellectual address.  I post the talk again for those who might not know of John Lennox.

 

HUGH ROSS - SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE

Hugh Ross, Ph.D. (astronomy/astrophysics), founder of Reasons to Believe, offers a stunning talk on science, creation, and how he came to faith and trust the Bible.  He became a believer "on his own" as a 17 year old budding scientist. He said he didn't encounter a Christian until he was 27 and at CalTech.    My one question would be to ask how he calculates probabilities.  Enjoy.

 

 

HOW TO BUILD A WORM

I found this video fascinating.

 

DOES SCIENCE ARGUE FOR OR AGAINST GOD?

Hats off to Eric Metaxas and Prager University for producing this excellent, skilful distillation of points made elsewhere, such as in The Privileged Planet, the book or DVD.

 

 

CHRISTIAN ASTRONOMER HUGH ROSS QUESTIONS JOHN HAGEE'S "FOUR BLOOD MOONS" THESIS

In a two-part article, astronomer Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe Ministry expresses disagreement with Rev. John Hagee's perspective on the significance of "Four Blood Moons." 

Ross writes:

Popular Bible preacher John Hagee has authored a book and produced a movie by the same name, Four Blood Moons (in theaters March 23, April 9th). On the film’s website the San Antonio megachurch pastor states, “The heavens are ‘God’s billboard.’ He’s been sending signals to earth, and we haven’t been picking them up.” In part 1 of this series, as an astronomer I analyzed those “signals,” a series of four (tetrad) total lunar eclipses that supposedly ushers in prophetic activity ahead of the return of Christ. Now, as a student of Scripture and as one who believes in premillennial eschatology, I convey my primary, biblical criticism.

Blood Moons: An End-Time Sign? (Part 1 of 1)

Blood Moons: An End-Time Sign?  (Part 2 of 2)

CHRISTMAS POSTS FROM "REASONS TO BELIEVE" MINISTRY

Reasons To Believe, a science-based Christian apologetics ministry, sent out an email with the following items which I think worth posting:

The Bethlehem star

One of our more popular holiday topics, the star of Bethlehem often raises questions.What was the star? Who were the Magi and how did the star guide them to Jesus? Theories abound, but RTB’s Christmas star web page provides articles, videos, and podcasts dedicated to weighing Scripture and scientific evidence to piece together probable explanations for this intriguing part of the Nativity story. And in case you missed it earlier this month, Hugh Ross examines recent research that sheds new light on the star.

Christmas edition podcasts

RTB scholars share personal reflections on the Advent season and what Christ’s first coming reveals about God’s wondrous character and generosity.

• “Hugh Ross on God’s Intimate Care”
• “Jeff Zweerink on Patience”
• “Kenneth Samples on Grace”
• “Fuz Rana on Love”
• “Three Reasons Why I Love the Advent Season” with Kenneth Samples
• “No Christmas in the Bible?” with Kenneth Samples, Jeff Zweerink, and Dave Rogstad

Yuletide articles

“The Greatest Gift of All” — Fuz Rana shares the story of how God’s greatest gift, Jesus Christ, transformed his life.

“Jesus, Our Emmanuel” — Kenneth Samples defines the historic Christian view of God incarnate.

“Top 5 Common Christmas Myths” — Editor Sandra Dimas interviews theologian Krista Bontrager to debunk common misconceptions about the Nativity story.

“We Three Kings” — Editor Maureen Moser reflects on the visit of the Magi and what their story says about the importance of loving God with all of our mind.

“The Best Present” — Sandra discusses why the Incarnation is the greatest gift humanity ever received.

“Is God Too Busy for Us?” — Maureen makes a connection between thoughtful holiday gifts and the Creator’s thoughtfulness that appears throughout creation, reminding us that He loves us very much.

“Bright Lights, Sparkling Trees, Joyful Music, Delicious Treats” — Together, Sandra and Maureen discuss how the Christmas season reminds us of the “tidings of great joy” that Christ’s birth brought to this weary world.

RTB Scholars

RTB's mission is to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research—including the very latest discoveries—consistently support, rather than erode, confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed in both Scripture and nature.

FOLLIES OF "EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY"

--  I did a quick glance at a Denyse O'Leary's article "The Evolutionary Psychologist Knows Why You Vote -- and Shop, and Tip at Restaurants."  Except he/she doesn't.  O'Leary concludes:

 "... evo psych really says far more about the culture that created it than about the history of the human race."

Me:  So true.  (The article provides a host of useful links)

-- I might mention another "evolution article," this one titled "Dartmouth Physicist: When Science Shades Over Into Faith."  It treats of Marcelo Gleiser, a theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College, "who provocatively acknowledges that science can shade over into the faith, when scientists cling to ideas beyond the point where the evidence has turned against them."  Stubbornness is part of human behavior.  As Gleiser says (his emphasis):  "When you invest decades of your professional life in the pursuit of an idea, it's real hard to let go. Some never do."  David Klinghoffer comments:   "The old folks won't let go of Darwinism. Progress depends on the young, biologists whose names you’ve not yet heard whispered. It's another way of saying, with Max Planck, that "Science advances one funeral at a time."

ERIC METAXAS ON MIRACLES

Eric Metaxas,  bestselling author of Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy and the acclaimed Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery, today published his latest book:  Miracles: What They Are, Why They Happen, and How They Can Change Your Life.  I checked Amazon and read the endorsements --  wow!  Genuinely impressive:

“As a secular reader, I come to such books with a certain resistance. Metaxas won me over instantly by meeting me where I live. His intellectual honesty, coupled with an open-hearted wonder at the sheer breadth of human experience, is irresistible.”
—Christopher Noel, author, Impossible Visits

“If you’re a skeptic, read this book with an open mind and you might just discover that miracles are real. If you’re already a believer, be ready to be inspired.”
—Kirsten Powers, columnist for USA Today and The Daily Beast

“A dense, edgy and awe-inspiring report on the possibility of the impossible.”
—Dr. Markus Spieker, Reporter for German National Television and bestselling author of Hollywood Cinema in Nazi Germany
 
““No Christian thinker today combines reason and wit, argument and imagination, to greater effect.”
—Joseph Loconte, Associate Professor of History at the King's College, NYC and author, God, Locke, and Liberty: The Struggle for Religious Freedom in the West.
 
"Metaxas has done it again....he presents hope for the tone deaf who cannot hear the splendor of the music of the spheres, and he brings in sunlight for modern cave dwellers who have become accustomed to only shadows on the wall of our increasingly windowless world."
—Os Guinness, author Long Journey Home

Metaxas produced a Breakpoint commentary today titled "Existence Itself Is a Miracle" which is well worth reading.  He writes (or speaks, if you click the audio below):

NOW | DOWNLOAD

In my new book “Miracles” I point out that possibly the greatest evidence for the existence of miracles is the fact that we exist.

The universe as we know it requires such a careful calibration of variables as to render its mere existence—never mind the presence of intelligent life—a miracle in itself. The British astronomer and atheist Fred Hoyle, who coined the phrase “the Big Bang,” summed up the sheer improbability of existence by saying “The universe looks like a put-up job."

For instance, if the earth were slightly larger, it would of course have slightly more gravity. As a result, methane and ammonia gas, which have molecular weights of sixteen and seventeen respectively, would remain close to the surface of the earth. Since we can’t breathe methane or ammonia because of their toxicity, we would die.

If Earth were slightly smaller, water vapor would not stay close to the planet’s surface, but would instead dissipate into the atmosphere. Obviously, without water we couldn’t exist.

What’s true of Earth is true of the Universe as a whole. What physicists called the four fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces—are so finely-tuned that if any of them were in the slightest degree different, our universe would not exist.

What’s more, each of these crucially precise values was established once and for all within one millionth of a second after the Big Bang. In other words, immediately.

IS THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE INHIBITED BY BELIEVING IN GOD AS CREATOR?

I think Fazale Rana of Reasons to Believe  answers the question wisely.   He writes:

A few years ago, I took part in an email exchange with a prominent origin-of-life researcher after he read my book Origins of Life (coauthored with Hugh Ross). He expressed the concern that "the creationist perspective stops the questioning process."

I would be interested in how you think the "creation model approach...will lead to scientific advance." Your book clearly showed that science does not have all the answers to how life may have begun, and of course I agree with that conclusion. What this means to me is that we have some beautiful open questions to work on to try to find the answers. But in your book, at the end of each chapter, you typically ended with the creationist answer to open questions: God did it. This is what I meant by stopping the questioning process. If the answer is that God did it, where do we go from there?

I have found that this sentiment is widely held among scientists—and, frankly, it is a legitimate objection on some level. If the questioning process grinds to a halt, then science becomes impossible. Responding to this concern was one motivation for me and Hugh to develop and present a creation model for the origin of life. As scientists ourselves, we have no desire to stultify the question and research process. Rather, we believe that integrating biblical teachings on the origin of life with scientific data to form a legitimate model (replete with predictions) actually encourages the questioning process. Perhaps the creation model approach may even lead the scientific community to new and productive paths in the pursuit of life's origin.

THE KEN HAM - BILL NYE DEBATE ON "IS CREATION A VIABLE MODEL OF ORIGINS IN TODAY'S MODERN SCIENTIFIC ERA?"

Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis and founder of the Creation Museum and Bill Nye "The Science Guy" debated each other Tuesday night, Feb. 4th.   The debate remains available for viewing here and here.

I confess I am one of those who cringe at the 6,000 year old-earth position Ken Ham defends.   The debate came off better than I had feared, but I still lament that many uninformed viewers will conclude that anyone who believes in the authority of the Bible must reject the scientific evidence that contends for an old earth.  Interestingly, Pat Robertson stated on the 700 club that he holds to an old-earth position as well.

Ham's post-debate reflections are available here.  Nye reflects here.

Dr. Albert Mohler, a young-earth adherent and President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary offers his reflections here.

Those associated with the BioLogos Forum which adheres to a theistic evolution perspective (renamed "evolutionary creation)," published their perspective here.

Casey Luskin of the Intelligent Design movement wasn't happy.  He titled his response, "The Ham-Nye Creation Debate: A Huge Missed Opportunity.   Michael J. Behe, a biology professor at Lehigh University and an advocate of Intelligent Design said, "I was upset that both the parties kept talking on about the age of the Earth than on the elegance and complexities of life."  David Klingfellow, another ID adherent and an orthodox Jew, offers a substitute debate more to his liking, that of Stephen Meyer vs. Charles Marshall.   That debate is on Intelligent Design and the explosion of life.  

Wintery Knight likewise preferred steering people to debates with which he is more comfortable, namely a debate between young earth scientist Jason Lisle and old earth astronomer Hugh Ross.  He also recommends the Stephen C. Meyer vs. Keith Fox debate on intelligent design and evolution as well as the Michael Behe-Keith Fox debate.  Speaking of Hugh Ross, his organization, Reasons to Believe, published RTB's  general perspective on debates without commenting specifically on the Nye-Ham debate.

I was struck by evolutionist Michael Shermer's tweet - "People of all faiths and no faiths accept Big Bang cosmology because of evidence, but no non-Christians accept young earth creationism."  I suspect that is true.   Shermer coached Nye before the debate.

Respondents to the U.K. Christian Magazine gave the debate to Nye.

In terms of who "won" the debate, the audience of Britain's Christian Today website says it was Nye, hands down. With 42,567 responses, the site's online poll finds Nye with 92 percent support, compared with 8 percent for Ham. An option for "neither" is not provided in the poll, which is still taking votes

On the general matter of "evidence" vs. "the Bible" the key issue revolves around interpretation of both science and the Bible. In my judgment, Dr. John C. Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, has provided excellent help in his book, Seven Days that Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science.  Dr. Lennox gave the following talk on January 31, 2013 at New York's gathering of Socrates in the City.   A  talk Lennox gave of a similar nature is summarized here and critiqued from a young-earth perspective here.  It should be noted that although Lennox believes in an "old earth,"  he rejects theistic evolution and believes man a special creation of God.  

  

I have blogged previously of John Lennox's visit to Yale.  Lennox has debated Princeton ethicist Dr. Peter Singer and Oxford's evolution propagandist Dr. Richard Dawkins among others.  Lennox is the author of the following books:

OXFORD MATHEMATICIAN JOHN LENNOX AT YALE - "IS ANYTHING WORTH BELIEVING IN?"

Yale professor Greg Ganssle interviews Oxford scholar John Lennox on questions of reason, faith, and the nature of evidence at The Veritas Forum at Yale, 2013.  

 

I love listening to Dr. Lennox, Professor of Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science at the University of Oxford and a professing Christian.  Lennox has debated Princeton ethicist Dr. Peter Singer and Oxford's evolution propagandist Dr. Richard Dawkins among others.  Lennox is the author of the following books:

-  God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?

-  Seven Days that Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science.  

-   God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design is it Anyway?

-  Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target.

I have blogged previously of John Lennox speaking in New Zealand on "Natural Disasters, Pain and Suffering" and at Harvard in 2012 on "Miracles: Is Belief in the Supernatural Irrational?"

The Lennox-Singer debate can be found here and his first debate with Richard Dawkins in Alabama here and a follow-up with Dawkins at the Oxford Museum of Natural History here.   

ERIC METAXAS INTERVIEWS STEPHEN MEYER ON "DARWIN'S DOUBT"

Eric Metaxas of Socrates in the City interviews Stephen Meyer on Darwin, Intelligent Design, the scientific method, and the book Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. Filmed at the Union League Club in New York City on September 12, 2013.  (HT: Justin Taylor) 

I viewed it last night in its entirety and heartily recommend it.  Metaxas employs entertaining wit and humor and Meyer is an interviewer's delight- he offers cogent, articulate responses to every question!  And as for the Q&A, Wintery Knight says "Those were some of the most intelligent questions I have ever seen from a lay audience." 

Winitery Knight summarizes:

It’s a very good discussion that starts with the 5 basic questions you need to understand before you can understand intelligent design.

Here are the first 5 questions:

• What is intelligent design?
• What are the three meanings of the word evolution?
• Is Darwinian evolution compatible with intelligent design?
• Is intelligent design science?
• What is biological information and where is it found?

Paleoanthropologists Fail to Find Common Ancestor to Modern Humans and Neanderthals

Dr. Fazale Rana wrote the commentary below.  He has has authored  The Cell's Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator's Artistry and has debated Michael Ruse on "The Origin of Life: Evolution vs. Design."  Rana serves as vice president of research and apologetics at Reasons To Believe. He is the coauthor, with Hugh Ross, of Origins of Life and Who Was Adam?  

Recently, paleoanthropologists from the US and Europe sought to identify the common ancestor of modern humans and Neanderthals by reconstructing dental features of this putative species. Comparison of the reconstructed dental anatomy with that of known hominids failed to find a match. Based on this study, it looks as if the most reasonable candidates (H. erectus, H. antecessor, and H. heidelbergensis) for the common ancestor of modern humans and Neanderthals are no longer in contention. The inability of paleoanthropologists to pinpoint this key evolutionary ancestor doesn’t bode well for the idea of human evolution.

NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCES AND EVIDENCE FOR THE SOUL

This is a subject I want to re-visit.  Meanwhile, for the record, I want to make note of Wintery Knight's valuable post .

Stephen Meyer and Michael Ruse Debate "Darwin's Doubt"

I am a great fan of Stephen C. Meyer whose intellectual work consistently dazzles.   He earned his Ph.D. from Cambridge in the Philosophy of Science and has published the acclaimed The Signature of the Cell:DNA and the Case for Intelligent Design, Does God Exist: Bulding the Scientific Case (TrueU), (a 10-part series especially designed for high school and college students), and his latest book, highlighted below, Darwin's Doubt, which I own and have found to be an extraordinary tour de force.

From Evolution News & Views:

On Public Radio's "Interfaith Voices," Stephen Meyer and Michael Ruse Debate Darwin's Doubt

David Klinghoffer August 27, 2013 5:50 AM | Permalink

Here's a very thoughtful and entertaining discussion of Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design with Stephen Meyer and atheist philosopher Michael Ruse, on public radio's "Interfaith Voices." I appreciate the way host Maureen Fiedler makes clear the three-way distinction and contrast of intelligent design versus creationism versus Darwinian evolution. It's an amazing thing to reflect on that few in the media are able to do so.

She solicits arguments from Meyer and Ruse respectively and then turns around and asks the other for a response -- yes, a proper debate, and a civil, informative and even amusing one! Kudos to Dr. Ruse for agreeing to have such a direct confrontation.

A REVIEW OF THE DVD "EVOLUTION VS. GOD"

Dr. Jeff. Zweerink of Reasons to Believe, a science-oriented apologetics organization, isn't thrilled with the new DVD pushed by the American Family Association featuring Ray Comfort attacking evolution.  Even though Reasons to Believe doesn't subscribe to macroevolution, Zweerink issues cautions about this new DVD.  He says,

A number of Christians are promoting evangelist Ray Comfort’s new DVD, "Evolution vs. God." Although the video contains some valid content, its questionable treatment of science and scientists—with an attack mindset and a goal to make scientists look stupid—causes me to advise extreme caution. Bluntly, I see this video as counter to our evangelistic mission. I cannot think of one biblical example where Jesus ridiculed nonbelievers who held erroneous views—although he harshly rebuked the religious leaders who were supposed to guide people toward Him.

Hugh Ross: Stronger and More Comprehensive Tests Affirm the Universe’s Unchanging Physics

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe explains recent advances:

"Recent advances in astronomy and physics provide yet more support for the idea that the laws of physics have remained unchanged throughout the universe’s history.

"For thousands of years, the Bible has been on record stating that the physical laws governing the universe do not vary. For example, Jeremiah 33:25, God declares that he “established the fixed laws of heaven and earth” (NIV, 1984). In Romans 8:20–22, Paul states that “the whole creation has been groaning” as a result of its “bondage to decay” (NIV, 1984).

The constancy of the laws of physics, if proven, would establish the Bible’s reliability in describing nature and predicting future scientific discoveries. It would also refute young-earth creationism and global flood geology as well as significantly constrain speculations about string theories and the possibility that variable scalar fields alter the character of dark energy. Also, physicists and astronomers hope that high-precision measurements of the constants of physics might reveal that “variations” can be explained by as-yet-undiscovered additional constants of physics.

As I described in previous articles¹ and in my book More Than a Theory,² physicists and astronomers have devoted several decades of research to building an arsenal of tests for constant physics. During the past few years they have developed far more powerful tests. Also, thanks to the first data release from the Planck satellite this past March, for the first time researchers can test for spatial variations on the scale of the entire universe.  [more . . ]

ATHEISM AND ITS SCIENTIFIC PRETENSIONS: A CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BERLINSKI

David Berlinski, a philosopher and mathematician who is agnostic about God and does not speculate on the origins of life, is the author of The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions (2011).  (HT: Justin Taylor)

 

About Justin Taylor

 

Follower of Christ. Husband of one, father of three. Elder at New Covenant Bible Church. VP of Editorial at Crossway. More…

 

 

• Subscribe via Feed
• Subscribe via Email

• Subscribe via Kindle
• Follow on Twitter

 

 

 

Sponsors

Advertise Here

Blogroll

 

• 9Marks Blog
• Albert Mohler
• Andy Naselli
• Cranach Blog
• Denny Burk
• Desiring God Blog
• Evangel
• First Thoughts
• Girl Talk
• In Light of the Gospel
• Jim Hamilton
• Joe Thorn
• Josh Harris
• Kevin DeYoung
• Kingdom People
• Ligonier
• Radical Womanhood
• Resurgence
• Russell Moore
• Scriptorium Daily
• Stand to Reason
• TGC Blog
• Thabiti Anyabwile
• The Sola Panel
• Tim Challies
• Tullian Tchividjian
• Vitamin Z
• What's Best Next?
• Worship Matters

 

Magazine & Journals

 

• Books & Culture
• Boundless
• Christianity Today
• First Things
• Journal of Biblical Counseling
• Modern Reformation
• Reformation21
• Tabletalk
• The Briefing
• Themelios
• Touchstone
• World Magazine

 

Ministries

 

• 9Marks
• Acts 29
• Biblical Spirituality
• CBMW
• CCEF
• Centre for Public Christianity
• Crossway
• Desiring God
• Founders Ministries
• Grace to You
• Ligonier
• Matthias Media
• Sovereign Grace Ministries
• Stand to Reason
• TGC Reviews
• The Gospel Coalition
• Truth for Life
• White Horse Inn

 

Archives

 

May

20

2013

Justin Taylor|7:00 am CT

Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions: A Conversation with David Berlinski

David Berlinski, a philosopher and mathematician who is agnostic about God and does not speculate on the origins of life, is the author of The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions (2011).

DR. JOHN LENNOX SPEAKS AT HARVARD ON "MIRACLES: IS BELIEF IN THE SUPERNATURAL IRRATIONAL?"

Yesterday I listened to this YouTube video of Oxford mathematician Dr. John Lennox speaking at the Veritas Forum at Harvard this past February.    Off hand I can't think of a talk I have enjoyed more, or found more engaging and delightful.  I listened to the audio, and am glad I did, as I find the camera angle of the video leaves a lot to be desired.

Lennox's talk is full of meat and crystalline in its clarity.  I love his spirit and his humor.  I recommend listening straight through to the Q&A.  His story of his encounter with a Russian man in a Belgian train is phenomenal.  

I am thankful to God for this man!  I already have two of Lennox's books, God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? and Seven Days that Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science.   In his talk he mentioned two additional books recently published, which I think I shall have to add to my library as well: God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design is it Anyway? and Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target.

"REASONS TO BELIEVE" ON "JUNK DNA"

I reported yesterday on the amazing findings regarding "Junk DNA."  Here's an email received today from Reasons to Believe:

Here’s a Switch:
80 Percent of Junk DNA Has Function

RTB's Fuz Rana calls it the biggest discovery of his lifetime as a biochemist.

A massive new DNA research project called ENCODE has dramatically increased understanding of the human genome and may revolutionize human biology. Scientists have discovered that 80 percent of DNA that had been dismissed as "junk" plays a crucial role in how the body works. Their voluminous research, amassed in 40 papers by 32 labs and hundreds of scientists, is considered a medical and scientific breakthrough because of its implications for human health.

Millions of gene controlling switches that reside in DNA classified as junk are responsible for determining what becomes of a cell. These switches act as a genetic operating system that will help researchers understand how diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, asthma, and hundreds of others develop.

According to Fuz, this breakthrough:

• Represents rapid progress—just over a decade—in genetic understanding made possible by considerable scientific research and computing power
• Challenges one of evolution's strongest arguments; namely, that vast portions of the human genome consist of junk (nonfunctional) DNA that results from common ancestry
• Promises insight into the onset, treatment, and reversal of debilitating human diseases
• Recognizes work to be done—this is phase two of three—and that outstanding questions remain, such as whether genetic evidence favors common descent or common design
• Ruz Rana explains the significance of these developments in a 40 minute podcast here.  Listen and you’ll be rewarded.

JUNK DNA DEBUNKED

That's the title of an article in the Wall Street Journal, one of many papers (UK Guardian, N.Y. Times) covering the news that what was before considered "junk DNA" has now been discovered to play a critical role in controlling how cells, organs and other tissues behave.  What's especially noteworthy is that "junk DNA" has been hailed as a support for evolution, whereas this latest discovery vindicates Intelligent Design proponents who predicted there would be discovered value in "junk DNA."  In fact, last year, one of the Intelligent Design scientists, Jonathan Wells, published the Myth of Junk DNA, anticipating the latest findings.   Part of the Amazon book description reads:

Recent books by Richard Dawkins, Francis Collins and others have used this “junk DNA” as evidence for Darwinian evolution and evidence against intelligent design (since an intelligent designer would presumably not have filled our genome with so much garbage). But recent genome evidence shows that much of our non-protein-coding DNA performs essential biological functions.

Wintery Knight covers the breaking story especially well.

USEFUL WINTERY KNIGHT BLOG POSTS

Wintery Knight continues to produce excellent blog posts.  He's especially good on Christian apologetics, politics and economics.   Here are some posts I looked at tonight and found helpful:

    -  "Rick Santorum for President of the United States"  - (I heartily agree!)    

    -  "A Christian and a postmodern relativist debate atheism and Christianity"

    -  "Michael Murray explains how to talk about religion in the public square."

    -  "Bad news for believers in naturalistic explanations of the Cambrian explosion"

Wintery Knight appended a note as he closed out 2011:

I also wanted to report to you that Wintery Knight was recently named to the Top 40 Conservative Blogs for the fourth quarter of 2011 by John Hawkins of Right Wing News. And we were also received one of the Fabulous 50 Blog Awards from Doug Ross. We tied for “Best Political Blogging”. I also want to thank Brian Auten of Apologetics 315 for frequently linking to my posts on Christian apologetics and theology in his Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links.

ASTROPHYSICIST HUGH ROSS' NEW BOOK - "HIDDEN TREASURES IN THE BOOK OF JOB"

I have some major problems with Hugh Ross treating the book of Job, with its magnificent poetry, as significant for current discussions on science and origins, but I haven't read the book so I can't say more at this point.  That said, the following interview is fascinating.  Hugh Ross speaks with unusual clarity.  You will be glad you took the time to view it.   Pat Robertson interviewed Ross on the 700 Club today, October 19, 2011.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION WITH DAVID BERLINSKI (VIDEO)

Peter Robinson's interview with David Berlinski is a lot of fun to watch.  The interview focuses on Berlinski's book, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions.  The full 42 minute video can be seen here.   If you prefer, you can watch it in five part segments at the NRO website:

Part 1  David Berlinski introduces The Devil’s Delusion.

Part 2  David Berlinski discusses why he thinks Darwin’s theory is flawed.  

Part 3   Is the Big Bang theory consistent with Christian beliefs? David Berlinski responds.

Part 4  David Berlinski discusses right and wrong.    

Part 5  Can scientists disprove the existence of God? David Berlinski responds.

What initially attracted me to the video was the extraordinary quote I came across on the NRO website linked to Part 5, quoting Berlinski:

 “The Old Testament is the greatest repository of human knowledge and wisdom in the history of civilization, any time, any place…. [E]very attitude current today in the discussion from Richard Dawkins to me to Christopher Hitchins, the lonely pastors in the Bible Belt on Sunday morning ranting from a particular text, is discussed in the Bible. There is a character in the Bible who expresses that point of view and there is sympathy expressed for that point of view and there are reservations expressed for that sympathy. It is enormously complex, rich, and dramatic piece of work.”

This is all the more fascinating coming from a self-described secular Jew and agnostic.  David Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has published widely across multiple academic disciplines.  Wikipedia has more...   Note also his book, The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays. 

On the subject of Darwinism and evolution, it's a good idea to regularly consult Evolution News and Views, something I need to do myself.

Blogger "Wintery Knight" has a great many posts on evolution worth perusing.

ROBIN COLLINS ON THE FINE TUNING OF THE UNIVERSE

Wintery Knight offers an outstanding post on the work of Robin Collins, professor of philosophy at Messiah College and a specialist in the interface of religion and science.  The post abounds with helpful excerpts and links.  The "fine tuning," incidentally, includes three aspects: the fine-tuning of the laws of nature, the fine-tuning of the constants of physics, and the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe.

DOES SCIENCE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT THE "EXODUS" AND THE PARTING OF THE RED SEA?

First, the Biblical text, Exodus 14:21,22:

"Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the LORD drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.  (22)  And the people of Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry ground, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left." (English Standard Version)

Has science any thing to say?  Enter Carl Drews and a story about his research at the National Center for Atmospheric Research by Anna Maria-Basquez, "Boulder scientist's research affirms parting of the Red Sea"  (Via VirtueOnline).   (Click to the end of this post for two YouTube demonstrations and further elaboration.)

"From his office in Boulder, scientist Carl Drews, having never been there, can—with Google Earth Pro imaging on his computer—pinpoint the location his research points to as the new theorized location of the Biblical miracle of the Crossing of the Red Sea.

The technology can zoom in on the place in Egypt where Moses and the Israelites escaped death when waters parted, according to the Book of Exodus. His virtual “pushpin” comes back with images of what is now predominately agricultural land, with orchards, irrigation canals and grape fields indicating vineyards. 

It is in the Eastern Nile Delta, between Pelusium and Qantara, and 75 miles north of the most popular theorized place in Egypt, which has been the Suez Canal.  And it’s travelable by foot.

“One of the places right in the middle of the crossing shows what looks like a hotel and some type of building,” said Drews, a member of Epiphany Anglican Fellowship in Boulder, a congregation under the umbrella of the Anglican Mission of the Americas out of Rwanda. “It would be fun to knock on their door and to say in Arabic, ‘Do you know that Moses walked right by here.’ It would probably elicit a form of disbelief. But perhaps people would say, ‘Well, maybe...’”

His own research elicited all but disbelief. In fact, it made the miracle ever more real, said the researcher who claimed to have always been enchanted by the miracle in the Book of Exodus.

“For anyone who always believed this happened, somehow it’s still a thrill to see it supported by scientific finding,” Drews said.

SELECT POSTS FROM WINTERY KNIGHT BLOG

I have some catching up to do with what Wintery Knight has been up to.   Following is a selection.  All are worth "clicking through" to read:

-  How good are the arguments in the new book by Richard Dawkins?

-  Skincare company uses aborted fetal tissue in anti-aging cream

-  American Library Association silent as librairies ban books about ex-gays

- UK Woman gets police visit after writing letter protesting gay pride parade (Must read)

- Hindu/Christian debate on anti-conversion law in India

- New books of interest to Christian apologists

         Update:  One of the books listed is Dr. Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell about which Charles Colson has important things to say.  Dr. Douglas Groothuis, for his part, rhapsodizes:

The book is no less than magisterial, an adjective that curmudgeons such as myself seldom use. At every level--philosophical, scientific, historical and literary--it is a superb treatise.    Reading every word of its 508 pages of text (not counting end notes)--as I did--repays the reader greatly.

FAITH & EVOLUTION

I came across a new website (new to me at least) named Faith & Evolution which looks quite terrific.  Rather than clobber with polemics, it offers reasoned articles, videos, and resources (plus calm and detailed responses to antagonists) making it something of a "first stop" for anyone investigating and entering the current discussion on evolution and Intelligent Design. The site was developed by the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute.  

A lead article begins:

Francis Collins [author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (2006)] feels that intelligent design poses a serious problem to Christian belief because it rejects Darwinian evolution, which he feels is supported by overwhelming evidence. But the only evidence Collins cites for Darwin’s mechanism of variation and selection is microevolution—minor changes within existing species. And the principal evidence he cites for Darwin’s claim of common ancestry is DNA sequences that he says have no function—though genome researchers are discovering that many of them do have functions.

Collins’s defense of Darwinian theory turns out to be largely an argument from ignorance that  must retreat as we learn more about the genome—in effect, a Darwin of the gaps .    [more...]

** Blogger Wintery Knight put up a post today titled, "Does the new Ida fossil prove evolution? and wrote,

Whenever you have questions about evolution and culture, there is only one blog that you really need to read, and that’s Denyse O’Leary’s Post-Darwinist. She has written no less than THREE stories on the Ida fossil, so let’s take a look at see what she’s found.   [Read on . . .]

DINESH D'SOUZA - "WHY WE NEED EARTHQUAKES"

- UPDATE:  Welcome readers from Wintery Knight Blog!  Thanks for the link!  To learn more about myself and this blog's viewpoint, click here.

-Drawing on the book Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe  by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, D'Souza's explains:    

While natural disasters occasionally wreak havoc, our planet needs plate tectonics to produce the biodiversity that enables complex life to flourish on earth. Without plate tectonics, earth's land would be submerged to a depth of several thousand feet. Fish might survive in such an environment, but not humans.

Plate tectonics also help regulate the earth's climate, preventing the onset of scorching or freezing temperatures that would make mammalian life impossible. In sum, plate tectonics are a necessary prerequisite to human survival on the only planet known to sustain life.    [Read on for more . . .]

Note also:  David H. Rogstad, of "Reasons to Believe," offers yet another benefit for life from  earthquakes.  More articles here.

WHO DESIGNED THE DESIGNER? DOUG GROOTHUIS RESPONDS TO RICHARD DAWKINS

Douglas Groothuis, aka "the Constructive Curmudgeon" and Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary writes:

My paper in "Think: Philosophy for Everyone" (a publication of The Royal Institute for Philosophy) is now on line (Spring, 2009 edition, pages 71-81). It is a secular journal, which encourages creative forms for doing philosophy that will reach past the purely academic world. That doesn't mean it is dumbed down. Some very prestigious contributors have been featured. For my paper, I designed a discussion between a Christian, an agnostic, and an atheist partial to Richard Dawkins. (In 2004, I published a paper in Think that featured a posthumous report from Pascal about the errors made in a Think paper criticizing his wager argument.) 

Some days later Groothuis posted  the following:

 John Loftus, host of Debunking Christianity and author of Why I Became an Atheist, kindly asked me if I wished to submit an essay to his blog. I chose a short and fairly popular piece first published at True U called, "Understanding the New Atheism: the Straw God." His fellow atheists have weighed in immediately with more posts that I have time to respond to. So, I encourage some of you apologists to read their responses and to respond in turn: politely and smartly.

REVIEW OF PETER HARRISON, "THE FALL OF MAN AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE"

Douglas Groothuis notes that Jedd McFatter has written a fine review of Peter Harrison, The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 313 pages with index. £50.00, hardback. Groothuis says, "This sheds much light on the history and historiography of modern science and challenges some secular assumptions."

Me:  I read the review and found it fascinating.  It makes me want to go and see if there is any correlation with Rodney Stark's treatment in For the Glory of God.  I suspect that Harrison's book plows new ground.

IS THERE A BIOLOGICAL BASIS FOR RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE? (ANDREW NEWBERG)

Michael Gerson brings us up to speed on research experiments. 

. . . It is typical work for Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine -- perhaps the nation's leading expert on the biological basis for religious experience. More exotic subjects of his brain scans have been nuns at prayer, Buddhist monks during meditation, Pentecostals speaking in tongues and entranced Brazilian mystics who write out messages from the other side.

These subjects have little in common theologically. But the activity of the brain during intense religious experiences is often (though not always) similar. The frontal lobes are activated, indicating attention and focus. The thalamus shuts down normal sensory input. And the parietal lobes -- which ground us in time and space -- are less active. In this state, people describe a sense of timelessness, a suspension of self, a feeling of bliss and oneness with the universe.

Keep reading... 

REMEMBERING SIR JOHN TEMPLETON, DEAD AT 95

- Update - 7/18/08 - Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson of Grove City College surveys the principles that guided Templeton's personal life and career.

-What a remarkable man.  He used his money to pursue research in the interface of science and religion. Click here for a good overview of the man and his life.  The Family Research Council published the following:

The adage says that an institution is the lengthening shadow of a man, but in the case of John Templeton, who died yesterday at the age of 95, the lengthening shadow is the answer his life gave to the biggest of questions. As the founder of the Templeton Prize, he combined his lifetime of financial acumen and personal generosity in an effort to ensure that accomplishments in advancing spiritual knowledge would receive the kind of worldwide recognition accorded to advances in medicine, science, peacemaking and other arts through such vehicles as the Nobel Prize. More specifically, he devoted energy and

BEN STEIN'S "EXPELLED": A MUST-SEE MOVIE (With an additional note on Hitler and Darwinism)

Update 5/6/08 - I have a new post today, David Berlinski Defends the Movie "Expelled"

Update 4/20/08 (later) - Tim over at Random Observations overs an invaluable survey of media reviews which can only be described as "ranting and hysterical".  Tim offers judicious and appropriate responses.  I recommend you click through to read his post.

Update 4/20/08 - The movie is generating a lot of controversy, as expected.  Brent Bozell had the same reaction I did.  He went into the movie bored and came out stunned. Dinesh D'Souza has an AOL article focusing on Richard Dawkins' idea that the origin of life on earth may have been the result of a visit from highly-evolved aliens.  Chuck Colson dispels a number of myths about the movie.  Marvin Olasky's review in World Magazine substantiates the Nazi reliance on evolutionary theory to undergird the holocaust.  Another article examines "Michael Shermer's 'fact-free' attack on Expelled."  Many of these articles can be found on the Discovery Institute website and doubtless many more will be posted there as the controversy continues.  On the other side of the argument,"The National Council for Science Education has opened a website as a rebuttal to the movie.   

- I went to see Ben Stein's movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed  last night (opening night).  It completely exceeded my expectations.  The juxtaposition  of modern visuals and interviews with background historical movies and other images (complete with touches of humor), will hold the attention of both youngsters as well as adults.  Outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins becomes a ridiculous figure in the final interview.

David Klinghoffer has an excellent article showing that Expelled's claim that Darwinism was a crucial part of Nazi ideology is based on impeccable scholarship.  Klinghoffer writes:

J.P. Moreland on Genesis and the Age of the Earth

Moreland here responds in a Q & A session to the objection that if one interprets Genesis to allow for long periods of time associated with the "six days," such a handling of Scripture would logically lead to reinterpreting and denying the virgin birth, the resurrection, and other Biblical doctrines.  Moreland's response helps allay such fears and concerns.  (Moreland's response is but a brief response to a particular question.  The debate is much broader and deeper, of course.)

Update: 4/20/08 - I see that Ken Ham, Carl Wieland, and Terry Mortenson of Answers in Genesis have jointly posted a lengthy response. 

SCIENCE ON THE BRINK OF FINDING THE "GOD PARTICLE"...

So says a Matt Drudge headline.  Story here .

Interesting Books I Bumped Into On the Internet Today (Without Trying)

Here are two on science, atheism, and faith:

Antony Flew - There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist changed His Mind - "British philosopher Flew has long been something of an evangelist for atheism, debating theologians and pastors in front of enormous crowds. In 2004, breathless news reports announced that the nonagenarian had changed his mind. This book tells why. Ironically, his arguments about the absurdity of God-talk launched a revival of philosophical theists, some of whom, like Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne, were important in Flew's recent conversion to theism. Breakthroughs in science, especially cosmology, also played a part. . ."

David Robertson - The Dawkins Letters - Tim Challies reviews it saying: The Dawkins Letters, then, is a series of letters from Robertson to Dawkins--a series of ten letters that call Dawkins to account for the errors and inaccuracies within his book. It also responds to his arguments--both his novel new ones and the tired rehashed ones common to a whole generation of atheists. Generally speaking, Robertson does a superior job of doing this. . .

Secularist Europe Silences Pro-Lifers and Creationists

Paul Belian of the Brussels Journal files the following report.  In your reading, I encourage you to click through to an embedded link,  "Europe's Culture War: Secularism on the March.

Last week, a German court sentenced a 55-year old Lutheran pastor to one year in jail for “Volksverhetzung” (incitement of the people) because he compared the killing of the unborn in contemporary Germany to the holocaust. Next week, the Council of Europe is going to vote on a resolution imposing Darwinism as Europe’s official ideology. The European governments are asked to fight the expression of creationist opinions, such as young earth and intelligent design theories. According to the Council of Europe these theories are “undemocratic” and “a threat to human rights.”

Without legalized abortion the number of German children would increase annually by at least 150,000 – which is the number of legal abortions in birth dearth Germany. Pastor Johannes Lerle compared the killing of the unborn to the killing of the Jews in Auschwitz during the Second World War. On 14 June, a court in Erlangen ruled that, in doing so, the pastor had “incited the people” because his statement was a denial of the holocaust of the Jews in Nazi-Germany. Hence, Herr Lerle was sentenced to one year in jail. Earlier, he had already spent eight months in jail for calling abortionists “professional killers” – an allegation which the court ruled to be slanderous because, according to the court, the unborn are not humans.  .  . .

"Volksverhetzung" is a crime which the Nazis often invoked against their enemies and which contemporary Germany also uses to intimidate homeschoolers. Soon, the German authorities will be able to use the same charge against people who question Darwin’s evolution theory.

Indeed, next Tuesday, the Council of Europe (CoE), Europe’s main human-rights body, will vote on a proposal which advocates the fight against creationism, “young earth” and “intelligent design” in its 47 member states.

According to a report of the CoE’s Parliamentary Assembly, creationists are dangerous “religious fundamentalists” who propagate “forms of religious extremism” and “could become a threat to human rights.” The report adds that the acceptance of the science of evolutionism “is crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies.”

Sam Brownback: "What I Think About Evolution"

Brownback's position seems eminently sensible to me.  Click here.

WATER ON MARS SIGNIFICANT?

The Reasons to Believe website offers a perspective.

DOVER CASE AGAINST INTELLIGENT DESIGN: JUDGE COPIED ACLU BRIEFS. NO INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS!

Art Moore reports on the findings:

A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by ACLU lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute.

One year ago, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones' 139-page ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover declared unconstitutional a school board policy that required students of a ninth-grade biology class in the Dover Area School District to hear a one-minute statement that said evolution is a theory and intelligent design "is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view."

RECENT TV DEBATE ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN VS. EVOLUTION

Carol Ionone watched Ben Wattenburg's PBS's Think Tank program on Intelligent Design vs. Evolution   (Oct. 12, 2006) and wrote the following.

Ben Wattenberg's "Think Tank"  had on Stephen Meyer from the Discovery Institute and Darwinian Michael Ruse from Florida State University to discuss Intelligent Design. Ruse kept denying that ID was science, calling it religion or philosophy instead. We are familiar with this refrain. But he offered no specifics. I hold no brief for ID, but why isn’t it scientific to say, as IDers do, that certain biological mechanisms are irreducibly complex (i.e., inexplicable by random mutation and natural selection)? Why aren't the probability models that show that the components of life would take a trillion times the age of the earth to evolve by chance, why aren't they science? Well, the discussion continues next week, so perhaps it will get more specific. But one important thing, Meyer said that IDers are not asking that ID be taught whole in science classes (that was an unfortunate, not to say disastrous, misstep on the part of the Dover, Pennsylvania school board). Meyer said the idea is that Darwin be taught along with the criticisms of Darwin. That sounds reasonable. What's wrong with that? For example, first tell students that Darwin hypothesized that it all comes from chance, and then give them some of the models showing the probability of certain life substances evolving by chance. (And then, for fun, tell them to read Ann Coulter's hilarious section on evolution in "Godless.") 

Once again, the full transcript is here.

On an earlier post  I referred to  a 2005 video featuring Dr. Loren Haarsma speaking on Is Intelligent Design "Scientific"?   His lecture handout has also been made available. Haarsma distinguishes and comments on three aspects of Intelligent Design -- the scientific, the philosophical and the religious.  Helpful.

In a still earlier post, I wrote the following:

On the current debate concerning Intelligent Design, a sure-footed guide can be found in Nancy Pearcey.   Her book Total Truth, has a major section laying out the case for Intelligent Design.   She has stayed on top of the discussion and has written an article that takes account of the criticisms leveled by people such as George Will, Charles Krauthammer and others.   In this article she offers five reasons why intelligent design will win in the end.  Also worth checking out is her article, "Christianity Is a Science-Starter, Not a Science-Stopper".   She previously wrote one of the clearest introductions to science I have ever read, The Soul of Science plus she co-wrote with Chuck Colson How Now Shall We Live?  She and her husband have an important website, The Pearcey Report,  which gathers news and offers commentary.   

EVOLUTION - PROBLEMS WITH THE BIRD-DINOSAUR THEORY FOR THE ORIGIN OF BIRDS

Fazale Rana of Hugh Ross' Reasons to Believe organization,  wrote a fine brief article  on the problems of transitional forms in the fossil record.   Rana says that it is common for evolutionary biologists to "point to 'feathered' dinosaur fossils, interpreted as transitional intermediates between birds and theropod dinosaurs (like the raptors in the movie,  Jurassic Park.")    He goes on to say:

The bird-dinosaur theory for the origin of birds has become "orthodoxy" among evolutionary biologists.  Based on morphological (anatomical, physical) similarities between birds and theropods, a majority of evolutionary biologists conclude that birds evolved from these bipedal dinosaurs.   In this scenario transitional forms between theropods and birds should be uncovered in the fossil record.   A few years ago, the discovery of certain theropods (dated at about 125 million years in age) in the Yixian Formation of China's Liaoning province seemed to satisfy this key prediction.   These fossils possess structures that have been interpreted as feathers by some paleontologists, making them candidates for transitional intermediates between dinosaurs and birds.

However, new work by an international team of paleontologists challenges this standard evolutionary assertion.⁴ Detailed analysis of a new fossil specimen of Psittacosaurus, a dinosaur thought to have no place in bird ancestry, indicates that the features interpreted as theropod feathers are actually frayed integument (skin).    Researchers also amassed additional evidence that severs the evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs.   For example, they demonstrated that the foot-and-toe structures of birds and theropods are fundamentally different even though superficially they appear to be similar.    The team also showed that all the "feathered" dinosaur transitional forms occur in the fossil record 30 million years after the appearance of the first true birds. Plus, some of the "feathered" dinosaurs, such as Caudipteryx, are not dinosaurs at all-rather, they're flightless birds.

According to Alan Feduccia, the paleontologist who led the research team that investigated Psittacosaurus, constant promotion of the bird-dinosaur theory in National Geographic, Nature, and Science creates a false sense of confidence about how birds originated.⁵ In the midst of this publicity, the study conducted by Feduccia's team raises serious questions about the validity of the most widely held evolutionary explanation for bird origins. Feduccia says that "[t]he theory that birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurs were feathered is so full of holes that creationists have jumped all over it, using the evolutionary nonsense of 'dinosaurian science' as evidence against the theory of evolution."⁶

Check the article to check out the footnotes.

Mathematician John D. Barrow wins the Templeton Prize

On March 15th, Professor John D. Barrow of Cambridge was named the winner of this year’s Templeton Prize. The prize is awarded for “progress towards research or discoveries about spiritual realities.”  Barrow is famous for his work on the "Anthropic Principle."

"Simply stated, the Anthropic Principle is an account of the “seemingly incredible coincidences that allow for our presence” in the Universe. The existence of carbon-based life, which is what humans are, is dependent on a series of independent variables, what Astronomer Royal Martin Rees calls “just six numbers.” These include “the particular energy state of the electron to the exact level of the weak nuclear force,” to name but two.

If any of these values were off by even an infinitesimal amount, carbon-based life like us would be impossible—so would science, which is the act of observing nature. Barrows argues that the universe that “emerged out of the big bang . . . was already governed by laws that were fine-tuned to encourage the rise of carbon-based life forms.”

This is what prompted Freeman Dyson, “the best physicist never to win a Nobel Prize,” to say that “it appears that the universe knew we were coming.”

Not surprisingly, this kind of talk makes today’s evolutionary establishment—orthodox materialists, after all—nervous because it suggests that perhaps blind chance and purposelessness don’t govern the cosmos. This prompted evolutionists to look for an alternative to the Anthropic Principle, one that would keep intelligence and purpose out of the picture.

Charles Colson's Breakpoint article, from which the above quotes were taken, needs to be read in full.  It's excellent.  See especially the links at the end of Colson's article.

A GOLDMINE FOR CHRISTIANS (AND OTHERS) INTERESTED IN SCIENCE & FAITH

I was delighted to discover today (stumbled on it, actually) that the American Scientific Affiliation, an organization of Christians working in the sciences, has posted on the internet articles from their publication going back for years. The publication --  Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation (which later changed its name to Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith) --  contains a wealth of material. It’s a fantastic goldmine. (I was a subscriber for many years.) The ASA also has a section on their website for youth who are interested in matters of science and faith.

Of particular note is a 2005 video featuring Dr. Loren Haarsma speaking on Is Intelligent Design "Scientific"?   His lecture handout has also been made available. Haarsma distinguishes and comments on three aspects of Intelligent Design -- the scientific, the philosophical and the religious.  Helpful.

The ASA serves as a forum for differing views set within a broad doctrinal commitment.    Its membership holds a variety of viewpoints on issues that have been controversial among Christians.

EVANGELICALS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Ian Murray of National Review Online is a disappointed man.  He writes:

The Evangelical Climate Initiative today issued a brief report entitled “Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action.” It calls for Evangelical Christians to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and is signed by 86 evangelical leaders. Sadly, these good men and women have allowed their itching ears to listen to fables. Their claims are based on half-truths and unsound logic.

I found Murray's discussion and critique of the supposed evidence enlightening and persuasive.  I lament that these good men and women put their signatures to this document.

According to a New York Times news article, some evangelical leaders were opposed to the initiative.   

"Twenty-two of them signed a letter in January declaring, "Global warming is not a consensus issue." Among the signers were Charles W. Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries; James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; and Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention."

E. Calvin Beisner, associate professor of historical theology at Knox Theological Seminary in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., helped organize the opposition into a group called the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance. He said Tuesday that "the science is not settled" on whether global warming was actually a problem or even that human beings were causing it. And he said that the solutions advocated by global warming opponents would only cause the cost of energy to rise, with the burden falling most heavily on the poor.

UPDATE: 2/15/06  - Charles Colson offers his response in a Breakpoint article.

A Thinking Scientist Broods on Intelligent Design

I thought this a decent, straightforward guest editorial on the natural persuasiveness of Intelligent Design.

UPDATE  2/21/06 - Here's a writer who objects to the previous writer using the Second Law of Thermodynamics as an argument against evolution.  Most letters to the editor also criticize the argument. 

UPDATE  3/8/06 - Ron Mitchell, the original writer, answers his critics persuasively. 

The problem with most of the arguments that were made in AC-T recently, countering my little faux discussion between intelligent design and science is that they refuted an argument that I never made.

Pretty easy to win an argument that way, as most politicians know. Let me explain.

Their argument is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLOT) applies only in a closed system, and, as such, would not be applicable when considering the formation and evolution of planet earth, since earth is, in fact, acted on by outside forces and is, therefore, not a closed system.

I agree. But my argument was not for planet earth, but for the entire universe, as I stated in the very first sentence of my piece, and that is a closed system where SLOT indeed does apply. That’s Physics 101.

I also referred to this closed system when, further down, I used the phrase “when left to themselves,” referring to things effected by SLOT.

I put it that way to make it more clear to readers who might not know what “closed system” means. So, hey, fellas, argue fairly, and only with statements that I actually made, OK?

And regarding the big bang, the First Law of Thermodynamics clearly states that you can’t get something from nothing, and that’s exactly what happened in the big bang. That’s also Physics 101, and you can’t spin your way out it, PhD or not.

Regarding Darwinian evolution, let’s deal with the incredible coincidences of random (read “chance” or “pure accident”) mutation that would have to have taken place just to bring the simple honeybee into being.

Fact is, it’s not so simple. There are dozens and dozens (the exact number probably isn’t even known) of specialized modifications that it must have in order to take care of its business of making honey, which means sustaining the species.

Without any one of them, it couldn’t conduct its business, and there would be no line of honeybees. And all of these specialized mutations would have had to come into play at the same time, or it would have to find something else to do for a living.

What are the odds of that coincidence happening? If you have faith enough to buy that that just happened to have come about by pure chance, enjoy yourself. I don’t.