I have posted previously on The Ultimate Apologetics MP3 Audio Page by Apologetics.com and frankly, nothing can top that as a general resource for all things both audible and apologetic. But when we zoom in and have a closer look at some of those resources in more detail, we find little gems like Premier Christian Radio’s Unbelievable? podcast. [no, the question mark is not a typo]

Relatively unique in its style among many of the podcasts I have heard, host Justin Brierly (pictured), expertly moderates, what can be at times, a dramatic discussion, on a vast range range of hot topics concerning theists and atheists alike.

I knew I had discovered something special having listened to only one show; a  lively discussion on Intelligent Design and Evolution. I was to learn later that the program won a Gold Medal at the New York Festival Awards.

Justin Brierley, produced and presented the award winning show on evolution that features atheist Pete Hearty of the National Secular Society defending the theory of Evolution, while Peter Williams of the Damaris Trust argues for Intelligent Design.

“We chose this particular debate because it is timely.” Brierley said. “There are a number of court cases in the USA discussing what public schools should be teaching regarding evolution and similar heat is now being generated in the UK over schools that have included Intelligent Design on their syllabus.”

The evolution episode of Unbelievable has secured the programme it’s first award, within a year of going to broadcast.

Obviously thrilled, Brierley said, “For us to win an award so early on in the life of the show is wonderful, but for it to be a gold world medal at the New York Festival Awards is astounding.”

The Chief Executive of Premier Christian Radio, Peter Kerridge, said of the show, “Unbelievable is like nothing else on Premier.” Well, not only is it unlike anything on Premier Christian Radio, I haven’t heard anything quite like it anywhere. And I say that as someone who listens to a number of different podcasts, from Greg Koukl’s Stand to Reason radio show to the thought-provoking Apologetics.com broadcast. Those have their niche and I think Unbelievable? have theirs. It certainly is a rare type of show.

Closer to home (my home, that is) fellow Aussie blogger, Stephen Cracknell, wrote a great article that captures the unique mood and style of the show, in words that I’m sure I would’ve used, if only I had written them first. And so I hope he doesn’t mind me closing by quoting him at length.

Just recently a few of us lads headed off to the Katoomba Men’s Convention – a long way from the Mid-North Coast (Coffs Harbour) but, hey, it was worth it.

On the way back home, my son Sam, plugged his iPod into the car’s speaker system and we all settled back (apart from the driver!) to listen to a discussion between a Christian and a non-Christian.

We were stunned! We were impressed! We were focussed!

The actual podcast we listened to was a somewhat tense discussion (at times) between Peter Hitchens (anti-theist Christopher Hitchen’s brother) and Adam Rutherford (atheist and editor of the science journal ‘Nature’).

Christian v non-Christian!

And that, essentially, is what Premier Christian Radio’s ‘Unbelievable?’ is about – provoking discussions between Christians and non-Christians.

…

Occasionally there is the Christian who gets grilled by a number of atheists (‘Grill a Christian’) and sometimes 2 Christians discuss their differences (e.g. is the King James Version the ‘best’ available English translation?).

But mostly, the very likeable Justin Brierley invites prominent Christians (e.g. William Lane Craig, James White, Os Guinness) to debate prominent non-Christians (e.g. John Hick, Dan Barker, Paul Davies).

Justin has that very healthy skill of knowing when to allow discussion (and passion) flow but also knowing when to include his thoughts and questions into the ‘debate’. He’s an intelligent guy, with sensitivity. These qualities help shape “Unbelievable?” as a really valuable podcast.

…

‘Unbelievable?’, I believe (couldn’t resist it!) is essential apologetics podcast listening – I really like it, my friends really like it and I’m sure you would too!

Why? Because there is nothing to hide behind!

‘Experts’ present their views but then must be prepared to defend them, publicly, – how good is that!

My References & Notes:

http://www.apologetics315.com/
http://www.premier.org.uk/
http://www.christianfaith.com.au/

Note: The show does also discuss/debate some topics within the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy. For example, as Stephen mentioned, “Is the King James Version the Best?” And another recent discussion that I found very interesting featured opposing views on how we should support Gay Christians. Titled “Ex-Gay and Gay-Affirming approaches to homosexuality – Two different approaches to supporting gay Christians”  with Jonathan Berry & Jeremy Marks.

The heart of this post, I hope, can be summarily found in a statement by James Emery White. “What decisively marks a Christian mind is that it is informed by revelation … and then proceeds to think in light of that revelation.” – White, J.E., Serious Times, (Inter Varsity Press, 2004), p.104

With that said I just want to make it clear that my main goal in this post is to demonstrate the natural consequences of biblical compromise. So while I do make many statements against an evolutionary worldview, my intention is simply to highlight the compromise position of the piece for Christian readers – being that it is allegedly written from a Christian’s perspective – and not to engage in great detail on the finite details of the evolutionary worldview. Therefore I do not intend to allow (or argue against) conclusions drawn by non-Christians, who do not accept such authority in the first place and have their own a priori materialistic paradigms and philosophies that will not, by definition, permit some of the conclusions I have made.^[1] Those discussions belong in a separate area.

The article (written a few years ago now) by Peter Sellick is titled “Intelligent Design – Damaging Good Science and Good Theology” – Friday, 9 September 2005. But it does represent a growing view among some evangelical Christians. For example, the recent book by Denis Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? 

I have not dealt with every comment in Sellick’s article because it’s just too long. But I think I have captured and responded to the main points.

According to the On Line Opinion webpage, Peter Sellick is currently an Anglican deacon working in Perth (Western Australia) with a background in the biological sciences. This, I am sure, makes him far more qualified than I to speak on theology or science, but I humbly offer this criticism as one who cares about the truth of Scripture.

The idea of intelligent design is that the universe, particularly the life contained therein, is too complex to have happened by chance as the theory of evolution would have it.

A more complete representation of Intelligent Design (ID) would also mention the observation of what appears to be irreducibly complex systems and specified information with those systems.

Therefore its sole basis lies in a negative:

Keep in mind that this claim is right at the beginning of Sellick’s article and he immediately poisons the well. To the contrary, as many in the ID movement have pointed out, it is not some fall-back position that people cling to because they’re blinded to the wisdom of an evolutionary worldview. It is based on a positive: an innate ability to discern design in our world. It is supported by a historical knowledge of cause and effect, acknowledging that it is most reasonable to think that the source of information and complexity contained in living systems is due to the actions of an intelligent agent. This is a completely reasonable premise upon which ID can stand. It certainly does not lie ‘in a negative’.

On the other hand, evolution by natural selection (which Sellick seems to support) is a dysteleological process seen to act on systems already possessing the information and complexity that it is claimed to have produced, and therefore provides no reasonable basis to explain the origin of these systems in the first place.

the failure to imagine how natural selection could arrive at the complexity of life we see all around us.

Imagination isn’t the problem. Rationality is. Put simply, many people think it is more reasonable that complex information-bearing systems are the product of intelligence rather than the result of random mindless forces. If observation counts for anything in science, natural selection is extremely limited in what it can achieve. (See for example Michael Behe’s The Edge of Evolution). It simply acts on pre-existing complex systems. It cannot create them or add information to them. In fact, it is the contention of ID-ists like Phillip Johnson that natural selection has no demonstrable creative power at all.

“Darwinian theory insists that natural selection is a creative force of immense power … We have already seen that the hypothesis of creative natural selection lacks experimental support” [chapters 2 and 3] “and that it is disconfirmed by the fossil record. The molecular evidence adds further doubt … The hypothesis that natural selection has the degree of creative power required by Darwinist theory remains unsupported by empirical evidence … [But] Darwinist know that the mutation-selection mechanism can produce wings, eyes, and brains not because the mechanism can be observed to do anything of the kind, but because their guiding philosophy assures them that no other power is available to do the job. The absence from the cosmos of any Creator is therefore the essential starting point for Darwinism.” – Johnson, P.E., Darwin On Trial, (Inter Varsity Press 1993, 2nd edition), p. 95, 98, 117.

Read the rest of this entry

Have you ever seen the movie Weekend at Bernie’s, where the corpse of the recently murdered Bernie Lomax is paraded around town by two of his employees who are desperate to convince everyone that he’s alive?

Similarly, despite being presented as the best (the only) explanation for just about anything – from homology to morality; from origins to oration; from lifeless mindless chemicals to living thinking reasoning beings – some have likened evolution to a corpse being paraded around as if alive. For example, there is an apparent pattern of reporting in the secularised mainstream media (MSM) that builds up this facade by trumpeting the latest evolutionary interpretation, while remaining silent as it falls from grace (e.g. see the development on Tiktaalik below). Each new story then, has a cumulative affect, giving the impression that Neo-Darwinian evolution is being constantly validated.

In quite dissimilar fashion, every December, the Access Research Network^[1] publish a relatively unique list that summarises their top ten science news stories that have impacted the development of evolutionary and/or intelligent design perspectives on science. Or to be more specific, it highlights the many ways in which an intelligent design perspective is continuing to have increasingly more explanatory power in the investigation of “natural” systems, while underscoring the epic failure of the evolutionary paradigm to do likewise.

Honourable mentions on the list (those that didn’t make the top ten) include:

(1) The death of the “Primordial Soup” theory for the origin of life. (2) Recent genetic research indicating that chimps are more distant from humans than popularly argued by evolutionary proponents. (3) Evidence suggesting that Neanderthals were in fact fully human, having interbred with them. (4) Automatic turnstiles in cell membranes that expel up to 1500 molecules of toxins from the cell per minute.

Read the rest of this entry

In a 2010 interview with Casey Luskin from the Discovery Institute, expelled professor Caroline Crocker provides a snapshot of the war between Intelligent Design and Evolution proponents, citing some fairly blunt comments by Dr. Larry Moran – a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto.

Luskin: “Are there really students out there who have good reasons to be afraid about coming out of the closet that they’re pro-ID, or – as a cynical ID skeptic might say – is this just paranoia being spread, and there’s really no reason for these students to be afraid?”

Crocker: “…This is what [Moran] says about students – ‘Flunk the idiots. Forty percent of the freshman class at UCSD reject Darwinism. The university has become alarmed and has offered remedial instruction for those who believe in ID. UCSD should never have admitted them in the first place. Just flunk the lot of them.’^[1] Well, do students have a reason to keep their views quiet? I would say, yes.”

Especially if they find themselves studying under the likes of Professor Moran or anybody of his ilk, because under such circumstances it’s not enough that students demonstrate an understanding of evolution. They must accept it – with all their heart, mind, soul and strength – as their working paradigm for discovering true scientific facts.

Moran writes in a 2007 blog article:

“… it is still quite remarkable that some significant percentage of fundamentalist Protestants can go to college and still reject the basic scientific fact that humans evolved. … It’s not good enough to just be able to mouth the “acceptable” version of the truth that the Professor wants. You actually have to open your mind to the possibility that science is correct and get an education.”

He laments though, “How do you distinguish between a good Christian who is lying for Jesus and one who has actually come to understand science? It seems really unfair to flunk the honest students who admit that they still reject science and pass the dishonest ones who hide their true beliefs.” Being a good Christian and understanding science are mutually exclusive, apparently?

But if students have to believe rather than understand a scientific theory, then science has become a religion. According to the radical Darwinists, a scientist could have a PhD, earn international honours in science, publish hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals, and save millions of lives, and yet, if a Darwin doubter, could be judged scientifically illiterate.^[2]

Dr. Moran agrees – “If they are undergraduates who don’t understand that evolution is a scientific fact, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, then they flunk the course. If they are graduate students in a science department, then they don’t get a Ph.D. If they are untenured faculty members in a science department, then they don’t get tenure.” ^{[3, 4]}

And so the war continues…

References & Notes:

1. As far as I could tell, the primary source for Crocker’s information is a blog entry by Moran in 2006, where the delightful expression “IDiots” can be found. The expression has since been used by some ID supporters to identify people who continue to conflate the Creationist movement with the ID movement in their writings. Moran, for example, often uses the expression “Intelligent Design Creationists.” Hence, some may consider him an “IDiot” for failing to make the appropriate distinction between Intelligent Design and Creationism.
2. This is a quote from a previous article about the inherent religious aspects of science, as held by certain evolutionary zealots.
3. Note here that by “understand”, Moran means “accept”. Students must accept that evolution is a fact, not merely be able to regurgitate their notes, give alleged examples and cite authorities for support.
4. http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/04/michael-egnor-gets-it-right.html

May 15, 2010 — Two teams have succeeded in building little robots that work on DNA tracks.  These resemble in many respects the machines that cells use to perform its functions on DNA.  No one denies that humans engineered their nanobots on purpose, but Darwinist scientists claim natural cellular machines evolved without purpose or design. What’s the difference?

…

So if we do it, it’s intelligent design, but if nature does it, it’s blind evolution? You realize, of course, that the natural machines in cells are far ahead of us: they are not only autonomous, but attain very complex behaviors that are programmed into their molecular systems. Not only that, they belong to complexes of molecular machines, which belong to networks of signal processing systems, that boggle the mind – and they belong to entire systems that have a coded library, and can reproduce all their parts! Why should not scientists find it “inspiring to see such creativity” of “autonomous molecular systems that can execute complex actions” and ascribe it to design? Molecular biology should be filled with God-fearing, worshiping, praise-singing scientists shouting Hallelujah! What we get instead are man-fearing, fault-finding, hate-mongering ingrates shouting Pal-Ayala.

This is the continuation of my survey of Issue #4 of SALVO Magazine, as it relates to creationism. If you missed part one it might be worth your while to familiarize yourself with the first post before continuing, as I will dispel with the background already covered in part one and get straight back into it.

There is a small section refuting three main accusations against the Intelligent Design movement called What ID is NOT (p.36). Under the sub-heading of ID is Creationism is the following response:

“You’ve no doubt heard this one numerous times. In reality, this is flat-out false. The average creationist believes in a young earth, biblical literalism, and the complete absence of evidence for evolutionary processes. The ID proponent, on the other hand, rejects – or at the very least suspends speculation on – all three of these convictions, maintaining only that there are reasons to conclude that life was designed; how it was designed or by whom lie beyond the ID theorist’s field of inquiry.”

Creationists’ Clarification:

In reality, it is this characterization that is flat-out false! While it is important to distinguish between creationism and ID, the more I read this issue the more I began to wonder if they had gone out of their usual way to build a subtle case against the reasonableness of creationism. In fact throughout the entire 96 pages, I have struggled to find a single positive comment about it and just about every attempt to define it is false on some level. The only thing missing from this caricature on page 36 is that the average creationist is a flat-earther! That certainly would’ve helped to drive the wedge deeper between the two positions… but of course, that would be misleading. Three main points to make here:

1. It’s true, ID is not Creationism and the average creationist may indeed believe in a young earth. But;
2. As pointed out earlier (see part one) creationists are not biblical literalists. To suggest otherwise is sloppy, and grossly misrepresents the position that YECs actually hold.
3. To say that YECs believe in a “…complete absence of evidence for evolutionary processes”, really depends on how you define an evolutionary process. For example, mutations and natural selection are part of the supposed evolutionary process and yet creationists accept both of them.^[1] Why wouldn’t they? These are observable phenomena, otherwise known as real science! Instead they reject the notion that these processes are evidence for the evolutionary worldview depicted in the typical monophyletic Darwinian tree. Creationists hold this view for two main reasons: 1) they believe the Bible – which is held in the highest authority – provides enough information about the origin of life on earth to make a distinction between it and an evolutionary world view; 2) they are far from convinced that mutations and natural selection constitute the observable modus operandi of evolution – a function that would need to alter an organism so that it gains the new genetic information required for new body parts or plans.

So if creationists are not biblical literalists and do not deny observable “evolutionary” processes such as mutations and natural selection then the characterization of the view presented on page 36 is seriously misleading. In fact other than the age of the earth and the universe, the only key distinction between ID and Creationism mentioned on p.36 would appear to be how and by whom life was designed.

Read the rest of this entry

I think SALVO Magazine is a great publication and nothing I am about to say here changes that. I think it’s so great in fact that after subscribing for one year on the recommendation of a friend [thanks Rick], I purchased all the back issues I could get my hands on. I think the mag is worth every cent. But it is because of one particular issue of SALVO that I decided to spend some time clarifying a view that is often misrepresented, even by Christians. That view is creationism, particularly the “young-earth” kind. 

Introducing Issue #4 (Winter 2008) – dedicated to the topic of Intelligent Design. Understandably I had a great time reading this! It includes some great articles that address questions like; Why is ID so important? What is the argument for ID from DNA? What does ID have to say about Biochemistry? What does Information tell us about ID? How can ID help us understand Living Cells? Can ID contribute to our understanding of Genetics? and; How does observability evidence Design? 

Conversely it addresses questions such as; What exactly is the problem with Evolutionary Theory? and; What can Evolution really do? It also delves into the political with articles like; What do ID proponents want taught in Public Schools? Has ID been banned in Public Schools? and; What happens when you challenge a school’s Science Curriculum? 

All very thought provoking articles to be sure. But throughout the magazine I was disappointed at times to find what I believe is an inaccurate characterization of creationism. As a relatively well-versed creationist myself, I decided to do a survey of this issue for references to creationism to highlight the nuances of the view and the ways in which it is often misunderstood and misrepresented.^[1] 

Read the rest of this entry

From a recent article @ Uncommon Descent, by Denyse O’Leary:

First junk DNA proved Darwin was right, then when it turned out not to be junk, you can be pretty sure, it will still prove Darwin was right. Darwinism has become a catch-all for a tired, worn-out theory, hysterically popular in the academic culture, with no real definition or foundation for why.

As has been pointed out numerous times by many apologists in this field, assuming that an Intelligent Designer is behind the origin of life is a completely different way of thinking that provides insights that an evolutionary world view cannot. But by assuming that certain biological structures (e.g. appendix, male nipples, coccyx) are useless evolutionary leftovers, or that certain information (such as found in DNA) is junk, “rather than applying good research to figure out what they are for, evolutionists have hindered and delayed key insights into physiology that could have advanced medicine and increased understanding of biological design.” For example, “Some 180 body parts were considered vestigial as recently as the 1930s. The list included organs as vital as the pituitary gland and thymus.”

Would you like to have them removed?

According to a recent CreationSafaris^[1] post:

Some Cambridge scientists engineered a four-character genetic code and made some proteins with it. They guided the process at every step, but claim that they “evolved” this code. Is that a fair use of language? This strange admixture of concepts is found in today’s issue [18 March 2010] of Nature. The confusion began right in the title: “Encoding multiple unnatural amino acids via evolution of a quadruplet-decoding ribosome.” [emphasis in original]

http://creationsafaris.com/crev201003.htm#20100318a

After summarising the work as reported in the scientific journal Nature, they rightly observe the equivocation:

…everything was intelligently designed, both the natural and unnatural codes and functions. This paper was one of the best examples in recent memory of Truman’s Law: “If you can’t convince them, confuse them.” Using evolve as a synonym for design is a clever way to blow smoke using equivocation. Words mean things. This has nothing to do with evolution in the way Darwin used it, and in the way the debate rages today. It has everything to do with intelligently designing codes to synthesize things they would not naturally do (that is, without the intervention of a human mind). These human designers did not “evolve” anything, and they did not rule out intelligent design in the “natural” systems. If they really wanted to talk about evolution, they should have left the lab and let “nature” take its course. [emphasis in original]

1. CreationSafaris is highly recommended and would be in my Top5 all time websites across all genres. Their team constantly survey the main stream media and secular scientific journals and are well-equipped to point out the many equivocations, failings, misgivings and “baloney” associated with many of their claims. It is one of the best places to get your secular [materialistic] brainwash washed.

I was having a conversation with my Dad last night about the size and complexity of things at the microscopic level.

“For example”, I said, grabbing my copy of Jonathan Sarfati’s ‘By Design’ off the bookshelf and opening up to the chapter on motors, “the E.Coli bacteria is only 2µm long and the motor assembly that drives it is only 45nm in diameter. Not only that, but this is a real motor, much like the kind that you’d find in your car – with a stator, rotor, drive shaft, etc.”^[1,2]

“I don’t even know how to think of things that are so small,” he replied. “Once you start talking about things that size I just can’t even begin to imagine it?”

And perhaps with people like my Dad in mind, the University of Utah have set up a website that will help people to gain an appreciation for the size of the complex machines that get about in a largely unseen part of the world.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/cells/scale/

Just drag the cursor below the image from left to right to zoom in from the size of a coffee bean to a carbon atom [well technically, if you pay attention you'll notice the water molecule is smaller]. Very, very cool!

1. Jonathan Sarfati, By Design, (Creation Ministries International, 2008), p.136
2. As you drag the cursor from left to right, you’ll see the E.Coli about halfway down the scale, with a bunch of filaments extending from its cell walls. The flagellum rotary motors are embedded in the cell wall of the E. Coli at the other end of those filaments, although the program is not particularly set up to identify them.