Dawkins vs. Lennox at the University of Alabama: Get Your Tickets Now

[...] debate ? Dawkins/Lennox debate Dawkins vs. Lennox at the University of Alabama: Get Your Tickets Now | Uncommon Descent God Delusion Debate to Pit Dawkins Against Christian Apologist John Lennox Debates Noted Atheist [...] Dawkins/Lennox debate - The PuritanBoard

[...] John Lennox, who is a mathematician on the faculty of the University of Oxford and is debating Richard Dawkins in October on the topic of whether science has rendered God obsolete (see here for the debate), has this to say about my book NO FREE LUNCH: “In this important work Dembski applies to evolutionary theory the conceptual apparatus of the theory of intelligent design developed in his acclaimed book The Design Inference. He gives a penetrating critical analysis of the current attempt to underpin the neo-Darwinian synthesis by means of mathematics. Using recent information-theoretic “no free lunch” theorems, he shows in particular that evolutionary algorithms are by their very nature incapable of generating the complex specified information which lies at the heart of living systems. His results have such profound implications, not only for origin of life research and macroevolutionary theory, but also for the materialistic or naturalistic assumptions that often underlie them, that this book is essential reading for all interested in the leading edge of current thinking on the origin of information.” [...] Kevin Padian: The Archie Bunker Professor of Paleobiology at Cal Berkeley | Uncommon Descent

[...] * Those in Alabama or near the area might be interested in a debate at the University of Alabama on October 3, 2007. Richard Dawkins will debate John Lennox about “The God Delusion.” (HT :: Uncommon Descent) [...] Quick Hits :: 07.03.07 « Provocations & Pantings

I would recommend Bahnsen to skeptic and believer alike. geoffrobinson

Here is another interesting Berlinski blurp. ------------------------------------ Figures like Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins are profoundly embarrassing the scientific establishment, and by that I mean the top biology departments, the editors of Nature and Science, the senior bureaucrats at the NSF and NIH, by going on and on about atheism, selfish genes, evolutionary psychology, stuff that everyone with their heads screwed on tight knows has absolutely nothing to do with any of the serious sciences. And I do mean absolutely, and I do mean nothing. And yet no one much cares. The ACLU is not up in arms about anything these guys say. Put Dawkins on a high school reading list with his claims about being a fulfilled atheist – that’s fine, no problems there. Everyone quite understands that Daniel Dennett is lacking a little in the top story, but he makes the most of his handicap, God Bless. And, again, no one cares what he says. dougcampo

Geoffrobinson: Even for a skeptic? bork

We will never disprove darwinism and hurl it into the trashcan of history if we fight among ourselves. dougcampo

"romanist" For the love of God and everything holy, please no sectarianism. Thanks. dougcampo

MaxAug, A 'romanist'? Oh, you mean a Catholic. If he is, he probably has the beliefs that were in place with the original Church. Go read some Eusebius. Tedsenough

Bahnsen is worth the price of admission. geoffrobinson

I just listened to the debate between Dawkins and Mcgrath. I don't think any was better than the other, though McGrath was too defensive. It seemed more like an ad to buy the books more than a debate. Honestly, I think the audeience had better points and questions. Too bad I have to buy Bahnsen's stuff to listen to it. But to stay on op: I hope Dr. Lennox comes prepared. He is going be protrayed as the mouthpiece of christianity - which could be bad. bork

I used Bahnsen's methodologies against Dawkins on his book tour during Q&A. It was quite fun. geoffrobinson

Btw, I thought Dawkins walked all over McGrath (who was quite pathetic) in the dabate they had. Robo

I concur re William Lane Craig and Greg Bahnsen. Didn't Dawkins turn down the offer to debate Craig? Shame about Bahnsen; he was a smart guy with a very intriguing apologetic methodology. Check out www.apollos.ws for Craig's stuff and www.cmfnow.com for Bahnsen. Robo

[Off topic] Now they say humans and chimpanze 1% difference is a myth. http://creationsafaris.com/crev200706.htm#20070629a

Jon Cohen made a remarkable admission in Science this week.1 The popular notion that humans and chimpanzees are genetically 99% similar is a myth, and should be discarded. ... [On Coexpressed genes] In this last measure, for instance, a 17.4% difference was found in genes expressed in the cerebral cortex. ... But “Truth be told,” [Cohen]he begins in the next sentence, the inaccuracy of the statistic was known from the start: But truth be told, Wilson and King also noted that the 1% difference wasn’t the whole story. They predicted that there must be profound differences outside genes—they focused on gene regulation—to account for the anatomical and behavioral disparities between our knuckle-dragging cousins and us. Several recent studies have proven them perspicacious again, raising the question of whether the 1% truism should be retired. “For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well because it was underappreciated how similar we were,” says Pascal Gagneux, a zoologist at UC San Diego. “Now it’s totally clear that it’s more a hindrance for understanding than a help.” ... 1Jon Cohen, News Focus on Evolutionary Biology, “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%,” Science, 29 June 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5833, p. 1836, DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5833.1836.

I do not have access to the journal. Is the above a good representation of Cohen's article in Science? Maybe this could be an interesting topic for UD to discuss. Are we living in a lie for the last 30 years? And the whole scientific establishment is lying to the public? MatthewTan

The one man I'd like to see debating Dawkins is Dr. William Lane Craig. That would be the end of this guy IDist

I know nothing about this other guy. But I'm hoping he goes further than "science and God can co-exist." I would like to see him go further and make a strong positive case as well as attacking Dawkins' position. And I concur about the late Greg Bahnsen. geoffrobinson

I don't know if I agree completely with his methodology, but I would have absolutely loved to see Dawkins or Dennett or Harris debate Greg Bahnsen. nemesis

Are they selling tickets, or is it a "just show up" event? russ

If it is not too much offensive, can i ask what is Dr. Lennox Christian theological background (romanist? biblical Christian?)? What is his apologetic method? I mean, really, Dawkins is not a fool, he knows, for instance, he can engage Alister McGrath, and cant engage others... MaxAug

I hope it is taped. bork

One signalling. You excuse to me but I do not know like communicating with you. Which it is your comment to these articles? http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=870 http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/adrianth/ade.html orarel

It's hard to have a debate about God without mentioning Origins. I would like to know how will Clinton R. Dawkins avoid it. Mats

Didn’t Dawkins say he refused to debate any “psuedo-scientific” Theists?

This applies if the debate is on darwinisim, not God and religion. IDist

Didn't Dawkins say he refused to debate any "psuedo-scientific" Theists? bornagain77

Now I think that's going to be very interesting. I'd like to see Dawkins' "why there almost certainly is no God" nonsense being destroyed with him present, this may atleast help humbling him... or may be I'm dreaming? IDist