Alister McGrath and Roger Penrose on Stephen Hawking’s Latest Atheist Pronouncements
For the full program, go here.
Religion
Richard Dawkins and Ray Comfort
Richard Dawkins takes Ray Comfort out of context: Dawkins says he doesn’t debate Creationists, yet he debates what Creationists say quite often. Should Dawkins avoid debating Creationists when they are the subject of his lectures and speaking engagements?
Does Atheism Poison Everything? Debate Between David Berlinski and Christopher Hitchens
The debate is happening today, Sept. 7th, at the Fixed Point Foundation.
Our next debate features famed atheist Christopher Hitchens, author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, and Dr. David Berlinski, author of The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. The question being debated: What are the implications of a purely secular society? It promises to be a formidable clash of titans. In addition to being highly entertaining and witty, these two men have a serious message they want to communicate.
The Does Religion Poison Everything? Debate begins at 7 p.m., September 7.
The luncheon, reception, and debate all take place at the Sheraton Birmingham Hotel:
Oxford Mathematician John Lennox Weighs-In On Stephen Hawking’s Recent Claim That The Universe Came From Nothing Through The Laws Of Nature
There’s no denying that Stephen Hawking is intellectually bold as well as physically heroic. And in his latest book, the renowned physicist mounts an audacious challenge to the traditional religious belief in the divine creation of the universe…The Big Bang, he argues, was the inevitable consequence of these laws [of physics] ‘because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.’
Unfortunately, while Hawking’s argument is being hailed as controversial and ground-breaking, it is hardly new.
Writes John Lennox, Oxford Professor of Mathematics, in an article at dailymail.co.uk in response to Hawking’s recent claim that the laws of physics, such as gravity, will spawn a universe such as ours.
But, as both a scientist and a Christian, I would say that Hawking’s claim is misguided. He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict.
But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.
What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine.
That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own – but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent.
Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved…
To use a simple analogy, Isaac Newton’s laws of motion in themselves never sent a snooker ball racing across the green baize. That can only be done by people using a snooker cue and the actions of their own arms.
Do atheists know enough about the concept of God to reject it on rational grounds?
Sometimes I think atheists are simply having arguments with themselves – or, more precisely, with phantoms bred by their own ignorance. It’s easy to see why atheism does not make more headway, even in modern secular society: Once atheists begin to spell out the sort of deity they are rejecting, it becomes clear that they don’t know what they’re talking about.
National Apologetics Conference — October 15-16, 2010
This is an important event. I would encourage all UD readers to try to make it to it. I’ll be speaking on ID. For conference information, click here.
Albert Mohler’s Open Letter to Karl Giberson
Al Mohler has written an interesting open letter to Karl Giberson, titled “On Darwin and Darwinism: A Letter to Professor Giberson“, which is a response to Giberson’s article at The Huffington Post, titled “How Darwin Sustains My Baptist Search for Truth“.
The disagreement between the two is ultimately about the compatibility of Darwinism and Christianity, but the specific context of Giberson’s complaint against Al Mohler pertains to what Giberson claims is a misrepresentation of Darwin by Mohler in a speech given at Ligonier Ministries:
The second great challenge was the emergence of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Coming at the midpoint of the 19th century, we need to be reminded that Darwin was not the first evolutionist. We need to be reminded that Darwin did not embark upon the Beagle having no preconceptions of what exactly he was looking for or having no theory of how life emerged in all of its diversity, fecundity, and specialization. Darwin left on his expedition to prove the theory of evolution. A theory that was based upon the fossil record and other inferences had already been able to take the hold of some in Western civilization. The dawn of the theory of evolution presents a direct challenge to the traditional interpretation of Genesis and, as we shall see, to much more.
Giberson’s complaint is this:
In this talk Mohler made false statements about Darwin. He apparently wanted to undermine evolution by suggesting that it was “invented” to prop up Darwin’s worldview, rather than developed to explain observations in the natural world. He said, “Darwin did not embark upon the Beagle having no preconceptions of what exactly he was looking for or having no theory of how life emerged in all of its diversity, fecundity, and specialization. Darwin left on his expedition to prove the theory of evolution.”
Watch the video of the speech here or read the transcript here. The speech was actually more concerned with the age of the Earth than Charles Darwin. Nevertheless, Mohler’s response to Giberson in the open letter:
“The Vibrant Dance of Faith and Science” — Conference in Austin TX, Oct 26-28, 2010
An interesting conference bringing together ID proponents and theistic evolutionists is coming up in Austin this October: The Vibrant Dance of Faith and Science (http://vibrantdance.org). The organizers are hoping to bring unity to the science-faith debate: Our Mission is to inspire, educate, and unify pastors, scientists, Christian leaders, and concerned lay people, as well as seekers and skeptics, with the growing congruence of scientific discovery with our Christian faith and to explore the implications and applications of that congruence. The key word here is CONGRUENCE. The problem is that ID theorists and theistic evolutionists see such congruence in very different terms. For ID theorists who are also Christians (some are not), evidence of design in nature mirrors the faith claim that God by wisdom created Read More ›
On Guard Conference in Denton Texas
Denton Bible Church, in Denton, TX, will be hosting the “2010 On Guard Christian Apologetics Conference” on November the 5th and 6th.
Denton Bible Church is delighted to bring a powerhouse group of speakers to the Dallas/Fort Worth/Denton area for this year’s apologetics conference entitled, “On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision.” The name of this year’s conference is taken from the title of one of William Lane Craig’s newest books addressing the subject of apologetics in the local church. We have invited some of the greatest defenders of the Christian faith to speak at this year’s conference on a wide variety of subjects including the historical reliability of the New Testament, the evidence for the resurrection, scientific challenges to the theory of Evolution, and the battle of Worldviews.
Speakers include William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, Sean McDowell, Paul Nelson (whose address is titled “The Power and Promise of Intelligent Design in Biology”), Mike Licona, Craig Hazen, and others.
Is Craig Venter’s Synthetic Cell Really Life?
Bioethicist Gregory Kaebnick, Ph.D., has an interesting take on the recently announced synthetic cell created by a team of researchers led by J. Craig Venter at the J. Craig Venter Instititute (JVCI). In a recent article in The Scientist entitled Is the “Synthetic Cell” about Life?, Kaebnick writes:
…the technical accomplishment is not quite what the JCVI press release claimed. It’s hard to see this as a synthetic species, or a synthetic organism, or a synthetic cell; it’s a synthetic genome of Mycoplasma mycoides, which is familiar enough. David Baltimore was closer to the truth when he told the New York Times that the researchers had not created life so much as mimicked it. It might be still more accurate to say that the researchers mimicked one part and borrowed the rest.
The explanation from the Venter camp is that the genome took over the cell, and since the genome is synthetic, therefore the cell is synthetic. But this assumes a strictly top-down control structure that some biologists now question. Why not say instead that the genome and the cell managed to work out their differences and collaborate, or even that the cell adopted the genome (and its identity)? Do we know enough to say which metaphor is most accurate?
The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs!
A friend directed me to this fun little article from the Jewish World Review. I’m not a regular reader of JWR, so missed this wonderful little piece from Paul Greenberg, in which he recalls the Sokal Hoax of 1996. For those not familiar with it, the Sokal Hoax was an article written by Professor Alan Sokal, a professor of Physics at New York University and submitted to a not too widely followed academic journal called Social Text as part of a series on Science wars. The article was entitled Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity,( Social Text, Spring/Summer 1996), and was, according to Greenberg, Read More ›
My favorite science-religion books
In response to Thomas Cudworth’s request, these are the five science-religion books that I would recommend, or at least has influenced me the most — and help to explain my distinctive take on ID. You’ll see that some of these are available free on-line. Since my explanations are long-ish. They are located below the fold.
Victory for Discovery Institute
As followers of this controversy will remember from previous posts, the California Science Center (CSC) denied screening of Illustra Media’s film Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record. A lawsuit ensued, in which the California Science Center was sued to disclose documentation, of which they are legally bound under the Public Records Act to disclose, in an attempt to discover what provoked the obvious discrimination. The outcome of the suit is that the CSC has to disclose the documentation and pay the attorney’s fees of the Discovery Institute. Here is a short podcast from Discovery Institute on the matter:
Stephen Hawking: “Science Will Win”
World renowned physicist Stephen Hawking says “science will win” in a recent interview with ABC news’ Diane Sawyer. From the interview:
But exploring the origins of time inevitably leads to questions about the ultimate origins of everything and what, if anything, is behind it all.
“What could define God [is thinking of God] as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of that God,” Hawking told Sawyer. “They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible.”
When Sawyer asked if there was a way to reconcile religion and science, Hawking said, “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.”
Michael Ruse on Darwin and Hitler
Michael Ruse decides that Darwin had no impact on Hitler in this piece. He decides that Hitler couldn’t have been influenced by Darwin, because Darwin would have been appalled by Hitler.
Finally, when you turn to Hitler himself, the story is murky. To put the matter politely, he was not a well-educated man. There is no evidence he studied Darwin’s writings or much about them. At most, he was picking stuff up off the street or from the barroom or from the doss house where he lived in Vienna before the War. And when you look at Mein Kampf in more detail, the story seems less straightforward. Just before the apparently Darwinian sentiments quoted above, [“Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.”] he wrote: “All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning.” What he is really on about is the Jews. Darwin would have been appalled at such a connection.