Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

C.S. Lewis Seminar on God to Feature ID/Darwin Debate


Reader Tom Woodward kindly writes to say:

Students from across the US, including college level as well as upper level high school students, will converge on Trinity College, Tampa Bay, on July 20th, to discuss new developments in the debate over Darwinism. This will be a key part of “Knowing God in a Skeptical Age” –a C.S. Lewis Honors Seminar focused on the existence and nature of God. The 30-hour seminar will confront several claims made by leaders of the New Atheism, including the claim that scientific advances have made atheism “almost certainly true.”

Co-taught by Professors Eric Bargerhuff and Tom Woodward of Trinity College, it is co-sponsored by the C.S. Lewis Society and features C.S. Lewis’s thought on the issues of Darwinism and design. Joining the class via Skype will be Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells, and Douglas Groothuis. The seminar runs from Monday, July 21 to Friday, July 25 in Trinity, Florida (at the north end of Tampa Bay). Fees are $500 for auditors or $783 for 3 hours of college credit (room and board is $300; limited scholarship funds are available). For more info or 727-642-8574.

Maybe they will also address growing interest in exploring non-Darwinian evolution.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Sounds like it will be a very enlightening and inspirational event. Blue_Savannah
Speaking of C.S. Lewis, C.S. Lewis doodles has a fairly new video up: Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis Doodle - video (moral law) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_VYCqCexow bornagain77
I disagree, although I've seen Dr. Meyer repeat the following point in debates over and over again ,,,
Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video https://vimeo.com/91322260 Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,, ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ Stephen Meyer - (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate - 2009)
although I've seen Dr. Meyer repeat that point in debates over and over again, I never tire of him bringing it up in debates for that point is fatal to the neo-Darwinian worldview. Whereas on the other hand I can see where neo-Darwinists would be very happy to see Dr. Meyer focus on another subject. But then Dr. Meyer's primary purpose in the debates is not to make neo-Darwinists happy is it? bornagain77
Unfortunately, although Stephen Myers obviously knows what he is talking about, I think he tends to repeat himself over and over again in these debates, without adding much new, and doesn't seem to know when to asked a pointed question, and then talk less. In the end I think it makes his debate techniques less convincing. phoodoo

Leave a Reply