Stephen Meyer Events, Visits to Churches

_{Salvador Cordova

June 2, 2009

Creationism, Culture, Intelligent Design, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Listed below are some events with Dr. Stephen Meyer. I expect more to be forthcoming!

Those of us who are part of promoting ID know how hard it is to get churches to appreciate the importance of ID. Most of the biology teachers who opposed ID at Dover were professing Christians and Sunday School teachers. The unfortunate situation in Dover is not unique. Darwinism has remained in the culture because churches have allowed it to spread. Churches have allowed it to spread because they are unwilling to engage the facts but rather resort to theology.

I often get harsh reactions from fellow creationists when I tell them they have to stop arguing theology and start engaging the facts. Recall the words of the father of modern ID, Phil Johnson, “Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate.”

Theistic evolution can be successfully opposed in the churches by arguing the facts. Maybe your experience is different than mine, but I’ve not known a single individual who was truly converted away from Darwinism by purely theological means or trying to pound them over the head with theology and the Bible…

With that in mind, I am happy to report the following ID events, two of which will be at churches, and one where I hope to be present (in McLean, Virginia, near Washington, DC):

Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Calvary Chapel – Olympia
Here is the official Discovery Institute Announcement and Calvary Chapel Direction

June 3, 2009
Stephen C. Meyer at Calvary Chapel – Olympia
The God Hypothesis

“The universe as a whole has a structure in its basic fabric, in its laws, and in its other parameters that suggests design right from the very beginning.” A proponent of Darwin’s theory of evolution would call this statement “unscientific” – but is it really? Join Dr. Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute as he lays the groundwork for an extensive discussion of the science that strongly suggests that our universe was intelligently designed.

The event will be held on Wednesday, June 3rd, at 7:00pm in the main sanctuary of Calvary Chapel at 919 Division Street NW in Olympia. For directions to the church go to the Calvary Chapel website.

Thursday, June 4, 2009
Puget Sound Community College
Here is the official Discovery Institute Announcement and Puget Sound Direction

June 4, 2009
Signature in the Cell: What your professors aren’t telling about the new evidence for Intelligent Design
Stephen C. Meyer at South Puget Sound Community College

June 4, 2009, 12pm (noon)
South Puget Sound Community College
Building 26, Room 101

The Christian Fellowship Club is sponsoring a lecture by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer at South Puget Sound Community College on June 4th at noon.

In his forthcoming book Signature in the Cell, Dr. Meyer shows that the digital code embedded in DNA points powerfully to a designing intelligence and helps unravel a mystery that Darwin did not address: how did the very first life begin? Listen as Dr. Meyer presents how new scientific discoveries are pointing to intelligent design as the best explanation for the complexity of life and the universe.

This free event is open to the public.

Click here for directions to the campus/building.

Thursday, June 25th , 2009
McLean Bible Church, McLean Virginia
Here is the Official McLean Bible Church Announcement

The MBC Apologetics Ministry Team Presents:
“Signature In The Cell”
Come spend an evening with Dr. Stephen C. Meyer – a leading voice in the national discussion over intelligent design (ID).
Dr. Meyer’s brand new book release: “Signature in the Cell” DNA evidence for intelligence Design.
Dr. Meyer’s will be talking about the evidence as a Christian author.

Date: Thursday, June 25th , 2009
Location: MBC Tyson’s Campus in Community room C
Time: 7:30pm to 9:00pm
Cost: $10 for Adults or $5 for students

Registration will open up on June 3

For more information contact

apologeticsconference@mcleanbible.org

Comments

Speaking of effects and their necessary causes: Are human behaviors "effects"?Diffaxial_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

BTW, if discussing QM seems repetitive, we can always shift over and talk about the Banach-Tarski Paradox. As I'm sure you know, it calls into question the relation of finite wholes and parts.Nakashima_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

I am sorry if my use of NOMA was too obscure a reference. What I meant by it was my position that LNC might work at the macroscopic level while at the QM level it did not. QM and macroscopic ensembles are the two non-overlapping magisteria. This is certainly not a strong analogy to Steven J Gould's original usage. I merely borrowed it to express that we might need to shift our axiomatic basis when solving different problems, and that LNC is not universal, whether we like it or not.Nakashima_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

---"I’ll let Nakashima speak for himself, but I don’t think that’s what he was saying. It’s certainly not what I was saying." Your position [and Nakashima's position] is that the the law of non-contradiction, and the principle that the whole is greater than any one of its parts, may not apply to the real world. I was just showing you @96 what that really means in concrete terms. If you don't like the implications of your own position, you can always revise it.StephenB_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

That is the attempted denial instantiates the truth of the claim E. (And if you cannot spot the absurdity in that, you have no sense of the incongruous . . . ) GEM of TKI PS: The above also (sadly) illustrates why trying to debate theology and philosophy [including phil of sci] with people who — pardon, but the facts are plain — struggle with acknowledging basic principles of right reason, will be fruitless. For that matter, if someone doubts that {A and NOT-A} = 0, then s/he is going to have real trouble with basic empirical evidence, such as is used in ID reasoning . . . e.g. that FSCI is a reliable sign of intelligence as per millions of observed cases where we directly see the cause in action; with no observed counter-instances. So, on seeing FSCI one has a right to abductively infer to the same level of known cause as the best explanation. I conclude that the real solution is to bring out the absurdities and address the ordinary common-sense using man in the proverbial Clapham Bus Stop. After he has been soundly educated, he will spot the absurdities in evolutionary materialist thought well enough for himself. PPS: Sal — looks interesting.
I'm assuming this post was to me? If so (it was tagged incorrectly), then it's obvious you completely missed the point of my post, because nothing you said disagreed with my initial statement. Anyone who's read Hofstadter's book has seen the example you gave (albeit not in the same exact form), so I don't know why you responded as if it's some glorious revelation. How exactly does it contradict my previous post?...RDK_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

I'll let Nakashima speak for himself, but I don't think that's what he was saying. It's certainly not what I was saying.David Kellogg_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

----DavidK: "NOMA also = abandonment of reason. All positions other than StephenB’s = abandonment of reason." Nakashima was using the term "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" as a metphor to convey the idea that neither [A] the "axiom" of non-contradiction, nor [B] the principle that the whole is always greater than any of its parts, "overlaps" with reality, which means his position is exactly like yours, which means that [a] the planet Pluto could both exist and not exist at the same time and [b] an automobile could be a part of a crankshaft. If you don't think your position is unreasonable, ask another reasonable person.StephenB_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

DATCG, I think there may be a sense in which the answer may be "uncaused." But I don't know myself. I was just relaying a question from olegt, who has been banned here despite being a tenured physics professor in a world-class physics department.David Kellogg_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

David, "What is the causal chain?" I have little knowledge of QM. But immediate questions are... You don't know the answer? Or, are you stating scientist know there is no answer to your question? Does this eliminate a being outside our known universe from knowing the answer? If it does not, can we conclude there is a causal chain? Or, are you saying the answer will never be known regardless of any possible external knowledge? Ps. I may not be able to check back until tomorrow.DATCG_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

Nakashima, LOL, do you exist or not exist? If you do not exist, how can you argue on this blog? I hope the reality is you do exist. I do enjoy your participation. Otherwise all these arguments pro/con for materialist or ID evolution is meaningless waste of non-existent time. ;-)DATCG_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

NOMA also = abandonment of reason. All positions other than StephenB's = abandonment of reason.David Kellogg_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

Douitashimashite!Nakashima_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

[Acceptance of law of non-contradiction etc] ----Nakashima: "Which I do, in a Non-Overlapping Magisteria sort of way!" That constitutes non-acceptance, but thank you for playing.StephenB_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

Mr StephenB, I encourage you to accept them unconditionally as foundational for reasoned discourse whether I formalize them or not. Which I do, in a Non-Overlapping Magisteria sort of way!Nakashima_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

----"David Kellogg: Nevertheless, so-called "self-evident truths" are clearly axioms. The point is that self-evident truths are not ONLY axioms, which is the substance of my correction to Nakashima.StephenB_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

Nevertheless, so-called “self-evident truths” are clearly axioms. The point is that self-evident truths are not ONLY axioms, which is the substance of my correction to Nakashima.StephenB_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

----Nakashima: "As Mr Cordova has said elsewhere on this thread, the association of any formal system with the real world is provisional, at best." No object or entity in the real world can exist and not exist at the same time under the same formal circumstances. Science does not contest that fact; science [and reason itself] depend on that fact. I doubt that Mr. Cordova would have a problem with that statement.StephenB_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

StephenB, here's a causal question related to QM, from banned commenter olegt:
You prepare the spin in a state with a known projection of +1/2 along, say, the z axis and then measure its value along the x axis. You get +1/2 and -1/2 with equal probabilities. As far as we know, there are no hidden variables controlling the outcome. It's pure chance. Yet it's totally different from flipping a classical coin, where the outcome is too difficult to compute and a small uncertainty in the initial state makes the outcome essentially indeterminate. Not so with a spin: there is no uncertainty in its initially prepared state, we know the state exactly, the entropy of that state is zero. And yet the outcome of the measurement is uncertain.
What is the causal chain?David Kellogg_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

----Nakashima: "It is not that reason has been abandoned, it has been bounded in terms of its applicability, and another form of reason has been bounded on the other side. I’m sorry if QM and GR make you uncomfortable. They are not self evident, but they are true." I accept all current findings in quantum theory, so, excuse me, put you are resorting to a strawman again. To accept the principles of quantum mechanics is not to hold that physical events can occur without causes. On the other hand, to believe that physical events can occur without causes, will cause one to misinterpret the evidence. When that happens, the observer will think that quantum particles, which are spontaneous and unpredictable, are also uncaused, which is a logical error. No physical event is uncaused or can be uncaused.StephenB_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

----Nakashima: "I agree, and encourage you to formalize these principles as axioms." I encourage you to accept them unconditionally as foundational for reasoned discourse whether I formalize them or not.StephenB_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

---kairosfocus: "For that matter, if someone doubts that {A and NOT-A} = 0, then s/he is going to have real trouble with basic empirical evidence, such as is used in ID reasoning . . . e.g. that FSCI is a reliable sign of intelligence as per millions of observed cases where we directly see the cause in action; with no observed counter-instances." Precisely. If reason is abandoned, evidence cannot be rationally interpreted.StephenB_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

Mr StephenB, That is exactly right. The principles of right reason must be taken on faith. They cannot be proven. I agree, and encourage you to formalize these principles as axioms. As the contributions of Mr Vjtorley has shown, this can lead to a greater clarity in thinking. However, the applicability of the formal system to the real world can be proven or disproven. As Mr Cordova has said elsewhere on this thread, the association of any formal system with the real world is provisional, at best.Nakashima_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

Mr StephenB, It is not that reason has been abandoned, it has been bounded in terms of its applicability, and another form of reason has been bounded on the other side. I'm sorry if QM and GR make you uncomfortable. They are not self evident, but they are true.Nakashima_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

---Nakashima: "I can see where someone might apply “faith” to the issue of whether a particular system applies to " That is exactly right. The principles of right reason must be taken on faith. They cannot be proven.StephenB_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

StephenB [71], Nakashima is not suggesting "that the law of non-contradiction pr [sic] related self-evident truths may not apply to the real world." kairosfocus [72], Kant uses the exact same logic about understanding in his Critique of Judgment to say that some artistic works are more intrinsically valuable than others. And with the same failings: that is, those who disagree are inevitably portrayed as having some fundamental flaw or incapacity. Just so, with you and StephenB, your opponents aren't just wrong, they have some profound flaw.David Kellogg_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Mr KairosFocus, Thank you again for your kind attention. I have personally experienced the phenomenon of waking up in the middle of a dream, so I no longer consider the example of my own consciousness self evident. BTW, if anyone is tired of "The Matrix" as a media analogy, I would like to recommend both Stanislaw Lem's "The Futurological Congress" and the recent anime "Paprika" for your consideration.Nakashima_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

In short, a "self-evident truth" is the name we give for a glorified kind of axiom. You write:
Here is your first clue: “Common acceptance” or “general acceptance,” is not synonymous with “intrinsic merit” and “self-evident.” Mark the difference well.
Um, ok. Breaking down the syntx of the sentence, Brittanica says an axiom is
an indemonstrable first principle, rule, or maxim, that has found general acceptance or is thought worthy of common acceptance whether by virtue of a claim to intrinsic merit or on the basis of an appeal to self-evidence
Nobody is equating the terms you warn against equating. Certainly not me. Nevertheless, so-called "self-evident truths" are clearly axioms.David Kellogg_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

DK: Nope -- the point is that once we understand (which is open to cross-checking . . . ) we can see that they are so. For instance, take my favourite example: Error exists, which I of course offer in the simplest meaning -- some claims are inaccurate to reality. For convenience, let this be E. Not only do you know it from having had your gluteus smacked for fibbing as a 4 year old, or from seeing a sea of red ink from the proverbial Ms Smith in Grade 1, but it is undeniably true. Let's look:
Try to deny it: NOT-E, and you only instantiate a case of error. For if NOT-E were assumed true for a moment, E would be an error, i.e. E is true by example. So, instead, NOT-E is an error, which is an example of E being true.
That is the attempted denial instantiates the truth of the claim E. (And if you cannot spot the absurdity in that, you have no sense of the incongruous . . . ) GEM of TKI PS: The above also (sadly) illustrates why trying to debate theology and philosophy [including phil of sci] with people who -- pardon, but the facts are plain -- struggle with acknowledging basic principles of right reason, will be fruitless. For that matter, if someone doubts that {A and NOT-A} = 0, then s/he is going to have real trouble with basic empirical evidence, such as is used in ID reasoning . . . e.g. that FSCI is a reliable sign of intelligence as per millions of observed cases where we directly see the cause in action; with no observed counter-instances. So, on seeing FSCI one has a right to abductively infer to the same level of known cause as the best explanation. I conclude that the real solution is to bring out the absurdities and address the ordinary common-sense using man in the proverbial Clapham Bus Stop. After he has been soundly educated, he will spot the absurdities in evolutionary materialist thought well enough for himself. PPS: Sal -- looks interesting.kairosfocus_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

----David Kellogg: "Keepin’ it classy." Once one acknowledges that the law of non-contradiction pr related self-evident truths may not apply to the real world, all things are possible, which means that nothing can be ruled out, which means that reason has been abandoned. Why would anyone abandon reason? Why should I respect that abandonment?StephenB_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

What requires faith is deciding the "proper" foundatins of math. Even Eucldian and non-Euclidean geometries must seem to be constrained by a "proper" set of rules (the 4 common axioms of both geometries). But why is one set of rules more "proper" than another in a particular context? This seems to be a matter of faith. I recall when studying math that it bothered me that a discipline that was so focused on proving things could not logically justify it's own existence or worth. It had to be accepted by faith. The utility of zermelo-frankl had to be accepted by faith. There was no formal proof that this was the way to go about doing math. It bothered me that we couldn't possibly prove that math was true. And math has been universally regarded as close to ultimate truth that there is, so much so Cantor claimed Absolute Infinity = God! I think the appropriateness and utiliy of sets of rules is a matter of faith. What guidine then do we have to choose one set of unprovable rules over another? Here is a link to something I think relevant to the discussion of math: Structure of the World
F J Tipler Department of Mathematics and Department of Physics, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70118, USA Abstract. I investigate the relationship between physics and mathematics. I argue that physics can shed light on the proper foundations of mathematics, and that the nature of number can constrain the nature of physical reality. I show that requiring the joint mathematical consistency of the Standard Model of particle physics and the DeWitt–Feynman–Weinberg theory of quantum gravity can resolve the horizon, flatness and isotropy problems of cosmology. Joint mathematical consistency naturally yields a scale-free, Gaussian, adiabatic perturbation spectrum, and more matter than antimatter. I show that consistency requires the universe to begin at an initial singularity with a pure SU(2)L gauge field. I show that quantum mechanics requires this field to have a Planckian spectrum whatever its temperature. If this field has managed to survive thermalization to the present day, then it would be the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). If so, then we would have a natural explanation for the dark matter and the dark energy. I show that isotropic ultrahigh energy cosmic rays are explained if the CMBR is a pure SU(2)L gauge field. The SU(2)L nature of the CMBR may have been seen in the Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect. I propose several simple experiments to test the hypothesis. Print publication: Issue 4 (April 2005) Received 21 September 2004 Published 15 March 2005
scordova_{June 3, 2009
June
06
Jun
3
03
2009
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply