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

"What percentage of the general population would be interested in ID because of its metaphysical implications versus those who would be turned off?...My polling data suggests the ratio of about 3-to-1." Personally, I am more interested in the metaphysical aspects (i.e., issues such as those addressed in Nicholas Taleb's--a practicing Christian--two books on randomness). This probably has a lot to do with the fact that I probably won't ever have the neccessary mathematical or scientific training to get into the core of the debate (e.g., Dembski and Mark's papers, Well's and Behe's books/papers). Just consider a powerful ally such as Francis Beckwith, who is obviously more interested in the metaphysics.PhilosophyFan_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

"I personally have little interest in doing business with people who will put their metaphysical prejudices above the search for truth." They think it is associated with fundamentalist Christians and where I live (NY area) they are in short supply and the people here have a somewhat negative attitude about them. The term "Holly Roller" is a pejorative associated with Fundamentalists, like it or not. Some of these are people who go to church every week. "By the way, what empirical or anecdotal evidence do you have to back your claim?" Conversations with friends and family. It is a topic I seldom bring up or else they think "kooky" Jerry is at it again. I recently found a friend and her husband who were interested but when you have to get into some of the details they got lost. Both her and her husband have master's degrees. When you talk with an intelligent person you have to provide some proof for what you are claiming and it is not easy to do it in a 30 minute conversation. Most people don't want to spend more than 10 minutes on it before it goes onto the next topic going around the room. I have never been in a conversation where someone else brought it up. And in the last 20 times I have brought it up and this is over a 3 year period, the conversation on it lasted an average of 5 minutes. People are just not interested and you could feel a discomfort in that the topic was loaded with religious over tones and people just do not want to discuss anything to do with that in a social occasion.jerry_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

"What percentage of the general population would be interested in ID because of its metaphysical implications versus those who would be turned off?" I see your point, but just consider Francis Beckwith, who might be a powerful ally. I myself am mainly intrigued by the metaphysics (especially as it concerns randomness) of ID. This is mainly because I am currently unable to follow the core of the mathematical and biological arguments, and I do not foresee getting a PhD in statistics or biology.Ben Z_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

I’ve made the point more than once, the way to kill interest in ID is to make a religious argument. It is closely associated with certain religious approaches and is an immediate turnoff for many.
By the way, what empirical or anecdotal evidence do you have to back your claim? What percentage of the general population would be interested in ID because of its metaphysical implications versus those who would be turned off? My polling data suggests the ratio of about 3-to-1. Hence, the way to generate interest in ID is go to people with a vested interest in seeing ID succeed, not those who could probably care less...scordova_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

I’ve made the point more than once, the way to kill interest in ID is to make a religious argument. It is closely associated with certain religious approaches and is an immediate turnoff for many.
I personally have little interest in doing business with people who will put their metaphysical prejudices above the search for truth. I've gotten harsh criticisms from both creationists and Darwinists because of my insistence on minimizing metaphysics and maximizing empiricism and valid deductions.scordova_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

Since when does TE need to be opposed?
Thank you for the question. On philosophical grounds I view Darwinism as bad for the soul. The Discovery Institute reported on the case of Jesse Kilgore, the young man who lost his faith after being encouraged by his biology professor to read Richard Dawkins. Kilgore then committed suicide. It would have been good for Jesse to hear both sides of the argument, and perhaps he might still be alive today if he heard the truth. TE's have been hindering the flow of relevant scientific findings in church discussions. Pastors are unwilling to take sides, and I respect that. Let the laity take up the discussions, let Illustra media videos be distributed in church circles via private channels and word of mouth and maybe a life will be saved. The idea that man is made in the image of God is supported (not proven) by ID arguments. Darwinism erodes the strength of that belief. Whatever anyone believes in terms of their religion is their business, but I think it would be good for people to hear the facts. Churches by their nature tend to deal with the issue of origins by use of theology. Pastors (in general) are uncomfortable discussing the science. I think science is more friendly to religious ideas than most realise. Even Ken Miller said:
physics has rescued religion
I will take that even farther, I will be bold enough to argue that the facts of biology will rescue religion.scordova_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

I’ve made the point more than once, the way to kill interest in ID is to make a religious argument. It is closely associated with certain religious approaches and is an immediate turnoff for many.
ID should be marketed to people that are most likely to be enthused to study it. You underestimate the difficulty of reaching out to people who are in churhes. People will pursue an area of exploration where they have a vested interest.scordova_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

Since when does TE need to be opposed?
To the extent their science is bad they should be opposed. They should be challenged on the facts.scordova_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

----Jerry: "Ever notice that the anti ID people love to debate on the religious threads, likes moths to a flame." Yes, I have noticed that. Notice too that most Darwinists who come here reject reason itself, which rules out the possibility of a reasoned dialogue even before the discussion begins. If you are lucky enought to get one to even enter into a scientific discussion, you will find, if you examine their objections and assertions carefully, that they base their arguments on the assumption that something can come from nothing or that physical events can occur without causes. You cannot effectively use reasoned evidence against irrational assumptions like that, and trying to do so is a waste of time. You have to expose the assumptions. I think that it is important to bring the out from time to time.StephenB_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

"Theistic evolution can be successfully opposed in the churches by arguing the facts." Since when does TE need to be opposed?mike1962_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

I've made the point more than once, the way to kill interest in ID is to make a religious argument. It is closely associated with certain religious approaches and is an immediate turnoff for many. The frequent religious discussions on this site just reinforces that perception. What drives the 400+ comments here, not science but religion or atheism. Ever notice that the anti ID people love to debate on the religious threads, likes moths to a flame. So that Meyer will be going to two churches may reinforce the perception that ID is just religious doctrine. And in the other he is a guest of a Christian group.jerry_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Churches have allowed it to spread because they are unwilling to engage the facts but rather resort to theology.
Yes, that's the problem with Church: always with the theology, not too much with the facts.Reg_{June 2, 2009
June
06
Jun
2
02
2009
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply