Whatever else Craig’s view is, as Luskin notes, it is a far cry from the Scriptural traditional assumption that the unfallen Adam and Eve were our betters and that we have all deteriorated as a result of sin. Adopting Craig’s view is bound to have worldview consequences.
Casey Luskin: Craig continues to rely upon BioLogos arguments that pseudogenes are “broken” and non-functional junk DNA that we share with apes, thereby demonstrating our common ancestry. Those arguments are increasingly contradicted by evidence presented in highly authoritative scientific papers which find that pseudogenes are commonly functional, and they ought not be assumed to be genetic “junk.”
We are closing in on an important fact here: Craig’s Historical Adam is the true ancestor of the Historical Jesus. Now it all begins to make sense.
Lewis Wolpert (1929–2021) was “one of the giants of twentieth-century developmental biology. His name is most often associated with the “French flag model” and with his pronouncement that “It is not birth, marriage, or death but gastrulation which is truly the most important time in your life,” but he has made contributions to solving many key problems.”
McDowell’s interview with William Lane Craig is in connection with Craig’s new book, In Quest of the Historical Adam.
The Kalam Cosmological Constant “uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from particular alleged facts about the universe (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God.” – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Craig: What is especially significant is that these rankings are not just someone’s subjective opinion but are computed according to an algorithm that takes into account such objective data as number of citations of one’s work.
Via Wintery Knight who helpfully provides notes on this 2017 debate in Ireland.
Classics from William Lane Craig’s shop: The reasons why fine-tuning of the universe isn’t a question of whether? but how? And why?
From God and Math: Think about it… Mathematical entities like numbers, sets, and equations are non-physical and abstract. They can’t cause anything. Yet, for some reason, the physical universe operates…mathematically.
And, according to a Fermilab spokesman, if we did find out, the actual story “won’t sound like popular science literature.” Which raises the question of why such concepts, usually sponsored by atheist cosmologists, dominate so many people’s thinking. Whatever the answer is, it isn’t “science!”
The new atheist project appears to be failing anyway. It might help Dawkins’s numbers if he did debate. But not our business, of course.
Penrose surely offers a more thoughtful debate than Dawkins (who refused to debate Craig) and Krauss (who did but complained afterward) anyway. Too bad we had to wait till 2019 to see it.
Ken Francis, author, with Theodore Dalrymple, of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd, writes to tell us of an effort to account for objective moral laws and duties form the perspective of pure naturalist atheism. He thinks it doesn’t work but you, the reader, shall judge: From Reasonable Faith: And Read More…
. . . And any deeper meaning is illusory.” Reader Ken Francis, author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd, read our piece on Darwinian philosopher Michael Ruse explaining why he is not a new atheist. He thought other readers might be interested to know of something Read More…