In the last weeks, Richard Dawkins has been making several simple videos trying to clarify some of the most common misunderstandings among those who don't accept evolution. I give here three of them:
- Comparing the human and the chimpanzee genomes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBEtw7esmvg)
- Why are there still chimpanzees? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh0F4FBLJRE&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=101582689E353E13)
- Show me the intermediate fossils! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o92x6AvxCFg&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=101582689E353E13&index=1)
Each one of these is informative in itself, and hopefully there'll be new ones coming up in the future. It's true that most of the things he says are well known among scientists, but still these questions seem to keep reappearing in most debates, so it's good to address them like this.
Enjoy!
16/07/2009
19/05/2009
Did Jesus raise from the dead?
There is an interesting debate between W.L. Craig and B. Ehrman here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac
It's a bit long but worth listening to. They both explain rather well the two points of view (Christian and atheist) about this subject. It is making me think a lot about what history has (or has not) the potential to tell us. The main question is: Can history (the use of the historical method) tell us anything about God's actions in the world, or are all these questions forever theological instead of historical?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac
It's a bit long but worth listening to. They both explain rather well the two points of view (Christian and atheist) about this subject. It is making me think a lot about what history has (or has not) the potential to tell us. The main question is: Can history (the use of the historical method) tell us anything about God's actions in the world, or are all these questions forever theological instead of historical?
01/04/2009
Going to church?
In the last month (perhaps even more) the most church-like experience I've had was a Snow Patrol concert I went to two weeks ago in Belfast. The sound, the emotions, thousands singing at once, the lyrics (quite spiritual in a sort of way), the atmosphere... even the preaching (these people can say a thousand things with just one song), the relevance of what they had to say, the down-to-earthness of their talking.
I know this is not what most christians have in mind when they talk about 'going to church'. But when church doesn't seem to offer what is expected of it, then some people have to find alternatives. And, these days, alternatives are not hard to find. Which brings me to the main question I wanted to ask: What is 'going to church' supposed to mean? What is church supposed to deliver? What should christians expect (or not expect) from their 'going to church' experience? And, most importantly, is it being delivered?
I know this is not what most christians have in mind when they talk about 'going to church'. But when church doesn't seem to offer what is expected of it, then some people have to find alternatives. And, these days, alternatives are not hard to find. Which brings me to the main question I wanted to ask: What is 'going to church' supposed to mean? What is church supposed to deliver? What should christians expect (or not expect) from their 'going to church' experience? And, most importantly, is it being delivered?
Did Darwin Kill God?
Another program on Darwin was shown on TV last night. The title: "Did Darwin Kill God?". The link to watch it again is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00jhfwt/Did_Darwin_Kill_God/
The program was unexpectedly better than average. The main argument was that evolution, by itself, is not a challenge to God, since the scientific method has limits built into it that avoid it to be used to draw conclusions outside of science. An obvious point? Perhaps, but not one made sufficiently enough. And in order to prove his point he explains (going to different Church Fathers) that this controversy between evolution and creation is just a very recent development which started in the last century and which most christians never recognized before that. The presenter, Conor Cunningham, is, in fact, a Christian and an evolutionist, showing that both things are not complete opposites.
As an aside, it is always interesting to hear these ideas from the people involved in this battle. Among the people he interviews we can find Daniel Dennett, Francis Collins and Michael Ruse. I would've liked to hear Dawkins himself, who is mentioned a couple of times in the program as believing that evolution proves God's non-existence (I doubt he would've said that with those words - perhaps: "it makes it very improbable"). And he even gets to visit the Creation Museum in the States!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00jhfwt/Did_Darwin_Kill_God/
The program was unexpectedly better than average. The main argument was that evolution, by itself, is not a challenge to God, since the scientific method has limits built into it that avoid it to be used to draw conclusions outside of science. An obvious point? Perhaps, but not one made sufficiently enough. And in order to prove his point he explains (going to different Church Fathers) that this controversy between evolution and creation is just a very recent development which started in the last century and which most christians never recognized before that. The presenter, Conor Cunningham, is, in fact, a Christian and an evolutionist, showing that both things are not complete opposites.
As an aside, it is always interesting to hear these ideas from the people involved in this battle. Among the people he interviews we can find Daniel Dennett, Francis Collins and Michael Ruse. I would've liked to hear Dawkins himself, who is mentioned a couple of times in the program as believing that evolution proves God's non-existence (I doubt he would've said that with those words - perhaps: "it makes it very improbable"). And he even gets to visit the Creation Museum in the States!
14/03/2009
Plantinga vs. Dennett
Recently I listened to a debate between the philosopher and theologian A. Plantinga and the atheist philosopher D. Dennett. It can be easily found in You Tube.
I only want to make one comment about something Plantinga said in Part 2 of the debate. In there he seemed to support (much to my surprise) Behe's idea (explained in his last book) of considering plasmodium, the parasite that causes Malaria, an irreducible complexity. The fact that Behe hasn't shown any scientific evidence so far about any of the affirmations he confidently proclaims, and the fact that his arguments seem to be flawed even from the theological (specifically christian) point of view, makes me wonder what Plantinga is really doing by appealing to Behe's ideas in his search for a solution to the problem of science, naturalism, religion and faith. I would've thought a philosopher of the calibre of Plantinga wouldn't have needed to use Behe's flawed arguments (nor any of the ID proponents's) to support the claim that evolution and theism are not incompatible. The fact that he does, makes me wonder whether perhaps he might be in favour of such ID theories. If this is so, I would expect him to read a bit more about it before stating such positive affirmations about them. He can start with Kenneth R. Miller's books, in which he exposes the numerous problems with Behe's (and other ID proponents's) arguments.
To confirm the impression I got in Part 2, Part 3 shows Plantinga talking about the problems that complexities at the molecular level pose to evolutionary theory (remiscient of the vocabulary used by Behe and other ID proponents in their books). This is, in my opinion, quite worrying (for christians). If the only way that christian philosophers and theologians have to give God a place in the evolutionary process is by appealing to 'irreducible complexities', we are indeed doomed. I would've expected a more serious attempt, on Plantinga's side, to answer some of the serious questions posed by evolutionary atheists. In this occasion Dennett had it, I think, too easy...
I only want to make one comment about something Plantinga said in Part 2 of the debate. In there he seemed to support (much to my surprise) Behe's idea (explained in his last book) of considering plasmodium, the parasite that causes Malaria, an irreducible complexity. The fact that Behe hasn't shown any scientific evidence so far about any of the affirmations he confidently proclaims, and the fact that his arguments seem to be flawed even from the theological (specifically christian) point of view, makes me wonder what Plantinga is really doing by appealing to Behe's ideas in his search for a solution to the problem of science, naturalism, religion and faith. I would've thought a philosopher of the calibre of Plantinga wouldn't have needed to use Behe's flawed arguments (nor any of the ID proponents's) to support the claim that evolution and theism are not incompatible. The fact that he does, makes me wonder whether perhaps he might be in favour of such ID theories. If this is so, I would expect him to read a bit more about it before stating such positive affirmations about them. He can start with Kenneth R. Miller's books, in which he exposes the numerous problems with Behe's (and other ID proponents's) arguments.
To confirm the impression I got in Part 2, Part 3 shows Plantinga talking about the problems that complexities at the molecular level pose to evolutionary theory (remiscient of the vocabulary used by Behe and other ID proponents in their books). This is, in my opinion, quite worrying (for christians). If the only way that christian philosophers and theologians have to give God a place in the evolutionary process is by appealing to 'irreducible complexities', we are indeed doomed. I would've expected a more serious attempt, on Plantinga's side, to answer some of the serious questions posed by evolutionary atheists. In this occasion Dennett had it, I think, too easy...
05/03/2009
Rescuing Darwin
This is an interesting report, by Nick Spencer and Denis Alexander, about Darwin and evolution from a christian perspective:
http://campaigndirector.moodia.com/Client/Theos/Files/RescuingDarwin.pdf
"The project is managed and run by Theos, the public theology think tank, in partnership with the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion", says in the first page. In page 9 we read:
"In 2009, the evidence for evolution by natural selection is overwhelming, although of course the theory itself continues to evolve as new data come to light. The fossil record, although incomplete, firmly supports the theory, revealing impressive series of transitional forms. More recently, advances in genetics have hugely strengthened evolution, to the extent that, in scientific circles at least, it is now incontestable".
It's certainly refreshing to read christians saying that.
I warn you: the document is 72 pages long, but from what I've read so far it seems pretty sound. I wish all christians spent some time reading it - although I don't expect that any kind of evidence will convince any fundamentalist christian. Why the negativity? Keep reading...
"According to a recent, detailed quantitative research study commissioned by Theos and conducted by the polling company ComRes, only 37% of people in the UK believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. 32% say that Young Earth Creationism ("the idea that God created the world sometime in the last 10,000 years") is either definitely or probably true, and 51% say that Intelligent Design ("the idea that evolution alone is not enough to explain the complex structures of some living things, so the intervention of a designer is needed in key stages") is either definitely or probably true".
If scientists (and anyone who has the energy and the time to read the relevant literature) would agree that "the evidence for evolution by natural selection is overwhelming", then what is wrong with some christians?
I encourage you to read this document. It might come useful sometime...
http://campaigndirector.moodia.com/Client/Theos/Files/RescuingDarwin.pdf
"The project is managed and run by Theos, the public theology think tank, in partnership with the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion", says in the first page. In page 9 we read:
"In 2009, the evidence for evolution by natural selection is overwhelming, although of course the theory itself continues to evolve as new data come to light. The fossil record, although incomplete, firmly supports the theory, revealing impressive series of transitional forms. More recently, advances in genetics have hugely strengthened evolution, to the extent that, in scientific circles at least, it is now incontestable".
It's certainly refreshing to read christians saying that.
I warn you: the document is 72 pages long, but from what I've read so far it seems pretty sound. I wish all christians spent some time reading it - although I don't expect that any kind of evidence will convince any fundamentalist christian. Why the negativity? Keep reading...
"According to a recent, detailed quantitative research study commissioned by Theos and conducted by the polling company ComRes, only 37% of people in the UK believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. 32% say that Young Earth Creationism ("the idea that God created the world sometime in the last 10,000 years") is either definitely or probably true, and 51% say that Intelligent Design ("the idea that evolution alone is not enough to explain the complex structures of some living things, so the intervention of a designer is needed in key stages") is either definitely or probably true".
If scientists (and anyone who has the energy and the time to read the relevant literature) would agree that "the evidence for evolution by natural selection is overwhelming", then what is wrong with some christians?
I encourage you to read this document. It might come useful sometime...
16/02/2009
An interesting debate
This debate - with R. Dawkins, D. Dennett, B. Carson and F. Collins - has good (and not-so-good) ideas and arguments, most of them already heard in different forums, blogs, books and conversations of all kinds. The link is:
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/pagegen/brochure/p3.html
I found particularly interesting the very last sentence R. Dawkins used to reply to the well-known Pascal's wager (used here by Carson). I find his reply very appealing and, indeed, very christian. In fact, I even think Jesus himself would've agreed with it. Don't you think?
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/pagegen/brochure/p3.html
I found particularly interesting the very last sentence R. Dawkins used to reply to the well-known Pascal's wager (used here by Carson). I find his reply very appealing and, indeed, very christian. In fact, I even think Jesus himself would've agreed with it. Don't you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)