A coupe of weeks ago I spoke at Snellville Baptist Church in Georgia. The youth pastor, Jody Shelton, is a friend of mine. Check out his brief blog about my visit there. You can listen for free to the three talks I gave: (1) Shattering the Myths of Evolution; (2) Understanding Intelligent Design; and (3) Why the New Testament Can Be Trusted.

Jody also gave a little shout-out for the Apologetics Study Bible for Students, which was just released last week. This Bible is revolutionary for students. I just received a message on Facebook from a fellow apologist, Lenny Esposito from Come Reason Ministries, who helped write some of the articles in the Study Bible. He received this note about the Bible from a brand new user:

continue reading

Nice.  Prominent philosopher Thomas Nagel--no friend to Christianity--names Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design as one of his books of the year:

Stephen C. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperCollins) is a detailed account of the problem of how life came into existence from lifeless matter – something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin. The controversy over Intelligent Design has so far focused mainly on whether the evolution of life since its beginnings can be explained entirely by natural selection and other non-purposive causes. Meyer takes up the prior question of how the immensely complex and exquisitely functional chemical structure of DNA, which cannot be explained by natural selection because it makes natural selection possible, could have originated without an intentional cause. He examines the history and present state of research on non-purposive chemical explanations of the origin of life, and argues that the available evidence offers no prospect of a credible naturalistic alternative to the hypothesis of an intentional cause. Meyer is a Christian, but atheists, and theists who believe God never intervenes in the natural world, will be instructed by his careful presentation of this fiendishly difficult problem.

continue reading

For those of you who missed it, Dawkins made his second appearance with Stephen Colbert. It's a must see! As always, Colbert is hilarious, but also gets to the heart of the matter between naturalism and Christianity. This is a great teaching opportunity for teachers, youth workers, and even parents. Enjoy!

CLICK HERE TO WATCH

 

Sean

1. Design Detection
If nature, or some aspect of it, is intelligently designed, how could we tell?

Design inferences in the past were largely informal and intuitive. Usually people knew it when they saw it. Intelligent design, by introducing specified complexity, makes the detection of design rigorous. Something is complex if it is hard to reproduce by chance and specified if it matches an independently given pattern (an example is the faces on Mt. Rushmore). Specified complexity gives a precise criterion for reliably inferring intelligence.

2. Looking for Design in Biology
Should biologists be encouraged to look for signs of intelligence in biological systems? Why or why not?

Scientists today look for signs of intelligence coming in many places, including from distant space (consider SETI, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence). Yet, many biologists regard it as illegitimate to look for signs of intelligence in biological systems. Why arbitrarily exclude design inferences from biology if we accept them for other scientific disciplines? It is an open question whether the apparent design in nature is real.

continue reading

Those of you interested in apologetics and Intelligent Design may want to know that William Dembski and I just released a new resource on ID. Check it out here:

www.rose-publishing.com/productdetails.cfm?PC=1729.  

As you can see, the graphics of the pamphlet are amazing. We've taken some of the information in our book UNDERSTANDING INTELLIGENT DESIGN as well as some more recent findings and written a short/concise pamphlet with Rose Publishing tackling the following issues:

1. What is ID?
2. How does ID Differ from Creationism and Evolution?
3. Why is Design Important?
4. Is Darwinism Scientific Fact?
5. Is ID Science?
6. What is Irreducible Complexity?

...continued from Part 3...

Where Does the Evidence Really Point?

In January of 2004, the atheist community was stunned by a major announcement.  Antony Flew, probably the world’s most influential atheist of the last 50 years, publicly acknowledged his move from atheism to belief in God’s existence (he hasn’t embraced Christianity just yet, though).  Let me give you some perspective. Flew’s announcement is equivalent to Billy Graham calling a press conference and telling the world he is leaving Christianity.  Can you imagine the shockwaves throughout the Christian world? 
So why did this life-long atheist ditch atheism?  Flew said he “had to go where the evidence leads.”   And what was that evidence?  “I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries...I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.”  

continue reading

...continued from Part 2...

Wait, the Fossil Record is Evidence of Macroevolution, Right?

Of course, scientists suggest there is evidence for macroevolution.  They point to the fossil record.  They argue we have transitional forms.  These are intermediate fossils that demonstrate gradual change from one type of species to another.  Scientists hold up examples like Archaeopteryx.  Maybe you’ve seen this lizard-like-bird fossil in your biology book (if not, google it).  Supposedly, it’s a transitional form between lizards and birds.  But there’s a major problem with transitional forms in general.

A few potential transitional examples here and there are not enough.  Evolutionists need a lot more.  Darwin said so himself in Origin of the Species.  “The number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great (emphasis mine).”  In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true we should find tons of transitional forms in the fossil record.  But we don’t.

continue reading

...continued from Part 1...

Definition #1:  Evolution is change over time. 

This definition is really general.  As we observe our world we see things changing day by day, month by month, year by year.  An oak changes as it goes from sapling to tree.  A baby changes as she grows into a toddler.  Your body changes.  Seasons change.  Clothing styles change.  Everything changes.  In this sense of evolution everything on earth evolves.  But is this a problem for Christians?  Of course not.  If this is what someone means when they say “evolution,” no problem.

Definition #2:  Evolution is the process where minor changes take place in an organism to produce new characteristics.

continue reading

I recently wrote an article on evolution for junior high and high school students that appeared in Clear Horizon magazine.  The article was entitled "It's a Dead Man's Party," in reference to the upcoming 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth this Thursday.  I will post excerpts of the article over the next few days. 

Introduction

When was the last time you went to a birthday party for a dead guy?

Here’s your chance.  On February 12, 2009, evolutionists everywhere will celebrate the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin. Darwin can’t make it but that won’t stop the celebrations that are already planned worldwide.  Yes, worldwide.  That’s one killer party.

continue reading

Since the release of Understanding Intelligent Design last summer, I have had the chance to speak to thousands of Christians and non-Christians about the case for design in nature. Probably no challenge is raised more frequently than the seemingly “evil designs” in nature, such as the AIDS virus or the Great White Shark. How could a good God create such efficient killing machines? The apparent cruelty of nature was actually one of Darwin’s chief contentions with creation. He couldn’t see how the cruelty of nature could have been created by God.

For the sake of argument, let’s grant that AIDS and sharks were designed as killing machines. This raises an obvious question: How does such an admission count against intelligent design? After all, a torture chamber is clearly designed, even though it is used for an evil purpose. Evil designs are still designs.

continue reading