C.S. Lewis Society Blog

Video Interview With Stephen Meyer on Signature in the Cell

2010-07-05T00:11:00.002-05:00

Is there evidence of intelligence in DNA? Can Darwinian Evolution account for information? Listen to this interview with one of the leaders of the ID movement.

Signature In The Cell Website

About the Book: "Drawing on data from many scientific fields, Stephen Meyer formulates a rigorous argument employing the same method of inferential reasoning that Darwin used. In a thrilling narrative with elements of a detective story as well as a personal quest for truth, Meyer illuminates the mystery that surrounds the origins of DNA. He demonstrates that previous scientific efforts to explain the origins of biological information have all failed, and argues convincingly for intelligent design as the best explanation of life’s beginning. In final chapters, he defends ID theory against a range of objections and shows how intelligent design offers fruitful approaches for future scientific research."

Should Christians Embrace Evolution?

2010-05-03T12:06:00.002-05:00

This is a question that will only get more attention in the days ahead. Here is a helpful post by apologist Sean McDowell:

"The question is whether or not Darwinian evolution can be wedded with orthodox Christianity without doing damage to either one. For the past couple years I’ve read the main works of theistic evolutionists such as Francis Collins (The Language of God), Kenneth Miller (Only A Theory), Denis Alexander (Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?), and Karl Giberson (Saving Darwin). They all seem to have a common goal: mold Christian theology to fit neo-Darwinian evolution. In other words, strip Christianity down to its bare bones so it can be consistent with evolution. After reading these works one thing become clear: theology can be molded and adapted to accommodate evolutionary theory, but not vice versa. Should Christians Embrace Evolution? raises both theological and scientific objections to theistic evolution." Read more

Mainstream Media Now Picking up on Intelligent Design Discrimination Lawsuit Against NASA's JPL

2010-04-20T00:53:00.002-05:00

Here is another case of academic freedom being squelched:

"Last week we reported on a discrimination lawsuit filed on behalf of JPL employee David Coppedge. Over the weekend the San Gabriel Valley Tribune ran a lengthy story reporting on the suit.

After Coppedge discussed intelligent design with JPL scientists, his supervisors told him to stop discussing religion. Last April Coppedge's bosses demoted him. Coppedge had been a leader on the system administrator team for the Cassini mission, according to the suit.

The paper also reports that after being ordered by his superiors at JPL to stop talking about intelligent design, Coppedge did just that. Even more interesting is this:

Earlier this month Coppedge claims he met with his supervisors, who told him that the written warning was inappropriate and it would be removed from his file. The suit calls this is "an admission of liability."

The AP report is short, but this is just the beginning" ...more...

On Guard by William Lane Craig Just Released!

2010-03-02T16:41:00.002-06:00

Renowned scholar William Lane Craig offers a readable, rich training manual for defending the Christian faith.

This concise guide is filled with illustrations, sidebars, and memorizable steps to help Christians stand their ground and defend their faith with reason and precision. In his engaging style, Dr. Craig offers four arguments for God’s existence, defends the historicity of Jesus’ personal claims and resurrection, addresses the problem of suffering, and shows why religious relativism doesn’t work. Along the way, he shares his story of following God’s call in his own life.

This one-stop, how-to-defend-your-faith manual will equip Christians to advance faith conversations deliberately, applying straightforward, cool-headed arguments. They will discover not just what they believe, but why they believe—and how being on guard with the truth has the power to change lives forever.

From the Back Cover

Do you worry that someone will ask you a question about your faith that you can’t answer?

Have you tried to learn how to defend your faith but gotten lost in confusing language and theology?

Do you struggle with times of spiritual doubt yourself?

This concise training manual by renowned scholar William Lane Craig is filled with illustrations, sidebars, and memorizable steps to help you stand your ground and defend your faith with reason and precision. In his engaging style, Dr. Craig offers four arguments for God’s existence, defends the historicity of Jesus’ personal claims and resurrection, addresses the problem of suffering, and shows why religious relativism doesn’t work. Along the way, he shares his own story of following God’s call.

This one-stop, how-to-defend-your-faith manual will equip you to advance faith conversations deliberately, applying straightforward, cool-headed arguments. You will discover not just what you believe, but why you believe—and how being on guard with the truth has the power to change lives forever.

Reasonable Faith Website

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design Discussion with Medved, Meyer, Woodward & Berlinski

2010-02-10T21:26:00.002-06:00

This is a discussion of Stephen Meyer's Book Signature in the Cell, hosted by the C.S. Lewis Society. The discussion is between Dr. Stephen Meyer, Michael Medved, Dr. David Berlinski, and Dr. Tom Woodward. They discuss intelligent design theory, DNA structure, cell structure, and the origin of life. Q&A included. Fascinating listen.

Full MP3 Audio here. (2hr 20min)

Enjoy.

(HT / Apologetics 315)

Response to Darrel Falk’s Review of Signature in the Cell By Stephen C. Meyer

2010-02-01T15:38:00.002-06:00

By Stephen C. Meyer

"In 1985, I attended a conference that brought a fascinating problem in origin-of-life biology to my attention—the problem of explaining how the information necessary to produce the first living cell arose. At the time, I was working as a geophysicist doing digital signal processing, a form of information analysis and technology. A year later, I enrolled in graduate school at the University of Cambridge, where I eventually completed a Ph.D. in the philosophy of science after doing interdisciplinary research on the scientific and methodological issues in origin-of-life biology. In the ensuing years, I continued to study the problem of the origin of life and have authored peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific articles on the topic of biological origins, as well as co-authoring a peer-reviewed biology textbook. Last year, after having researched the subject for more than two decades, I published Signature in the Cell, which provides an extensive evaluation of the principal competing theories of the origin of biological information and the related question of the origin of life. Since its completion, the book has been endorsed by prominent scientists including Philip Skell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences; Scott Turner, an evolutionary biologist at the State University of New York; and Professor Norman Nevin, one of Britain’s leading geneticists.

Nevertheless, in his recent review on the Biologos website, Prof. Darrel Falk characterizes me as merely a well-meaning, but ultimately unqualified, philosopher and religious believer who lacks the scientific expertise to evaluate origin-of-life research and who, in any case, has overlooked the promise of recent pre-biotic simulation experiments. On the basis of two such experiments, Falk suggests I have jumped prematurely to the conclusion that pre-biotic chemistry cannot account for the origin of life. Yet neither of the scientific experiments he cites provides evidence that refutes the argument of my book or solves the central mystery that it addresses. Indeed, both experiments actually reinforce—if inadvertently—the main argument of Signature in the Cell.

The central argument of my book is that intelligent design—the activity of a conscious and rational deliberative agent—best explains the origin of the information necessary to produce the first living cell. I argue this because of two things that we know from our uniform and repeated experience, which following Charles Darwin I take to be the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. First, intelligent agents have demonstrated the capacity to produce large amounts of functionally specified information (especially in a digital form). Second, no undirected chemical process has demonstrated this power. Hence, intelligent design provides the best—most causally adequate—explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life from simpler non-living chemicals. In other words, intelligent design is the only explanation that cites a cause known to have the capacity to produce the key effect in question.

Nowhere in his review does Falk refute this claim or provide another explanation for the origin of biological information. In order to do so Falk would need to show that some undirected material cause has demonstrated the power to produce functional biological information apart from the guidance or activity a designing mind. Neither Falk, nor anyone working in origin-of-life biology, has succeeded in doing this. Thus, Falk opts instead to make a mainly personal and procedural argument against my book by dismissing me as unqualified and insisting that it is “premature” to draw any negative conclusions about the adequacy of undirected chemical processes.

To support his claim that I rushed to judgment, Falk first cites a scientific study published last spring after my book was in press. The paper, authored by University of Manchester chemist John Sutherland and two colleagues, does partially address one of the many outstanding difficulties associated the RNA world, the most popular current theory about the origin of the first life.

Starting with a 3-carbon sugar (D-gylceraldehyde), and another molecule called 2-aminooxazole, Sutherland successfully synthesized a 5-carbon sugar in association with a base and a phosphate group. In other words, he produced a ribonucleotide. The scientific press justifiably heralded this as a breakthrough in pre-biotic chemistry because previously chemists had thought (as I noted in my book) that the conditions under which ribose and bases could be synthesized were starkly incompatible with each other.

Nevertheless, Sutherland’s work does not refute the central argument of my book (More)

The C.S. Lewis Society Presents - Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design

2010-01-22T16:01:00.002-06:00

Jan. 28^th 7:00PM – 9:30PM

at The A La Carte Pavilion

Thursday, Jan. 28^th 7:00PM – 9:30PM

Doors Open at 6:00 PM

The A La Carte Pavilion

4050 Dana Shores Drive

Tampa, FL 33634

Students $6 – Adults $12

For Information and Advanced Ticket Sales,

Call (727) 376-6911 ext. 336 or visit us online at www.bayword.com

Dr. Woodward on ID the Future Podcast

2009-12-15T22:56:00.002-06:00

"On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin interviews Thomas Woodward, who makes the argument that 2009 should be celebrated as the 25th anniversary for intelligent design. Listen in as Dr. Woodward recounts the history of intelligent design and how the movement has changed over the last quarter-century."

Thomas Woodward is the author of Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design and Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design.

Click here to listen.

Richard Dawkins Runs From a Good Fight

2009-10-13T16:47:00.001-05:00

Here is a great post from Evolution News.

"Today on the Michael Medved show, arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins, author of The Greatest Show on Earth, was asked point-blank by Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman why he wouldn't debate Stephen Meyer, author of Signature in the Cell. His response? Weak sauce:

I have never come across any kind of creationism, whether you call it intelligent design or not, which has a serious scientific case to put.
The objection to having debates with people like that is that it gives them a kind of respectability. If a real scientist goes onto a debating platform with a creationist, it gives them a respectability, which I do not think your people have earned.

Hm. Did Professor Dawkins have these same scruples when he went up against John Lennox in 2007? No matter — Professor Dawkins made his position clear enough...." (more...)

Great God Debates

2009-10-05T23:38:00.001-05:00

"There is a great tradition of debates between atheists and believers in God. In the first half of the twentieth century, G.K. Chesterton debated George Bernard Shaw on topics ranging from God to socialism. In a famous debate, philosophers Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell squared off on whether God's existence could be proved. Dinesh D'Souza seeks to revive this great tradition, and in recent months he has been debating several of the world's leading atheists. More debates are coming up. Here believers and non-believers alike can see case for and against God and Christianity presented by capable advocates on both sides. So watch, and enjoy, and make up your own mind."

View Debates...

Saddleback Church Apologetics Conference

2009-09-21T21:55:00.004-05:00

Saddleback Church recently hosted an Apologetics Conference with a number of great apologists. Now their audio and video are available for listening and viewing online. But if you prefer MP3s or a podcast feed, you can download there right here:

• How Can I Know God Exists? - Dinesh D'Souza - MP3
• How Did the Universe Begin - William Lane Craig - MP3
• If God Exists, Why is there Evil? - Norman Geisler - MP3
• Has Science Made Belief in God Obsolete? - J.P. Moreland - MP3
• What Do the Gospels Really Say About Jesus? - Darrell Bock - MP3
• How Can I Defend My Faith Without Sounding Defensive? - Greg Koukl - MP3

This is a wonderful introduction to how faith and reason work together. If you have doubts about the Christian faith or know someone who does, this is an encouraging place to start seeking some answers to questions that matter. (H/T Apologetics 315 blog)

John Lennox on the Design of the Universe

2009-09-11T16:08:00.004-05:00

John Lennox is one of the most thoughtful defenders of Christianity today. Here he is on the Design of the Universe.

Visit his website for more...

Here is his latest book: God' Undertaker

Behe interview sparks controversy on bloggingheads.tv

2009-09-02T00:06:00.002-05:00

If you follow the Intelligent Design / Darwinian evolution debate, then you will want to check out this video. It was posted, taken down 6 hours later, then reinstated.

Here is the book stirring up all the controversy, see:

Three Tips for Students Going Back to School to Study Evolution

2009-08-25T23:52:00.003-05:00

For students heading back to the class room and need some help in thinking through evolution, the following article is helpful. Also, check out Sean McDowell and William Dembski's book Understanding Intelligent Design.

Three Tips for Students Going Back to School to Study Evolution (HT / Evolution News)

After attending public schools from kindergarten through my masters degree, I learned a few lessons about staying informed while studying a biased and one-sided origins curriculum. My large, inner-city public high school was rich in diversity, and I learned to appreciate a multiplicity of viewpoints and backgrounds. Unfortunately, this diversity did not extend into the biology classroom. There I was told there was one, and only one, acceptable perspective regarding origins: neo-Darwinian theory. As students head back to school this year, I want to share some tips I’ve learned to help students stay informed on this topic:

Tip #1: Never opt out of learning evolution. In fact, learn about evolution every chance you get.

Evolutionary biologist Patrick J. Keeling claims in a recent letter to the editor in the journal Science that, after “a creationist visited my biology class,” his class was promised a lecture in evolution, which “never materialized.” He writes, “I wanted to know what we were missing, and why.”

I can empathize with Keeling. I had an analogous but opposite experience studying evolution in high school. At the end of our stridenly pro-Darwin unit on evolution, my public high school biology teacher promised us a debate, which like Keeling’s evolution lecture, never materialized. Then in college, I took many courses covering evolution at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. But just like my experience in high school, there was virtually no meaningful debate or dialogue over the fundamental questions. Neo-Darwinian evolution was always taken as a given. Exactly like Keeling, I wanted to know what I was missing.

Despite the one-sided nature of my education, I’m glad I studied evolution. In fact, the more evolutionary biology I took, the more I became convinced that the theory was based upon unproven assumptions, contradictory methodologies, and supported weakly by the data.

So my first tip is to never be afraid to study evolution. But when you do study evolution, always think critically and keep yourself proactively informed about a diversity of viewpoints (see tips 2 and 3 below).

Tip #2: Think for yourself, think critically, and question assumptions.

Though my professors rarely (if ever) would acknowledge it, I quickly discovered in college that nearly all evolutionary claims are based mostly upon assumptions. Modern evolutionary theory is assumed to be true, and then the data is interpreted based upon Darwinian assumptions. The challenge for you, the truth-seeking student, is to always try to separate out the raw data from the assumptions that guide interpretation of the data.

Keep your eyes out for circular reasoning. You’ll see that very quickly, evolutionary assumptions become “facts,” and future data must be assembled in order to be consistent with those “facts.”

Realize that evolutionary thinking often employs contradictory logic and inconsistent methodologies. The logic employed to infer evolution in situation A may be precisely the exact opposite of the logic used to infer evolution in situation B. Here are a couple examples:

• Biological similarity between two species implies inheritance from a common ancestor (i.e. vertical common descent) except for when it doesn’t (and then they appeal to processes like "convergent evolution" or "horizontal gene transfer").
• Neo-Darwinism predicts transitional forms may be found, but when they’re not found, that just shows that the transitions took place too rapidly and in populations too small to (statistically speaking) become fossilized.
• Evolutionary genetics predicts the genome will be full of useless junk DNA, except for when we discover function for such “junk” DNA. Then evolution predicts that cells would never retain useless junk DNA in the first place.

When both A and (not) A imply evolution, you know a theory is based upon an inconsistent scientific methodology. Keep an eye out for assumptions and contradictory methodologies, for they abound in evolutionary reasoning.

Finally, you must be careful to always think....(more)

Darwin's Dilemma - Coming Soon to DVD

2009-08-16T22:51:00.004-05:00

(description HT / www.arn.org) This documentary will examine what many consider to be the most powerful refutation of Darwinian evolution-the Cambrian fossil record. Charles Darwin realized that the fossil evidence did not support his theory of gradual, step-by-step evolutionary development. He hoped that future generations of scientists would make the discoveries necessary to validate his ideas. Today, after more than 150 years of exploration fossil evidence of slow, incremental biological change has yet to be excavated. Instead, we find a picture of the rapid appearance of fully developed, complex organisms during the outset of the Cambrian geological era. Organisms that embody almost all of the major animal body plans that exist today. This remarkable explosion of life is best explained by the existence of a transcendent intelligence.

Filmed on four continents, this fascinating documentary examines some of the most important fossil discoveries ever made... and, with them, a mystery deeper than Darwin ever imagined. The Cambrian explosion was actually an explosion of biological information: assembly instructions in DNA and embryonic blueprints that directed the development of the first complex animals...information that points unmistakably to foresight, purpose and intelligent design.

Darwin's Dilemma is a high-quality documentary that includes interviews with world-class paleontologists Simon Conway Morris and James Valentine, as well as leading intelligent design theorists and scientists Paul Nelson, Jonathan Wells, Stephen C. Meyer, Paul Chien, Doug Axe, and Richard Sternberg.

As with the first two Illustra Media ID documentaries, Unlocking the Mystery of Life and The Privileged Planet, Darwin's Dilemma is full of high quality animations to help the viewer visualize the amazing complexity and design of the Cambrian creatures. You can watch a trailer for Darwin's Dilemma is here.

Did God Evolve?

2009-08-03T16:07:00.004-05:00

Recently Dinesh D'Souza, author of "What's So Great About Christianity" reviewed The Evolution of God by Robert Wright for Christianity Today.

"There are three kinds of people: those who believe in God, those who don't, and those who believe in belief. Robert Wright is a member of the third group. He calls himself an unbeliever who holds that "gods arose as illusions" invented by mankind. At the same time, he thinks it is an excellent thing for others to believe in God. Since he advocates belief largely for secular and social purposes, Wright insists that religions evolve in the direction that he considers most conducive to social harmony and global peace.

It may seem odd that someone would take the trouble to write a 576-page book making this argument. Even so, I approached Robert Wright's new one, The Evolution of God (Little, Brown and Company), with anticipation. Years ago I enjoyed Wright's The Moral Animal (1994), which competently summarized then-recent research of evolutionary biologists on the origins of altruism. Wright presented his findings in a supple, breezy style that made the book a pleasure to read.

The Evolution of God is also engaging, and when you consider the topic you might wonder if the book is yet enough to do it justice. According to the publisher's summary, Wright seeks to provide nothing less than a "sweeping narrative that takes us from the Stone Age to the Information Age," a span of about 7,000 years. Besides, Wright's book covers the entire world, drawing on multiple fields including anthropology, history, biology, philosophy, and theology. Even great polymaths from Voltaire to Thomas Jefferson never attempted anything so ambitious, and Wright deserves credit for trying.

His thesis is simply stated upfront: While the gods arose as illusions, "the story of this evolution itself points to the existence of something you can meaningfully call divinity," Wright argues. Moreover, religion has "matured" so that it is now closer to modern ideas of tolerance and scientific truth. In Wright's words, "the illusion has gotten less and less illusory."

This may seem a strange way to justify religion, and it is. Oddly enough, Wright considers himself a friend of religion. His massive narrative is intended to show that religion has slowly gotten its act together and its story right, and he is hopeful that religion will continue to evolve away from its harsh, primitive roots, toward less exclusivity and more tolerance, so it can be reconciled with modern secular liberalism. Wright sees himself as making a kind of defense of God, although "not exactly the kind of God that most religious believers currently have in mind."

Wright begins by claiming that polytheism persisted much longer than the Old Testament lets on, and that even Jews persisted in worshiping many gods despite their monotheistic God's jealous demands for exclusive allegiance. So far, he isn't saying anything controversial.
Wright proceeds to make claims about Jesus and Muhammad that are equally banal. He insists that Jesus didn't say some of the things that are attributed to him, something Christians have been hearing for a century and a half, and something that rests on questionable assumptions. The logic behind such an approach is that scribes in subsequent centuries may have made up the good stuff attributed to Christ, but they surely wouldn't have made up things in the Bible that make Christ look bad. But no one applies these principles to Socrates or any other historical figure. Imagine if you deleted all of Socrates' good arguments, imagining these to have been exaggerations concocted by his enthusiastic disciples Plato or Xenophon, and only credited Socrates with his bad arguments. We would have an entirely different picture of Socrates today. While there is indeed controversy about how accurately the disciples of Socrates pictured him, no philosophy student would stand for such a tendentious, one-sided mode of historical interpretation. By the same token..."

(Rest of article).

These days "evolution" as a concept is applied to anything and everything. The latest is God. Dinesh highlights some of the problems with this view.

The Case For The Resurrection of Christ - Dr. Gary Habermas

2009-07-27T23:32:00.005-05:00

Christianity rises or falls on the resurrection of Jesus (cf. 1 Corinthians 15). One of the ablest defenders of the historical evidence for the resurrection is Dr. Gary Habermas. here is a short clip of him on faith under fire. To see more resources by Dr. Habermas, you can visit his website.

Tactics for Our Spiritual Conversations

2009-07-20T10:18:00.002-05:00

Every now and then, a book comes along that has the potential to really help Christians engage others well. Greg Koukl's recent book is one.

In a world increasingly indifferent to Christian truth, followers of Christ need to be equipped to communicate with those who do not speak their language or accept their source of authority. Gregory Koukl demonstrates how to get in the driver’s seat, keeping any conversation moving with thoughtful, artful diplomacy.

You’ll learn how to maneuver comfortably and graciously through the minefields, stop challengers in their tracks, turn the tables and—most importantly—get people thinking about Jesus. Soon, your conversations will look more like diplomacy than D-Day.

Drawing on extensive experience defending Christianity in the public square, Koukl shows you how to:

- Initiate conversations effortlessly
- Present the truth clearly, cleverly, and persuasively
- Graciously and effectively expose faulty thinking
- Skillfully manage the details of dialogue
- Maintain an engaging, disarming style even under attack

Tactics provides the game plan for communicating the compelling truth about Christianity with confidence and grace.

Why is Jesus the Only Way?

2009-07-12T21:13:00.002-05:00

Why is Jesus the Only Way? Greg Koukl speaks to this question...

William Lane Craig vs Daniel Dennett on Arguments for Existence of God

2009-07-09T11:18:00.002-05:00

I came across this post (HT Winter Knight), to some auido of an entertaining and enlightening interchange between Dennett (atheist) and Craig (theist). Give it a listen....

Here are some of the observations made by Wintery Knight blog...

Dennett’s response to Craig’s paper

"Here is my snarky paraphrase of Dennett’s reponse: (I haven’t been snarky all day!)

Craig’s three arguments are bulletproof, the premises are plausible, and grounded by the best cutting edge science we know today.

I cannot find anything wrong with his arguments right now, but maybe later when i go home it will come to me what’s wrong with them.

But atheism is true even if all the evidence is against it today. I know it’s true by my blind faith.

The world is so mysterious, and all the science of today will be overturned tomorrow so that atheism will be rational again. I have blind faith that this new evidence will be discovered any minute.

Just because the cause of the beginning of time is eternal and the cause of the beginning of space is non-physical, the cause doesn’t have to be God.

“Maybe the cause of the universe is the idea of an apple, or the square root of 7″. (HE LITERALLY SAID THAT!)

The principle of triangulation might have brought the entire physical universe into being out of nothing.

I don’t understand anything about non-physical causation, even though I cannot even speak meaningful sentences unless I have a non-physical mind that is causing my body to emit the meaningful sentences in a non-determined manner.

Alexander Vilenkin is much smarter than Craig and if he were here he would beat him up good with phantom arguments.

Alan Guth is much smarter than Craig and if he were here he would beat him up good with phantom arguments.

This science stuff is so complicated to me – so Craig can’t be right about it even though he’s published about it and debated it all with the best atheists on the planet.

If God is outside of time, then this is just deism, not theism.

If deism is true, then I can still be an atheist, because a Creator and Designer of the universe is compatible with atheism.

I’m pretty sure that Craig doesn’t have any good arguments that can argue for Christianity – certainly not an argument for the resurrection of jesus that he’s defended against the most prominent historians on the planet."

On the Origin of Life

2009-07-02T00:55:00.002-05:00

Here is Dr. Stephen Meyer presenting his argument:

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer

2009-06-24T00:34:00.006-05:00

for a blog on this important new book, click here.

For video of Dr. Meyer discussing the book, click here.

(from author site) The foundations of scientific materialism are in the process of crumbling. In Signature in the Cell, philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer shows how the digital code in DNA points powerfully to a designing intelligence behind the origin of life. The book will be published on June 23 by HarperOne.

Unlike previous arguments for intelligent design, Signature in the Cell presents a radical and comprehensive new case, revealing the evidence not merely of individual features of biological complexity but rather of a fundamental constituent of the universe: information. That evidence has been mounting exponentially in recent years, known to scientists in specialized fields but largely hidden from public view. A Cambridge University-trained theorist and researcher, director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, Dr. Meyer is the first to bring the relevant data together into a powerful demonstration of the intelligence that stands outside nature and directs the path life has taken.

The universe is comprised of matter, energy, and the information that gives order to matter and energy, thereby bringing life into being. In the cell, information is carried by DNA, which functions like a software program. The signature in the cell is that of the master programmer of life.

In his theory of evolution, Charles Darwin never sought to unravel the mystery of where biological information comes from. For him, the origins of life remained shrouded in impenetrable obscurity. While the digital code in DNA first came to light in the 1950s, it wasn’t until later that scientists began to sense the implications behind the exquisitely complex technical system for processing and storing information in the cell. The cell does what any advanced computer operating system can do but with almost inconceivably greater suppleness and efficiency.

Drawing on data from many scientific fields, Stephen Meyer formulates a rigorous argument employing the same method of inferential reasoning that Darwin used. In a thrilling narrative with elements of a detective story as well as a personal quest for truth, Meyer illuminates the mystery that surrounds the origins of DNA. He demonstrates that previous scientific efforts to explain the origins of biological information have all failed, and argues convincingly for intelligent design as the best explanation of life’s beginning. In final chapters, he defends ID theory against a range of objections and shows how intelligent design offers fruitful approaches for future scientific research.

Appearing in this year of Darwin anniversaries—Darwin’s 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his Origin of Species—Signature in the Cell could only have been written now that the data of biology’s dawning information age has started to come in. Meyer shares with readers the excitement of the most recent discoveries, as the digital technology at work in the cell has been progressively revealed. The operating system embedded in the genome includes nested coding, digital processing, distributive retrieval and storage systems. It is very extraordinary—the terminology is all recognizable from computer science.

The appearance of Meyer’s book is timely in two other ways. First, bestselling atheist writers like biologist Richard Dawkins have insisted that because Darwin buried the traditional argument for design in nature, religious belief has been shown to be irrational in our modern scientific age. Meyer reveals that, on the contrary, it is precisely our modern scientific age that is in the process of burying materialist theories of life’s development.

Second, since a federal judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, ruled in 2005 that intelligent design may not rightfully claim the designation of “science,” Judge John E. Jones has become the hero of Darwinian activists and their supporters in academia and the media. The Dover decision has been hailed as the death knell of intelligent design. Hardly so! Speaking from the more relevant perspective of the philosophy of science, Meyer responds that federal judges were never given the job of defining what is scientific and what is not.

As a philosopher and a scientist himself, having worked in the field of geophysics for Atlantic Richfield, Meyer is able to step back from the fray of competing views about Darwinian theory and offer a searching, compelling investigation of life’s beginning.

for more visit the website...

Is Christianity or Atheism more rational?

2009-06-15T11:33:00.002-05:00

Is Christianity or Atheism more rational? Here is an interesting interview with John Lennox (philosopher of Science and Mathematics at Oxford) regarding this question.

Benjamin Wiker on Darwin, the Man and the Myth

2009-06-08T10:53:00.002-05:00

Charles Darwin's shadow looms large on history...so who was he? Here is an interview with Benjamin Wiker on Darwin, the Man and the Myth (Anika Smith). (click here to Listen)

On this episode of ID the Future, Logan Gage interviews Dr. Benjamin Wiker, author of The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin.

What were Darwin's actual religious and philosophical views? Are atheists abusing Darwin's theory when they say Darwinism supports their atheist belief? Listen in as Dr. Wiker answers and explains the natural outgrowth of Social Darwinism from Darwin's theory.

Listen to previous IDTF episodes featuring Dr. Wiker here and here.

Does God Exist? Debate Now Available on DVD

2009-06-04T13:31:00.003-05:00

The "Does God Exist" debate took place in front of a sold out crowd at Biola University on April 4, 2009. Over 4,200 people saw it live on-campus and and additional 11,000 viewed it from around the globe through a special webcast. Don't miss this debate between one of the finest Christian philosophers alive today, Dr. William Lane Craig, and Christopher Hitchens, who is one of the most outspoken atheists in a century.

Read the Biola's News Report on this Debate. Click Here

Order a DVD.

Is Theisitc Evolution a Good Idea for the Christian?

2009-05-27T22:15:00.003-05:00

I came across this blog post: "Where theistic evolution leads." It engages with Dr. Francis Collins bio-logos view.

(Here is an excerpt) Editor's Note: This is crossposted at David Klinghoffer's Beliefnet blog, Kingdom of Priests.

Some readers thought I was unfair in a previous entry explaining the difference between my perspective on evolution and that of my fellow Beliefnet blogger Dr. Francis Collins over at Science and the Sacred. Am I really not being fair? Well, let's test that hypothesis by picking out one idea from Dr. Collins's book and from his website BioLogos. It's his treatment of the idea that somehow a moral law in every heart points us to the existence of God.

Because BioLogos -- or theistic evolution, however we may designate the general approach -- surrenders so easily to naturalism, it must be willing to accommodate Darwinism's explanation of where that moral law comes from. Dr. Collins thinks radical acts of altruism may defy an evolutionary explanation, or maybe not. Thus quoth BioLogos:

Even if a purely natural account of moral development could be found, the simple fact that morality has evolved is something that would be expected in a world created by a just and loving God.

On the contrary...(more....)

47-Million-Year-Old Fossil the Missing Link?

2009-05-20T15:12:00.006-05:00

You know a story is big when Google changes their search engine logo to resemble this fossil.

The basic headline?

"Scientists yesterday unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossil that they’re calling the "missing link" between primates and humans. Technically called a Darwinius masillae, but nicknamed "Ida," the juvenile female primate was discovered in Germany’s Messel Pit and is one of the most intact fossils ever found. In fact, scientists were even able to identify her last meal: fruit, seeds and leaves." (click for more)

National Geographic here...

"Revolutionary" Fossil Fails to Dazzle Paleontologists

So what does this mean? Has the missing link been found? Well here is an interview with Dr. Fuz Rana with one Christian perspective from Reasons to Believe.

This article from Evolution News.

Also, a blog post here at Uncommon Descent and another Christian perspective from Answers in Genesis.

This will become another icon like "Lucy." On a side note, this has been released with the PR blitz of a major movie (book, website, documentary) all without a lot of examination and peer review. Time will tell. But I wouldn't be surprised to see a retraction on page 26 sometime in the future clarifying the import of this fossil.

For a very helpful introduction to evolution, the fossil record, and intelligent design see the Design of Life.

Helpful thoughts from Stand to Reason

"One question that has to be raised with any fossil evidence is the presupposition and interpretation imposed on the evidence placing it in the fossil chain of evolution. Fossils don't come lined nicely in the strata in transitional order, as the pictures of fossils lined up in science books nicely illustrate. Fossils are dated, which gives us their historical place, but that doesn't prove transition. What is evident in the fossil evidence, and in Ida, is variation in species, which isn't at all remarkable. Claiming those variations are proof of one species evolving into a new one is an interpretation of those physical features already with the assumption of evolution, not objective proof.

A transition is only a transition only if it occupies the space in the historical development that it needs to occupy, and no fossil can provide that proof without the presumption of evolution imposed upon it placing it in the transitional chain. That's circular reasoning."

What is the New Atheism?

2009-05-13T12:03:00.004-05:00

I came across this clip by Tim Keller. It is a succinct summary of the New Atheism.

Check out Timothy Keller's response in Reason for God.

What Darwin Didn't Know...

2009-05-07T11:30:00.004-05:00

Would Charles Darwin be a 'Darwinist' if he were around today? An intersting question to be sure. Dr. Fazale 'Fuz' Rana has written an engaging article--What Darwin Didn't Know--exploring the kinds of evidence Darwin did not have available to him when he set forth his theory.

(excerpt) "When Charles Darwin advanced his theory of biological evolution, there was a lot of biology he didn't know. Some of it he recognized. But there was much he never even thought about. During the 150 years since then, scientific advance has yielded important understanding about life's origin, history and characteristics. These accomplishments provide the framework for modern biology. Even more, they are causing scientists to question his theory. Learning what scientists know will equip Christians with a response to the Darwin anniversaries and his theory of biological evolution that can change minds and lives..." Read More...

"Darwin of the Gaps" - Review of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis S. Collins

2009-04-22T08:10:00.003-05:00

Francis Collins book, the Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief has much that is valuable to add to the conversation about design and the evidence for God. But there are some areas of disagreement that some have raised against Collins understanding of Intelligent Design and Common Descent.

Jonathan Wells reviews Collins' work here.

Here is is summary. Click here to read the whole article.

SUMMARY
Francis Collins criticizes intelligent design (ID) on the grounds that it fails to suggest approaches for experimental verification, but then he cites experiments that he says prove it wrong. He also criticizes it for being a God of the gaps argument, but only after redefining ID as an argument from ignorance. Collins feels that ID poses a serious problem to Christian belief because it rejects Darwinian evolution, which he feels is supported by overwhelming evidence. But the only evidence Collins cites for Darwin’s mechanism of variation and selection is microevolution – minor changes within existing species. And the principal evidence he cites for Darwin’s claim of common ancestry is DNA sequences that he says have no function – though genome researchers are discovering that many of them do have functions. Collins’s defense of Darwinian theory turns out to be largely an argument from ignorance that must retreat as we learn more about the genome – in effect, a Darwin of the gaps.

Dr. Woodward Article - Explaining about Our Creator: ANSWERING DARWIN

2009-04-13T14:23:00.004-05:00

Dr. Thomas Woodward recently wrote an article for Kindred Spirit talking about Charles Darwin and how we can have a productive cultural conversation about issues Science, Darwin, Intelligent Design, and Faith. It is well worth a read.

(Article Begins)

THE TOWERING FIGURES OF CHARLES DARWIN AND ABRAHAM LINCOLN RARELY RECEIVE mention in the same breath. Yet because of a quirky coincidence—their births on the same day, February 12, 1809—the two are perpetually linked in our consciousness.

This year massive bicentennial celebrations are being launched for both. Clearly the more controversial for Christians is Darwin. He became the father of modern evolutionary theory when he argued that nature knitted together the living world through an all-powerful mechanism of creation—natural selection. This legacy, the center of praise in Darwin celebrations, reigns supreme in biology under the name “neo-Darwinism.”

Neo-Darwinism is a theory that says all biological complexity and diversity—from beetles to zebras and mosses to sequoias—arise from unintelligent forces in nature rather than from an intelligent agent such as God. Over a million species of plants, animals, and microbes, they say, have been sculpted through a long process of “macroevolution.” Darwin’s prime sculptor, tweaked with modern understandings, is nothing more than random genetic glitches filtered by natural selection.

Christians, on the other hand, observe the beauty of the natural world, take note of the gigabytes of coded DNA information packed within living cells, and see the fingerprints of God. To those with a biblical perspective, biology confirms that “since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Rom 1:20).

As “Darwin’s year” continues, we must ask, “Is there a creative, redemptive way to participate in the celebration of Darwin to the glory of God? Could a great opportunity be staring us in the face?”

To address these questions we need to understand that Darwinian celebration won’t rapidly fade as we move through 2009. It will roar on, building to a second climax on November 24—a date that marks the one-hundred-fiftieth anniversary of Darwin’s Origin of Species.

At www.darwinday.org one can follow the cascade of festivities in dozens of countries. Historians, scientists, and educators are seizing this moment to trumpet Darwin’s achievements and to bash intelligent design. By the end of 2009, millions will be influenced through TV specials, historical exhibits, conferences, books, and films.

In an odd twist Darwin enthusiasts have tied Darwin to Lincoln and given the nod to Darwin. Robert Stephens, the American who founded the annual Darwin Day Celebrations, told the BBC that “Feb. 12, 1809, was a very good day for our planet because Lincoln became the great emancipator of the slaves in America, and Darwin became the great emancipator of the human mind!” Stephens added that a “poignant” relationship exists between Lincoln’s great achievement and “Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection . . . that freed the human mind from superstition, thus permitting the interpretation of scientific data through the lens of naturalism instead of through the lens of theology.”

The irony in Stephens’s comment seems to escape him. His preferred philosophy of naturalism is itself a theological and metaphysical doctrine, not a finding of science. Naturalism declares that the universe is a “closed system of material causes and effects” which cannot be affected by anything outside such as God. The great Oxford-trained journalist Thomas Bethell saw this irony when he described naturalistic Darwinism as the great “intellectual superstition” of our time.

Freeing the Mind?

Darwinists like Stephens preach passionate sermons, arguing that science must build on naturalism’s firm foundation or perish. The upshot is clear: Any biblical notion of creation is to be discarded with other outmoded myths.

As a historian of the ongoing “Darwinism vs. Design” controversy, I am frequently shocked by how mainstream science has become unguarded in pushing a theology. It was trumpeted brazenly at a Darwin Day event at the University of Tennessee when William Provine of Cornell University boasted, “Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism that has ever been invented.”

More than a decade later, in lectures, essays, and in the film Expelled, Provine says that Darwinism tells us there is no detectable god or designing force in the universe; no purpose in life; no life after death; no foundation for ethics; and no free will. Provine emphasizes that Darwin agreed with these conclusions.

Provine’s message is recast into an evangelistic appeal by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion. Dawkins said that Darwin made it possible to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Daniel Dennett at Tufts University was even more blunt. In Darwin’s Dangerous Idea Dennett wrote that Darwinism is like a “universal acid; it eats through just about every traditional concept and leaves in its wake a revolutionized worldview.”

Confronted by this atheistic chorus, Christians wonder if it makes sense even to interact with Darwinian celebrants and celebrations. To add to the confusion, some religious leaders draw theological lessons from evolution and salute Darwin’s theory as a map of how God created by using forces of nature. Evangelical Christian and geneticist Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project, pushed a pro-Darwin stance and dismissed intelligent design in The Language of God. (Collins’s book is excellent in many other respects.)

So, to celebrate or not to celebrate? That is the question. Oddly the focus on Darwin presents us with a teachable moment, a year-long window of ministry we may never again see. So as the world focuses on Darwin and design, this is the year to study, learn, preach, and teach about God as Creator. Here are some suggestions:

1. Schedule one or more movie nights in home or church settings to show high-quality DVDs that dispel the confusion about Darwinism and design. (See below.)
2. Host a reading program or a book club to benefit from the rich literature that probes Darwin and the evolution/design debate. Consider reading Darwin’s own Origin of Species, and then balance that with the intelligent-design classic Darwin’s Black Box by biochemist Michael Behe.
3. Individually or in a group develop a chart or balance sheet listing both the positive things discovered in Darwin and his writings as well as the flaws and fallout from his life and legacy. Keep adding to this as your research expands.
4. Do a study and share your findings on what the Bible says about Creation. Remember to include the forgotten Creation verses such as Zechariah 12:1 and passages such as Job 38–40 and Isaiah 40–46. Emphasize Christ’s role in Creation (John 1; Col. 1; Heb. 1). To claim that a creaturely thing—raw matter and energy, unassisted by intelligence—gave rise on its own to the complexity of life is to worship that creature as a creator-substitute.
5. Adopt as a motto these words from the Introduction of Origin of Species: “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” Darwin’s immediately preceding words are significant: “For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived.” Those who say that only Darwin’s side should be presented are not following Darwin’s own counsel.
6. Note that Darwin had the courage to confront problems with his theory. His chapter on “Difficulties with the Theory” grew longer as his book passed through six editions.
7. Study the many lines of evidence that oppose naturalistic-creation theories. Focus on the most embarrassing new development, the meltdown of Darwin’s cherished mechanism (natural selection acting on random mutation) as an engine of change.

Now is the time to focus on Darwin and the history of the controversy he inaugurated. Plunge in, learn, read on both sides, and build the big picture of Darwin—both good points and bad—and his theory with its modest successes and massive problems. Here lies a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that is too great to miss.

SIDEBAR ON RESOURCES
The following are books, videos, and websites Dr. Woodward recommends for those wishing to become more conversant with their neighbors about Darwinism.

DVDs
Unlocking the Mystery of Life
The Privileged Planet
The Case for a Creator
Expelled

Woodward notes, “Two documentaries, Unlocking the Mystery of Life and The Privileged Planet, both from Illustra Media, are extraordinary. Some of this material is combined in a DVD from La Mirada Films, Lee Strobel’s hour-long The Case for a Creator. Watch for a forthcoming Illustra documentary, Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record.

Websites
Visit these sites each week for the latest:

www.crev.info
Source that provides summary with links for headlines relating to the subject of Creation-evolution

www.evolutionnews.org
Website that provides an analysis of news coverage about evolution as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution

www.arn.org
The official site of Access Research Network (ARN), a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing accessible information on science, technology, and society

www.uncommondescent.com
The intelligent-design weblog of William Dembski, Denyse O’Leary, and friends

Books
Beginner: What’s Darwin Got to Do with It? A Friendly Conversation about Evolution (2000)
Cartoon book by John L. Wiester, Jonathan Moneymaker, Janet Moneymaker, and Robert C. Newman. Takes about an hour to read. Recommended for ages twelve and older.

Intermediate: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwin and Intelligent Design (2006)
Jonathan Wells, who holds doctorates in biology and theology, speaks in clear, nontechnical language about Darwinism, explaining who is fighting whom, the root of the conflict, and the evidence for and against Darwinism and intelligent design. He also explains what is ultimately at stake for liberals and conservatives, Christians and non-Christians, educators, policymakers, and scientists.

Advanced: The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems (2007)
William A. Dembski and Jonathan Wells lay out the main lines of evidence and argument in the current dispute between the Darwinists and the growing body of intelligent-design theorists.

For a balanced treatment on Darwin himself see Gertrude Himmelfarb’s classic Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution. Himmelfarb, a renowned historian, has produced a work that is meticulous, gripping, and extremely fair.

For a great analysis and critique (with heavy doses of humor) of Richard Dawkins’s arguments, check out The Devil’s Delusion, by agnostic David Berlinski.

Thomas E. Woodward is a Research Professor and Chair of Bible/Theology Division at Trinity College of Florida. He is the Executive Director of the C.S. Lewis Society and has authored two award-wining books, Doubts about Darwin and Darwin Strikes Back.

Can Science Explain Everything?

2009-04-07T16:58:00.003-05:00

Science rules in our culture. If you’re a scientist people have to listen to you, and if you are not—well, no one wants to be dismissed as “unscientific.” Scientific discovery is the crowning jewel of human progress. Our society’s position: science can tell us everything we need to know; or if it can’t right now, just give it some time and it will eventually solve all our problems. This understanding represents an inflated view of science. As useful as science is, its explanatory scope is not universal. Only a little reflection shows that there are other areas of knowledge in our world: philosophy, ethics, religion, literature, economics, poetry, art, and music (just to name a few).

Not only is the notion that science can speak to all of life clearly false, a common formulation of this view is also incoherent. To see this, examine the following statement by famous atheistic philosopher Bertrand Russell: “whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know.” Initially, this sounds very sophisticated and intelligent. The only problem is that if it is true, we couldn’t know it to be true. Why? Because the statement itself is not testable by the scientific method and is therefore, by its own standard, unable to be known. This fallacious view is called scientism.

What we need is a robust philosophy of science that recognizes the limits of the discipline. Now there may be implications in other disciplines--but science cannot and will not ever-in principle- be able to give us the elusive "Theory of Everything."

As the New Testament was being written...how were the books selected for the canon?

2009-03-27T09:24:00.003-05:00

As the New Testament was being written...how were the books selected for the canon?

This is an interesting and important question. Especially as we head into the "specials on Jesus and the Bible season" on Discovery, History Channel and the like. Good TV...but often bad or at least, less than truthful, history.

Well, this is a big topic, but here are the three primary criteria that were used to distinguish between which writings would or wouldn't become Bible.

1) Apostolicity – it was written by an Apostle or an associate of an Apostle (cf. Mark with Peter)

2) Orthodoxy – it conforms to the teachings / theology of the Apostles. (BTW Constantine had nothing to do with the selection of the biblical books. He convened the council of Nicaea in 325 - but that dealt with relationship of Jesus the son to the father).

3) Catholicity (or Universality) – accepted by churches throughout the region.

As Wallace et al conclude in their excellent book, Reinventing Jesus, “Eventually, three kinds of literature were decisively rejected as non-canonical: (1) those that were obvious forgeries (2) those that were late productions (2nd century or later) and (3) those that did not Conform to the orthodoxy of the core books already known to be authentic.”(149)

Regarding (2), NT scholar Darrell Bock reminds us “Orthodoxy is not the product of third-century theologians. Those theologians certainly developed and honed traditional teaching. They gave flesh to the bones and structure to the basic ideas. However, the core of ideas they worked with and reflected in their confessions can be found in the faith’s earliest works. These works embraced what the apostles passed on. The works that we find in the New Testament also testify to this faith. That is why they were recognized as special sources for this teaching, even seen as being inspired by God."(The Missing Gospels, p.213)

Conclusion. This wasn't a power play and this process was well thought out--though it took time. Remember this is in an Oral culture before the Printing press is invented. We know that 21 of the 27 NT writings were functioning authoritatively by 180 AD and the 4 Gospels and the major letters of Paul were in place around AD 130.

Jesus and Pagan Mythology

2009-03-13T12:16:00.003-05:00

One of the more common attacks on the historical Jesus making the Internet rounds these days is that Christianity borrowed from pagan religions / mythology.

Now, this was a popular argument around the turn of the 20th century, but has been all but abandoned by scholars today. But that does not keep this objection from making the rounds and finding its way into freshman seminars in college.

Here is a good article which discusses it--Jesus and Pagan Mythology--and also the chapter by noted historian Edwin M. Yamauchi in The Case for the Real Jesus.

How Christianity Changed the World

2009-03-09T23:45:00.004-05:00

In the last post, I was responding to a very common criticism of the new atheists. But as it was properly pointed out, this is not an argument for Christianity.

When it comes to the moral vision of the NT and the lasting impact of Christianity, a fascinating book is How Christianity Changed the World. From education to women's rights, Christianity, when it has been properly understood and applied, is a force for good in our world. And that flows from the good news of the Kingdom that Jesus offered.

Is Christianity Responsible for the Mass Murders of History?

2009-02-24T22:41:00.004-06:00

If you were to sit through a Western Civilization 101 class today, it would not take long to get the impression that Christianity is responsible for the worst atrocities in history. Exhibits A, B, and C would be the Crusades, Inquisition, and witch trials. My point here is not to delve into the intricacies of history or justify what did or did not happen; though I would encourage people to go beyond the often unsubstantiated slogans and rhetoric to the facts of history themselves (it is one thing to take responsibility for what you did, it is quite another to struggle under the weight of what others wrongly perceive you to have done). Rather, I want to compare these events with Atheistic atrocities—which seem to get far less press.

If you were to only examine the big three Atheistic regimes of the 20th century—Mao in china, Stalin in Russia, and Hitler in Nazi Germany—then you would discover that they are responsible for more than 100 million deaths (and that does not even include others like Pol Pot’s mass killings in Cambodia). Dinesh D’Souza observes that:

"Religion-inspired killing simply cannot compete with the murders perpetrated by atheist regimes. I recognize that population levels were much lower in the past, and that it’s much easier to kill people today with sophisticated weapons than it was in pervious centuries to kill with swords and arrows. Even taking higher populations into account, atheist violence surpasses religious violence by staggering proportions. Here is a rough calculation. The world’s population rose from around 500 million in 1450 A.D. to 2.5 billion in 1950, a fivefold increase. Taken together, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the witch burnings killed approximately 200,000 people. Adjusting for the increase in population, that’s the equivalent of one million deaths today. Even so, these deaths caused by Christian rulers over a five-hundred-year period amount to only 1 percent of the deaths caused by Stalin, Hitler, and Mao in the space of a few decades."

D’Souza further adds that, “If Christianity has to answer for Torquemada [cf. Inquisition], atheism has to answer for Stalin. By the same token, if the ordinary Christian who has never burned anyone at the stake must bear some responsibility for what other self-styled Christians have done on behalf of religion, then atheists who think of themselves as the kinder, gentler type do not get to absolve themselves for the horrible suffering that their beliefs have caused in recent history.” All loss of life is tragic, and I am certainly not trying to “white-wash” the evils done in the name of Christianity, but the facts of history show that atheism, not Christianity, is responsible for the mass murders of history.

For more on interacting with the New Atheism, check out Dinesh D'Souza's book, What's So Great About Christianity

Is the God of the Old Testament a Moral Monster?

2009-02-16T16:20:00.005-06:00

That is a question that gets raised by a lot of the New Athiests. And there is probably no more passionate defender of atheism than Richard Dawkins of Oxford University.

Here are his devotional thoughts on the God of the Old Testamet:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Hey...Richard...tell us how you really feel.

What can / should a Christian say in response to this?

First, Christians recognize that the God of the OT is the God of the NT--they are one and the same. So however we answer this, we can't right the OT off.

Second, We live in a fallen, broken world; God did not do this to us or intend this for us, humanity did this to ourselves by rejecting God. This is important because God used Israel (a deeply flawed people just like everyone else in the Ancient Near East) to be a force for good in the world...but Israel was not God's ideal community. He worked with fallen people in a very violent society to help show a better way and prepare the way for the messiah.

Now, none of these take away the bite of the passages that seem to advocate genocide in the OT. But they help us better appreciate the situation.

Dr. Paul Copan has written a thoughtful article engaging this issue called Is Yahweh a Moral Monster? The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics

It is well worth a read. He also deals with issues like this in That's Just Your Interpretation

On Darwin's 200th, a Theory Still in Controversy

2009-02-10T00:29:00.005-06:00

On Darwin's 200th, a Theory Still in Controversy is an article that talks about the influence and controversy that Darwin's life and ideas sparked.

Darwinism is pitted against Creationism and then also Intelligent Design (which are different).

In light of that I want to highlight two books that explain what Creationism is and also what Intelligent Design is: Both are worth a read, and no backround knowledge is necessary to benefit from them.

Intelligent Design 101: Leading Experts Explain the Key Issues

Holman QuickSource Guide to Understanding Creation

Thinking like Non-Christians?

2009-02-01T23:30:00.003-06:00

“Our churches are filled with people who are spiritually born again, but who still think like non-Christians.”—William Lane Craig

According to recent polls and surveys...this seems accurate. It is critical for the vitality and health of the church for us all to engage God and our world with our minds. That is a common and biblical command:

Luke 10:27 And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself."

Romans 12:1-2 "Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect."

1 Corinthians 10:31 "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."

This will not just happen. It will require us to arrange our lives around Scripture and Community. We need times of quiet, times of study and solitude to renew our minds so that we can grow and engage our world with the eternal kind of life that Jesus offers.

A great place to begin this journey is by reading good books like The God Question: An Invitation to a Life of Meaning by JP Moreland.

What is apologetics?

2009-01-20T16:47:00.006-06:00

What is apologetics? I will let one of the most prominent apologists of our day—William Lane Craig—answer that question.

“Apologetics (from the Greek apologia: a defense) is that branch of Christian theology which seeks to provide rational justification for the truth claims of the Christian faith. Apologetics is thus primarily a theoretical discipline, though it has a practical application. In addition to serving, like the rest of theology in general, as an expression of loving our God with all our minds, apologetics specifically serves to show to unbelievers the truth of the Christian faith, to confirm that faith to believers and to reveal and explore connections between Christian doctrine and other truths” - taken from his excellent book Reasonable Faith.

Peter wrote that we are to in our hearts "set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander (1 Peter 3:15-16).

This will include rebutting and refuting claims against Christianity as well as providing reasons for the plausibility of the Christian worldview.

Which comes first...The philosophy or the science?

2009-01-12T23:51:00.002-06:00

In an essay discussing the limits of science, Yale philosopher George Bealer proposes two guiding principles. The first is the autonomy of philosophy principle which states that “Among the central questions of philosophy that can be answered by one standard theoretical means or another, most can in principle be answered by philosophical investigation and argument without relying substantively on the sciences.”

The second principle concerns the authority of philosophy, “Insofar as science and philosophy purport to answer the same central philosophical questions, in most cases the support that science could in principle provide answers for those answers is not as strong as that which philosophy could in principle provide for its answers. So should there be conflicts, the authority of philosophy in most cases can be greater in principle.” Bealer further notes that these two principles have “constituted the dominant view” throughout our intellectual history until recent infatuation with scientism displaced them.

Many times seemingly scientific disagreements are in reality philosophical ones. This is most often the case when it comes to the interpretation of the available empirical data.

Does Ignorance = Design?

2009-01-02T15:53:00.002-06:00

This question came up in one of the comments. And so I figure I would bring it up here to discuss. Dr. Thaxton does a good job of working through some of these issues here.

Who Designed the Designer?

2008-12-31T00:07:00.002-06:00

Here is one of the most common objections to Intelligent Design and that comes up in discussions surrounding the existence of God. Philosopher Jay Richards offers some good insight about how to think about this intriguing question.

For more on this, check out the Case for the Creator.

What was Jesus like as a child?

2008-12-17T15:30:00.005-06:00

“Western culture is a Jesus-haunted culture, and yet one that is largely biblically illiterate. Almost anything can pass for knowledge of Jesus and early Christianity in such a culture.”—Ben Witherington

Have you ever wondered what Jesus was like as a little boy? The New Testament covers Jesus’ birth, but then skips ahead to when he is 12 years old in the temple sitting with the teachers (cf. Luke 2:42-51). What about all the years in between?

Enter the lost gospels. These writings, for various reasons, tried to fill in the gaps about two periods of Jesus’ life—his childhood and the three days between his death and resurrection.

Here are two passages from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas about his childhood (judge for yourself if they ring true):

Now the son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Joseph; and he took a willow branch and scattered the water that Jesus had gathered. Jesus was irritated when he saw what had happened, and said to him: “You unrighteous, irreverent idiot! What did the pools of water do to harm you? See, now you also will be withered like a tree, and you will never bear leaves or root or fruit.” Immediately that child was completely withered. Jesus left and returned to Joseph’s house. But the parents of the withered child carried him away, morning his lost youth. They brought him to Joseph and began to accuse him, “What kind of child do you have who does such things?”

Evidently Jesus didn’t play nice with the other children! Here is another interesting snap shot of Jesus’ childhood:

Somewhat later he has going through the village, and a child ran up and banged into his shoulder. Jesus was aggravated and said to him, “You will go no further on your way.” And right away the child fell down and died...The parents of the dead child came to Joseph and blamed him, saying “Since you have such a child you cannot live with us in the village. Or teach him to bless and not curse—for he is killing our children!”*

One thing is clear, “Don’t mess with Jesus!”

Anyone who has read the NT can easily distinguish the flavors of these writings. These 'accounts' are far too late to offer us anything historically solid. The Gospels and the other writings of the NT are the best and most accurate sources of knowledge about Jesus.

For more background substantiating the accuracy of the NT message, composition, and transmission, see the excellent book Reinventing Jesus by J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, & Daniel B. Wallace

*(Quoted From) Infancy Gospel of Thomas ch. 3 in Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It into the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 58.

Chance or Design?

2008-12-11T13:44:00.000-06:00

I came across this clip and was again reminded of how easy "design" is to recognize in everyday life; but then how ironic it is that design is a forbidden inference when we look at "really small" or "really big" stuff like the bacterial flagellum or the universe. Enjoy this clip...

Do Humans Have Minds or Brains (or Both?)

2008-12-08T11:45:00.004-06:00

Do I have a mind, a brain or both? Am I only my physical brain states or is there an immaterial mind / soul that interacts with the physical brain in the process of thinking and reality consciousness? Related questions of free will of course enter this discussion.

The debate about Intelligent Design vs. Naturalism (cf. Neo-Darwinian Evolution) has now spread to the Mind / Body problem. Do brains / minds need a designer or are they the product of random, blind processes? Can physics and chemistry alone account for consciousness, free will, thinking etc?

In answering this question, we need an explanation that best explains all of the data.

Here is an interesting podcast by Dr. Egnor (a neurosurgeon) and Dr. Schwartz (a neuropsychiatrist at UCLA) Below is an article that I have copied and pasted by Dr. Egnor for your convenience that really sets the table for this discussion:

The Mind and Materialist Superstition by Dr. Egnor

MaterialismPhilosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

Superstition1 a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

Mind(in a human or other conscious being) The element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges.

Materialists have taken note of the growing efforts by non-materialist neuroscientists to point out the deep problems with the inference that the brain is entirely the cause of the mind. Materialist neuroscience, like materialist evolutionary biology, is a vacuous orthodoxy, and its proponents resent threats to their dogma. Darwinian explanations for functional biological complexity are nonsense, but some familiarity with the relevant science is necessary to understand that it is nonsense. Materialist explanations for the mind are transparent nonsense.
Consider the six characteristics of the mind, generally accepted by materialist and non-materialist scientists and philosophers. Each of the six poses enormous problems for a materialistic explanation:

Intentionality

Intentionality is the "aboutness" or meaning of a mental state, the ability of a mental state to refer to something outside of itself. Ink on paper has no meaning unless it is conferred by a mind, which wrote it or read it. Matter may have intentionality only secondarily ("derived intentionality"). The problem of intentionality is believed by many philosophers of the mind to be the most serious challenge to materialism. "Meaning" is imparted to matter by a mind; matter isn’t the source of meaning. Therefore matter (brain tissue) can’t be the entire cause of the mind.

Qualia

Qualia is subjective experience, which is first person ontology. You can describe pain, using science or literature or whatever. But the experience of pain is something qualitatively different. There is nothing in science which infers subjectivity — no "Newton’s Fourth Law" by which objective matter produces subjective experience. No material law or principle invokes subjectivity, yet subjectivity is the hallmark of the mind.

Persistence of Self-Identity

We are the same person throughout our lives, despite a continual turn-over of matter in our brains. The matter that constitutes your brain today is different matter, for the most part, than the matter that constituted your brain ten years ago. Furthermore, your brain matter is organized differently now than it was ten years ago. Yet your sense of identity, which is a fundamental characteristic of minds, is continuous over time. You are you, despite profound changes in brain matter and organization. What property then is the “same” that accounts for you being the same? It’s not matter and it’s not organization of matter. Hume thought that the sense of personal continuity was the result of a continuous string of memories, but his theory begs the question. Who is it that has the string of memories? Continuity of self is a prerequisite for a string of memories, so it can’t be the result of a string of memories. Persistence of self-identity through time can’t be explained materialistically; the most reasonable explanation is that there is an immaterial component of the mind that is continuous over time.

Restricted Access

Restricted access means that I, and only I, experience my thoughts first-hand. I can choose to describe them to others, and others may be able to explain better than I some of the ramifications of my thoughts, but only I experience them. Even a lie-detector machine or a functional MRI doesn’t permit other people to experience my thoughts; they are merely material expressions of my brain activity, akin to speech. This is entirely unlike matter. I know the brain anatomy (matter) of my patients much better (usually) than they do. I know what their brains look like, whereas they have never actually seen them. Yet I have no first-hand experience of their thoughts, no matter how well I know their brain. We each have absolute restricted access to the experience of our own thoughts. Matter does not have this property, and therefore matter cannot be the entire cause of our thoughts.

Incorrigibility

Incorrigibility, which is related to restricted access, means the unassailable knowledge of one’s own thoughts. If I am thinking of the color red, no one can credibly refute that fact. Of course, I may be lying about what I am thinking, or I may be mistaken about the implications of my thoughts, but I experience my thoughts in a way that no one else does. If I say (honestly) that I like impressionist painting, it is nonsensical for someone else to assert, "You are mistaken; you don’t like impressionist painting." This incorrigibility isn’t a property of matter. I can hold an honest opinion that the hippocampus is in the parietal lobe (it isn’t; it’s in the temporal lobe). My interlocutor can point out that I am incorrect about the material issue (where the hippocampus is located), but he can’t plausibly argue that I’m wrong that I hold that opinion. Incorrigibility is a property of mind, but not matter.

Free Will

If the mind is entirely caused by matter, it is difficult to understand how free will can exist. Matter is governed by fixed laws, and if our thoughts are entirely the product of brain chemistry, then our thoughts are determined by brain chemistry. But chemistry doesn’t have "truth" or "falsehood," or any other values for that matter. It just is. Enzymatic catalysis isn’t true or false, it just is. In fact, the view that "materialism is true" is meaningless… if materialism is true. If materialism is true, than the thought "materialism is true" is just a chemical reaction, neither true nor false. While there are some philosophers who assert that free will can exist in a deterministic materialistic world (they’re called "compatibilists"), and some have argued that quantum indeterminacy may leave room for free will, the most parsimonious explanation for free will is that there is an immaterial component of the mind that is undetermined by matter.

So is the materialist inference that the mind is caused entirely by the brain plausible? Please note that materialism has failed to offer any explanation for any of the six salient characteristics of the mind. Not a single salient characteristic of the mind is a property of matter. The strict materialistic explanation for the mind — the attribution of immaterial mental acts and properties to brain matter — is, by definition, a materialist superstition, a "false irrational conception of causation in nature maintained despite evidence to the contrary."

Of course, on reflection, we wouldn’t expect neuroscience to have important things to say about the material/immaterial nature of the mind. Neuroscience studies correlations between material events and behaviors, which are third-person objective phenomena; it has provided no explanation for subjective-first person processes, which is the essential quality of the mind. The assertion that neuroscience demonstrates the material nature of the mind is an ideological assertion, a misuse of neuroscience to serve a tenuous materialist agenda.In Wolfgang Pauli’s deathless phrase, the materialist explanation of the mind ”isn’t even wrong.” It’s superstitious nonsense. Materialism can’t explain the mind, because the salient characteristics of mental states — intentionality, qualia, persistence of self-identity, restricted access, incorrigibility, and free will — do not admit material explanations.

A coherent and meaningful understanding of the mind requires a repudiation of this materialist superstition. Strict materialism offers some insight into behavioral correlations — behavioral arousal is associated with activation of neurons in the brainstem reticular activation system — but materialism offers nothing to explain the subjective properties of mental experience, which constitute the mind as we actually experience it. A genuine understanding of the mind must be open to immaterial causation, because there is nothing in materialist science (or materialist philosophy) that can account for subjective experience.

The viewpoint that matter has desires, intentions, and subjective experiences has a long history in human affairs. It was the foundation of Aristotelian natural philosophy — matter fell to the earth because it seemed to "desire" to return to its natural place. The ancient world was haunted with "sentient" inanimate objects — talismans, charms and idols. Children attribute wishes and feelings to stuffed toys. Since the dawn of man we have ascribed sentience and feelings and will to matter, and a salient triumph of modern science has been to expunge this attribution of subjectivity to matter. The work of physical science is to identify and if possible quantify regularities in the "third person objective existence" of matter. Matter has third person objective existence. The mind, as experienced, has first person subjective existence.

Superstition is “a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary.“ The foundation of the scientific revolution is the repudiation of the inference that matter has will, emotions and desires. If there is anything that modern science has demonstrated beyond dispute it is the gulf between objective and subjective ontology — between matter and mind. Yet the materialist superstition isn’t completely gone. It persists in its modern scientific manifestation — the inference that the mind is entirely caused by the brain — which is a superstition.

Secrets of the Bible???

2008-12-03T12:25:00.005-06:00

I was getting a cup of coffee at my local Barnes and Noble yesterday and came across a special magazine issue on "Secrets of the Bible" by US News and World Report. Here is an excerpt from the back:

"...But even though it has been read, interpreted, analyzed, and dissected countless times, there are still puzzling omissions, murky passages, and, yes, mysteries to the Bible's origins and composition. Now Secrets of the Bible delves into these untold tales to reveal the latest theories and insights from renowned scholars...."

Now I love a good mystery....but these magazines seldom tell the whole story or give a "balanced" treatment of the issues (just look at the sampling of scholars interviewed). Now I am not saying they shouldn't be interviewed...but where are the scholars, of the the same caliber and credentials, who argue for the Bible's accuracy, historical reliability, etc.? (contrary to popular opinion, they do exist). Christian faith is not blind and we have nothing to fear from searching for the truth. Hearty discussion is good.

So, I want to recommend a full-color, short book that addresses the question of how we got the Bible. This is done by a leading NT scholar (Dr. Clint Arnold) and the images of ancient texts and other artifacts are simply amazing. In How We Got the Bible: A Visual Journey you will explore:

How did the Bible come to be?

How has it been passed down to us through the ages?

Is it still trustworthy and relevant after all these years?

"The Bible is the bestselling book of all time and the basis of faith for billions of people around the world. Encompassing the fields of archaeology, biblical studies, and history, the story of how the Bible has come to us today is a fascinating one. It is told here, accompanied by beautiful full-color photographs and illustrations."

Which Jesus?

2008-11-26T06:45:00.003-06:00

Tis the season for alternative Christianities, missing gospels, and conspiracy theories. We will talk more about that soon. But here is a quote to get the ball rolling:

“Students of Jesus today are faced with a multitude of options, ranging from the traditional Jesus who was Savior, Lord, and founder of the church, to a Jesus who was considerably different—a Jesus who was a sage, a religious genius or social revolutionary. These latter three portraits though clearly drawing their energies from live wires in the Gospels, leave us with a Jesus who is not big enough to explain his crucifixion, his following, or development of the Church. If we today are going to be honest about Jesus, we have to choose a Jesus who satisfies all the evidence historians have observed and who will also explain why it is that so many people have found him to be so wonderful that they attend churches every week to worship him.”—Scot McKnight

Check out The Case for Christ DVD to begin exploring these issues.

Is there evidence from Cosmology that there is a Creator?

2008-11-20T10:29:00.003-06:00

Check out Lee Strobel's Case for the Creator for more (book and DVD). Also, website.

Richard Dawkins believes in god????

2008-11-17T12:37:00.001-06:00

Maybe. Yeah, I know, pretty interesting. You can read the whole article here (which is insightful). But the short of it is that at a recent debate, Dawkins - Mr. God Delusion himself - conceded that, wait for it, "A serious case could be made for a deistic God." Stop the presses!!

That would be similar in principle to the case that Anthony Flew makes in his recent conversion to deism, in There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. This is a fascinating read--even if you disagree with his conclusions.

Dawkins vs. Lennox - Science & The Question of God

2008-11-07T14:48:00.003-06:00

On October 3rd of 2007 in Birmingham, Alabama, Professor Richard Dawkins and his Oxford University colleague Dr. John Lennox engaged in a lively debate over what is arguably the most critical question of our time: the existence of God. The debate centered on Dawkins' views as expressed in his best-seller, The God Delusion, and their validity over and against the Christian faith. Both presenters agreed to the format and topics of discussion.

Has Science Killed God?

2008-11-02T15:26:00.003-06:00

Oxford professor John Lennox says no and gives a compelling case why. He refutes the arguments offered by the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins.

The book is God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? And it needs to be on your bookshelf. It is accessible and substantive--a difficult thing to do.

(About the Author) John Lennox is reader in mathematics in the University of Oxford and fellow in mathematics and the philosophy of science at Green College. He has lectured in many universities around the world, including Austria and the former Soviet Union. He is particularly interested in the interface of science, philosophy, and theology.

Expelled Now on DVD

2008-10-30T15:39:00.001-05:00

If you have not seen Expelled, then you ought to see what all the fuss is about. Just listen to the glowing endorsements of critics. ;)

Expelled Website

Memes to the rescue?

2008-10-23T09:56:00.003-05:00

What's in a meme? It is a Neo-Darwinian concept that is supposed to explain some of the things we have been talking about in terms of survival and morality and God.

Oxford Prof. Alister McGrath gave a lecture on this, The Spell of the Meme (here is the PDF).

He also has a book length critique of Dawkins concept as well...

Dawkins' GOD: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life

(Review) "Wielding evolutionary arguments and carefully chosen metaphors like sharp swords, Richard Dawkins has emerged over three decades as this generation's most aggressive promoter of atheism. In his view, science, and science alone, provides the only rock worth standing on. In this remarkable book, Alister McGrath challenges Dawkins on the very ground he holds most sacred - rational argument - and McGrath disarms the master. It becomes readily apparent that Dawkins has aimed his attack at a naive version of faith that most serious believers would not recognize. After reading this carefully constructed and eloquently written book, Dawkins' choice of atheism emerges as the most irrational of the available choices about God's existence."--Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project

Does evolution make good sense of objective morality?

2008-10-06T12:30:00.004-05:00

As we continue to explore the moral argument, we have admitted that objective moral values are real (i.e., rape is always wrong). The question at hand is whether anyone other than a moral lawgiver--God--can account for these objective moral values.

It seems to be the only other option is Nature gave them to us. but what is Nature? Well Nature turns out--even mother nature (notice the personification of nature to make people feel better and offer purpose and care)--to be nothing more than blind, random chance over time according to the Naturalistic story--Neo-Darwinism being a prominent part of the just so story.

Here is what Dr. Michael Ruse, a Darwinian Philosopher of Science at Florida State, had to say about morality:

“Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says "love thy neighbor as thyself," they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . And any deeper meaning is illusory.”

Now not everyone agrees with him. But it is hard not to. Where do objective moral values come from? What about a random, blind process of chemical reactions puts an obligation on me to do one thing and not another? Even an 'obligation' is not physical, though we all know they are real--so how do you get non-physical obligations from a physical process...a rearranging of the bb's of matter?

Darwinian evolution, at best, only offers a description of the current state of morality today--perhaps social agreement? What it does not offer is why I ought to be moral tomorrow.

So it seems then that premise 1, in absence of a counter argument is more likely than not true as well.

If that is the cast then the argument is sound. The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values & duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values & duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Apologist: Objective moral values evidence of God's existence

2008-09-24T23:09:00.001-05:00

Here is some of an interview on the issues we are discussing by Dr. Paul Copan: (for the whole article click here)

Evolutionary ethics produce skepticism about a human’s ability to know truth, Copan said, adding that Charles Darwin said, “With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals are of any value or are even trustworthy.”

Ethical foundations, then, are undermined by “an evolutionary process that is interested in fitness and survival but not true beliefs,” Copan said.Theism offers a more plausible context for affirming human dignity than naturalism that puts moral objectivity and rational thought in question.

Copan cited the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to show that humans have an intrinsic understanding of human rights, regardless of religious convictions. He quoted French philosopher Jacques Maritain, one of the document’s drafters, who said, “God and objective morality cannot be plausibly separated since God is the Creator of valuable, morally responsible human beings and is the very source of value.”Copan concluded by saying that a moral argument alone doesn’t prove the existence of the Christian God but can be supplemented with other arguments for God.“The moral argument points us to a supreme, personal, moral being who is worthy of worship and who made us with dignity and worth,” Copan said. “He is a being to whom we are accountable and who could reasonably be called God.”

Is Goodness without God Good Enough? A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics

2008-09-22T12:35:00.004-05:00

In light of the conversation we are having here about the Moral Argument, I wanted to make you aware of a new book debating these issues.

(From Publisher's Website)

Morality and religion: intimately wed, violently opposed, or something else? Discussion of this issue appears in pop culture, the academy, and the media—often generating radically opposed views. At one end of the spectrum are those who think that unless God exists, ethics is unfounded and the moral life is unmotivated. At the other end are those who think that religious belief is unnecessary for—and even a threat to—ethical knowledge and the moral life.This volume provides an accessible, charitable discussion that represents a range of views along this spectrum. The book begins with a lively debate between Paul Kurtz and William Lane Craig on the question, Is goodness without God good enough? Kurtz defends the affirmative position and Craig the negative. Following the debate are new essays by prominent scholars. These essays comment on the debate and advance the broader discussion of religion and morality. The book closes with final responses from Kurtz and Craig.

List of Contributors: Louise Antony, William Lane Craig, John Hare, Donald C. Hubin, Paul Kurtz, C. Stephen Layman, Mark C. Murphy, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and Richard Swinburne.

About the Editors:

Robert K. Garcia and Nathan L. King are Ph.D. candidates in the philosophy department at the University of Notre Dame.

Does God Exist? Cont. (the Moral Argument)

2008-09-15T13:48:00.003-05:00

Well, let's continue our discussion. In order to stay on task, here is the argument as it stands:

If God does not exist, objective moral values & duties do not exist.

Objective moral values & duties do exist.

Therefore, God exists.

An important clarification needs to be made here. Often, people misinterpret the argument to entail that people cannot live moral lives or 'be good' unless they believe in God. This of course if false and it isn't the argument here. The argument here concerns, what makes the best since of objective moral values and duties. What is a sufficient ground for them if they exist? So atheists can live moral lives. It remains to be seen however if atheism has the resources to provide ontological grounding for objective goods, duties and values which one would then have an obligation to exemplifying.

By way of review, premise 2 seems solid (at the very least more probable than its contradictory).

So what of premise 1 - that objective moral values and duties would not exist if God did not exist?

Let's ask the question this way. It seems to me that Atheism entails Naturalism. And Naturalism reduces all existence to physics and chemistry. Non-physical stuff like consciousness, minds, freedom of the will, moral obligations, and beauty seem out of place in such a worldview.

So moral values and obligations if they exist, on an atheistic view, would arise from only three sources (can you think of any others that would possibly be objective?).

social agreement (but does this confer ontological grounding to what we agree on?)
evolutionary emergence (but in what since are these objective instead of arbitrary?)
some sort of platonic heaven as abstract objects (but how do abstract objects, like numbers, confer obligations?)

So the question then is, what is the more reasonable inference? That God grounds objective morality and duty in his very essence, being, and character or these three possibilities?

What do you think?

I will post more of my thoughts on these 3 options soon.

Making the Case for Objective Moral Values

2008-09-04T00:40:00.002-05:00

William Lane Craig argues for objective moral values and this is a key premise in the moral argument for God's existence.

Does God Exist?

2008-08-21T10:57:00.003-05:00

A good question to consider indeed. One argument for the existence of God that I find especially powerful is the so called "Moral Argument." Here it is.

If God does not exist, objective moral values & duties do not exist.

Objective moral values & duties do exist.

Therefore, God exists.

Now this is a good argument because 3 follows necessarily if premises 1 & 2 are true; thus producing a sound argument.

Premise 2 seems intuitively obvious to most people. Hitler was objectively wrong. Torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong. Human trafficking is objectively wrong. 'Objective' simply means that it is true regardless of whether anyone else thinks so or agrees etc. It is a fact of our world. Honestly if someone denies premise 2, they don't need an argument, they need to get help.

It seems to me the issue is premise 1. Is God necessary to objectively ground morality? We will explore that in another post.

Until then, listen to a debate on this issue - Is God Necessary for Morality?

To see the argument in book form, check out Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.

At least 5 things science can't explain

2008-08-11T12:28:00.003-05:00

In a debate between Peter Atkins (a Darwinist) and William Lane Craig (a Christian), there was an interesting exchange on the limit or limitlessness of science. Atkins says there weren't any. Craig pointed out the following 5 areas that science cannot give a scientific explanation of:

1. mathematics and logic (science can't prove them because science presupposes them),
2. metaphysical truths (such as, there are minds that exist other than my own),
3. ethical judgments (you can't prove by science that the Nazi's were evil, because morality is not subject to the scientific method),
4. aesthetic judgments (the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven), and , ironically
5. science itself (the belief that the scientific method discovers truth can't be proven by the scientific method itself)

Science is helpful; but we should not expect it to answer everything and it certainly hasn't proven that God doesn't exist contrary to many claims being made. If you found this kind of insight helpful, you would benefit from I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

Does Science Have Blindspots?

2008-08-06T16:05:00.002-05:00

I came across an interesting podcast today by Dr. Cornelius G. Hunter on this question. Listen Here.

*Dr. Hunter is an engineer and biophysicist. He received his doctorate in biophysics and computational biology from the University of Illinois. Hunter has authored three books related to science, theology, and philosophy: his most recent book, Science’s Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism; Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil; and Darwin’s Proof: The Triumph of Religion over Science. All three of his books can be purchased through Amazon.com.

Does Science Have the Answer for Every Question?

2008-08-04T11:53:00.003-05:00

Alex Rosenberg is a Philosopher of Science at Duke. He offers a helpful observation:

“If the direction in which science carries philosophy is a one-way street towards physicalism, determinism, atheism, and perhaps even nihilism, then the intellectual obligation of those who wrestle with philosophical questions would be unavoidable. We must understand the substantive claims of physical science…and we must understand the strengths and limitations of science as a source of answers to these questions.”

Science is important...so far as it goes. But it is not omni-sufficient to answer all of life's ultimate questions (not least of which the nagging issue of what science itself is and what counts as science and what does not).

What about those who've never heard?

2008-07-24T10:06:00.002-05:00

This is one of those questions that--if we are honest--we all wrestle with. Here is a short clip by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason explaining a biblical response.

Are people the problem or is religion?

2008-07-18T10:01:00.003-05:00

Is religion inherently dangerous? Oxford theologian Alister McGrath would argue, and I think rightly, that people are the problem; not religion per se.

“All ideals—divine, transcendent, human, or invented—are capable of being abused. That’s just the way human nature is. And that happens to religion as well. Belief in God can be abused, and we need to be very clear, in the first place, that abuse happens, and in the second, that we need to confront and oppose this. But abuse of an ideal does not negate its validity.”

This observation is important because it removes simplistic statements about religion being the root of all evil and violence in the world today. The issues are far more complex because human beings, who posses freedom of the will, are involved.

Truth....Not Always Comfortable

2008-07-14T10:22:00.003-05:00

“If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth—only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair”—C.S. Lewis

Not everything that is comfortable is true. Moreover, comfort is no safe indicator of truth. In fact; if we are never made uncomfortable, then we may be living under the illusion that we are the final arbiters / creators of reality (not a safe place to be because we are finite / fallen humans). But someday...maybe not today, nor tomorrow...but someday, we will all bump up against the truth. And if we 'make it up' - then on a really bad day, we will be unable to convince ourselves otherwise, because we cannot lie to ourselves forever.

Thought about truth lately? Take a listen to Os Guinness' talk Time for Truth: Living Free in a World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

Jesus in the news again.....

2008-07-07T12:39:00.002-05:00

A recent NY Times article talks about a stone that was found that talks about the resurrection idea in Christianity.

See New Testament scholar, Ben Witherington's, initial response to this here.

Here is a bit of it...."Long story short-- this stone certainly does not demonstrate that the Gospel passion stories are created on the basis of this stone text, which appears to be a Dead Sea text. For one thing the text is hard to read at crucial junctures, and it is not absolutely clear it is talking about a risen messiah. BUT what it does do is make plausible that Jesus could have said some of the things credited to him in Mk. 8.31, 9,31, and 10.33-34."

Is Christianity the only 'Exclusive' religion?

2008-07-03T10:04:00.003-05:00

Sometimes people claim that Christians are so intolerant because they believe that they are the only ones that can have a relationship with God--they are exclusive. And the implication is that 'all religions are basically the same.' This is an oft repeated slogan, but it is deeply flawed. Ravi Zacharias helpfully shows why:

“The truth is that all religions are not the same. All religions do not point to God. All religions do not say that all religions are the same. In fact, some religions do not even believe in God. At the heart of every religion is an uncompromising commitment to a particular way of defining who God is or is not. Buddhism, for example, was based on Buddha’s rejection of two of Hinduism’s fundamental doctrines. Islam rejects both Buddhism and Hinduism. So it does no good to put a halo on the notion of tolerance and act as if everything is equally true. In fact, even all-inclusive religions such as Bahaism end up being exclusivistic by excluding the exclusivists!”

Isn’t it arrogant to believe that one religion is true, and not another?

2008-06-26T17:03:00.004-05:00

Is one true religion possible? Interesting question. But what if someone truly believes that there is only one true religion....does that make her arrogant?

A common tactic used to silence religious particularists is to claim they are arrogant and immoral for believing that there is only one way to God. In response to this charge, Philosopher Alvin Plantinga asks, “Suppose I think the matter over, consider the objections as carefully as I can, realize that I am finite and furthermore a sinner, certainly no better than those with whom I disagree, and indeed inferior both morally and intellectually to many who do not believe what I do; but suppose it still seems clear to me that the proposition in question is true [e.g., that Jesus Christ is the only way to God]: can I really be behaving immorally in continuing to believe it? It seems not."

Moreover, the charge of arrogance and immorality cuts both ways because implicit in the sophisticated religious pluralist view is the claim that everyone else but them has it wrong! All of the devout adherents of the worlds major religions—billions of people—have it wrong. If that doesn’t count as arrogance, I am not sure what does.

For more on this issue, check out chapter 14 of Welcome to College.

Did Humans Invent God to Make Themselves Feel Better?

2008-06-18T09:32:00.002-05:00

It is sometimes objected that humans invent God out of an intense need for a “father figure” or to console themselves. Alister McGrath cleverly summarizes the gist of this argument, “religion offers succor for suckers and losers, but not for serious and sophisticated people.” This argument finds its roots in writings of Ludwig Feuerback and Sigmund Freud.

First of all, this argument cuts both ways. If Christians created God out of a need for a father figure, then atheists can be said to have rejected God out of a desire to kill a father figure. Paul Vitz, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at New York University, has documented a connection between fatherlessness and atheism in his intriguing book Faith of the Fatherless: the Psychology of Atheism.

As for inventing God to meet our desires, maybe this is precisely backwards. Perhaps the reason humans have desires is because something / someone exists that will satisfy them? C.S. Lewis beautifully articulates this point, “Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only arouse it, to suggest the real thing.”

For more on this, see Paul Copan's That's Just Your Interpretation

Louisiana Science Education Act Passes

2008-06-13T09:26:00.002-05:00

Academic freedom gets a boost with the passage of this bill. For more on this and why it isn't religion, click here.

It is important that people are taught to critically engage issues that may be controversial. We have nothing to fear from the truth.

Welcome to College....Now what?

2008-06-05T10:50:00.006-05:00

So I'm here....now what? Don't Christians have to check their brains at the door once they step on to the university campus? Welcome to College: A Christ-follower's Guide for the Journey is a new book by Jonathan Morrow that encourages students to think about what it would mean to live "Christianly" in college. Whether you are a high school student on your way, just settling in to your dorm room in college, or a parent trying to find out how to prepare your son or daughter for these formative and exciting years--this book may be just what you need. It covers everything from study skills, how to resolve conflict, and sex to what to do with doubt, can I trust the Bible, and is Jesus the only way to God? Christians can flourish in college.

“Wow! What a book!! Quite frankly, this is the book I’ve been waiting for the last forty years to give to college students. It is the single best volume I have ever read for preparing students for how to follow Jesus and flourish as his disciple in college.”

—J. P. Moreland

Distinguished Professor of Philosophy

Talbot School of Theology, Biola University

Author, Kingdom Triangle (Zondervan)

The New Testament...Is it Historically Untrustworthy?

2008-06-02T23:23:00.003-05:00

One of the claims repeatedly trumpeted in the pages of the New Atheists' books is that the New Testament (and the Bible for that matter) is untrustworthy. But there is at least one big problem with this claim--as Dr. Doug Groothuis notes--"The new atheists reject the New Testament as historically untrustworthy chiefly because of its antiquity and its miracle claims. However, in savaging the New Testament, these writers almost never engage the best conservative New Testament scholars."

As I have read the New Atheists, this observation is valid. They have not done their homework. To read more about this, see the rest of of Groothuis's article, click here.

Choosing Your Faith?

2008-05-29T12:33:00.003-05:00

Mark Mittelberg has written a very intriguing and helpful book about the various faith journeys people take. It is well worth a read and can be used as a tool for having good conversations about Christianity. Faith is not the process of non-thinking as Richard Dawkins is fond of saying....it is trust with eyes wide open...and some options are more reasonable than others.

Investigating The Edge of Evolution-Chapter One

2008-02-07T11:37:00.000-06:00

So it took me longer than a week to get this going, but nonetheless, this post will be the first of ten, discussing the ten main chapters of Michael Behe’s The Edge of Evolution. If you haven’t picked it up from a local bookstore, feel free to do so now! You can, of course, continue reading this post but if you want to be able to think about the arguments straight from the horse’s mouth, it’s best to go about doing so in that manner.

To take this chapter in summary, I want to point out that the thrust of it is that Behe makes clear that the structure and arguments of this second book are completely different from what he did in Darwin’s Black Box, his earlier work. Even the difference between the titles should alert the reader’s mind to the qualitatively different tasks at hand. In Darwin’s Black Box (hereafter abbreviated DBB), Behe sought to show how as the scientific community gained insights into the mechanisms of some biochemical processes of the cell, one could conclude that certain structures or phenomena were irreducibly complex.

Here in Behe’s second opus, the task is altogether different. In the Edge of Evolution (or EoE), Behe is not playing the role of a skeptic with regard to how phenomenon X or organelle Y came about. On the contrary, he is looking to the scientific community to see what are the clearest studies on evolution done as time has progressed. As we shall see, the retrovirus HIV, the malarial parasite Plasmodium falciparum, the bacterium E. Coli, and the notothenioid fish that are able to survive the cold temperatures of the Antarctic are all elements of life on our planet that have been studied with regard to the evolutionary changes that can be observed.Another important element to the first chapter of EoE is that Behe sets out to clearly explain the semantic problems that we face when we discuss Darwinism. Like many concepts that have been discussed by myriads of individuals, there are many implications to the many ways one can go about defining them. Without a precise understanding, our communication will be muddled.

Behe begins by carefully stating that when one discusses Evolution, this could refer to an emphasis on random mutation, natural selection or common descent. To be clear, random mutation refers to the changes in the genomes of populations through time, brought about by multiple means. Natural selection, on the other hand, is the way in which these mutations/variants of certain traits are passed down in a way that the more favorable variants become selected through time. And lastly, common descent is the idea that all of life is related, particularly through a common ancestor from whom all life on earth has descended. As we shall see, Behe has no qualms with the last of these three concepts (while many ID proponents would–but that is another issue that we should address when the actual arguments for common descent are raised). The real question that Behe has about these three concepts is how important the first two principles are in producing the third idea.Now normally, when two people argue about the issue, the skeptic of Darwin looks at the hill of “mount improbable” (to use a term coined by Richard Dawkins) and says that it’s impossible for random mutation and natural selection to produce the diversity and complexity of life on earth. In rebuttal, the proponent of Darwin says, “Oh yeah, well I do see how one can climb mount improbable through random mutation and natural selection!”

As the “no ways” and the “yes ways” fly back and forth, we are left with a lot of dust and anger, but no clear arguments have really been set forth, if we do not look at what has been observed as evolutionary biologists examine the power of mutations and natural selection. The EoE presents itself as a way to wade through the data and discuss just how powerful evolution is. As you may surmise, his verdict is one where mutation and natural selection are not nearly as powerful as it would need to be, if it were the all in all with regard to accounting for life’s unity and complexity.As you can see, this is the scope and the lay of the land in the Edge of Evolution. As the weeks go on, the way in which Behe lays his case will be made. There will be elements of his work that challenge all, from the most staunch creationist to the most stodgy materialist. How we think about the arguments herein, and not what we conclude, is what matters most. Are we thinking clearly? Or will assertions and attempts to get the upper hand for argument’s sake cloud our vision? Hopefully the former of the two options is what guides us in all of our thoughts.

TST

Presumption of Atheism or Agnosticism?

2008-02-01T11:33:00.000-06:00

In some of the comments, a theme keeps showing up: Theism (especially the Christian variety) seems guilty until proven innocent; while atheism seems innocent until proven guilty. Why is this? This is known as the “presumption of atheism.” But should Atheism be the default setting? One of the leading Philosophers of Religion of our day, William Lane Craig, shares why it should not be:

“….another philosophical relic is the much-vaunted presumption of atheism. At face value, this is the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists. So understood, such an alleged presumption seems to conflate atheism with agnosticism. For the assertion that “God does not exist” is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that “God exists,” and therefore the former requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God’s existence, confessing that he does not know whether God exists or does not exist, and so who requires no justification. (I speak here only of a “soft” agnosticism, which is really just a confession of ignorance, rather than of a “hard” agnosticism, which claims that it cannot be known whether or not God exists; such a positive assertion would, indeed, require justification.) If anything, then, one should speak at most of a presumption of agnosticism.”

If there is a default setting, it is agnosticism, not atheism. In that case, the atheist has just as much explaining to do as the theist.

For a more detailed treatment of this issue, see Scott A. Shalkowski, “Atheological Apologetics,” in Contemporary Perspectives on Religious Epistemology, ed. R. Douglas Geivett and Brendan Sweetman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992).

A Book in Blog Review

2008-01-20T11:30:00.000-06:00

So, in an attempt to be true to my words for what I would like this blog to be, I am going to propose something that should be fun and interesting for all who stumble onto this site.

Starting next week, I will review a chapter per week of a book that I think deserves our honest attention. Yes, some will indeed be from the perspective of those who think the world points to nothing whatsoever, but to start I will embark on a review/dialogue over Behe’s latest book, The Edge of Evolution.

So if you have not purchased it yet, now may be a good time to do so!Of course, any other interesting news that pops up as it relates to arguments over design will also grace the face of this place.

Regards,TST

Has the New Testament Text Been Corrupted?

2008-01-09T11:27:00.000-06:00

Welcome to part 2 of our discussion on the reliability of the NT (if you missed last week’s blog, check it out). To begin with, you need to know that none of the original manuscripts of either the Old or New Testaments exist—all that remain are imperfect copies. But this is no different than any other ancient document or classical writer (e.g., Greek or Latin literature). We use reliable copies in our daily lives all of the time (e.g., clocks and yard sticks). In fact, after last week’s blog, we learned that we have far more than any other ancient document to work with.

Now the million dollar question: do we have absolute, 100%, “bomb-proof,” mathematical certainty what the correct reading of the original text of the NT is? The answer to this question is no, we do not. Does that mean we are thrown into utter skepticism regarding the reading of the original New Testament text? Not at all. Here is why. Ehrman in his book Misquoting Jesus claims that there are 400,000 textual errors / textual variants in the NT (i.e., differences between the texts). This claim sounds daunting and scary considering there are only about 140,000 words in the Greek NT. What should we say to this? When textual critic Dan Wallace teaches on this in topic in popular settings, he makes the initial statement that “99% of the textual variants make no difference at all” (Spelling and non-sense errors comprise the vast majority of these; BTW, when I was in graduate school we did some textual criticism exercises, and it was remarkable how easy it was—even for novices—to pick out most of these issues). This means that less than 4000 places (out of the original 400,000 variants) have any legitimate bearing on the translation of the text. So what kind of errors are these? Wallace categorizes them into 4 kinds; I will mention these and leave you to some homework to flesh out the particulars.

Watch Dr. Wallace discuss these issues: http://jesusfactorfiction.com/answer.php?new_testament

1. Spelling differences (the great majority of these variants are spelling 70-80%)
2. Minor differences that involve synonyms or do not affect translation (Greek is an inflected language, so you can say the same thing with several different constructions)
3. Meaningful but not viable differences (e.g., 1 Thess. 2:9 – a late medieval manuscript says “gospel of Christ” instead of “gospel of God,” meaningful difference but not viable because there is little chance one scribe got it right much later and all other scribes got it wrong).
4. Meaningful and viable differences (Less than 1% of variants) Meaningful here is not “earth-shattering” like Jesus was a liar or something…almost all are minor variations (cf. Rom. 5:1 “let us have peace with God” or “We have peace with God” and Mark 9:29 “Casting out demons by “prayer and fasting” or just “prayer”?)

It is important to remember that the reason we have so many variants is because we have so many manuscripts (again a good problem to have!). So when all is said and done, Scholars have achieved a 99.5% copying accuracy of the New Testament (and the remaining issues all have finite options and none of these affect any central doctrine or issue). You can have confidence that what was written then is what we have now—whether you accept the message contained therein is up to.

C.S. Lewis Society Blog and Misquoting Jesus

2008-01-01T11:02:00.000-06:00

Welcome to the C.S. Lewis Society Blog. As a team we will be posting weekly blogs that will address or highlight key issues in Christian apologetics and Intelligent Design. Feel free to comment on these posts. Wherever you are on your spiritual journey, we encourage you to engage these issues / topics openly and honestly.

It has become fashionable as of late to make provocative claims concerning the origins of Christianity. Take the Da Vinci Code and the so called “missing gospels” (e.g., Gospel of Judas) as exhibits A and B. But recently, a book questioning the reliability of the New Testament has become a best seller, Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who changed the Bible and Why. What makes this interesting is that this book is basically a book on Textual Criticism written for a popular audience. Now Ehrman, who is chair of Religious Studies at UNC, is a well respected textual critic, and so many are being influenced by his book and his controversial claims. Here is just one of them:

“The more I studied the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, the more I realized just how radically the text had been altered over the years at the hands of Scribes….It would be wrong…to say—as people sometimes do—that changes on our text have no real bearing on what the texts mean or on the theological conclusions that one draws from them” (Misquoting Jesus, 207).

Now this raises some good questions because few things are as central to Christianity as whether or not the Bible–as we have it today–has been reliably copied. Ehrman’s claims have not gone unanswered. Fellow Textual Critic Dan Wallace, whose Greek grammar text book is used at 2/3 of the schools that teach Intermediate Greek (including Yale, Princeton, and Cambridge) and who is professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, has responded at the popular level to Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus. (FYI, these two scholars will be debating one another on the textual reliability of the NT on April 4-5 in New Orleans at the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum).

It really comes down to two issues: (1) do we have an adequate amount of manuscripts to work with in order to recover the original writings, and (2) is what was written then, what we have now? We will briefly speak to (1) today and address (2) next time. Concerning (1), Wallace notes:
“The wealth of material that is available for determining the wording of the original New Testament is staggering: more than fifty-seven hundred Greek New Testament manuscripts, as many as twenty thousand versions, and more than one million quotations by patristic writers. In comparison with the average ancient Greek author, the New Testament copies are well over a thousand times more plentiful. If the average-sized manuscript were two and one-half inches thick, all the copies of the works of an average Greek author would stack up four feet high, while the copies of the New Testament would stack up to over a mile high! This is indeed an embarrassment of riches” (Reinventing Jesus: What the Da Vinci Code And Other Novel Speculations Don’t Tell You, 82).

Furthermore, Wallace observes that, “We have ample data to work with, enabling us to reconstruct the wording of the original New Testament in virtually every place. And where there are doubts, there is still manuscript testimony” (Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture’s Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ, 49).

So concerning (1) and contrary to what one might be led to believe reading Misquoting Jesus, Wallace represents what is the majority opinion among NT textual critics—there is plenty to work with and a significant number of these manuscripts are early. But whether these texts have been corrupted over time is what we will look at next week.
Now, I simply included the conclusions. I will leave it to you examine the evidence for yourself.

Here are some places to start:
- Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture’s Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ by Darrell L. Bock and Daniel B. Wallace
- Reinventing Jesus: What the Da Vinci Code And Other Novel Speculations Don’t Tell You by Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace.
- Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus by Timothy Paul Jones
- The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel- Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts
-Daniel Wallace’s Blog on Textual Issues