William Dembski answers the top 3 objections to intelligent design

New podcast from the ID the Future podcast. (RSS feed)

The MP3 file is here.

Here are the objections he addressed:

  1. Just because something is unlikely doesn’t mean that it was designed because improbable things occur all the time.
  2. You can’t infer design if the object is sub-optimally designed, or exhibits evil
  3. But intelligent design is just re-packaged creationism

I worry about Dr. Dembski because he takes a lot of heat from these evolutionists, who are not fit to shine his shoes. But he sounds very happy and comfortable in this podcast, so I was very happy.

William Dembski’s new book

OK, everybody knows that I am an old-earth creationist and a strong supporter of intelligent design. Whenever some tries to tell me that the doctrine of the Fall explains all the evil in the world, I just roll my eyes and fold my arms. Because that’s just young-earth stuff, right? WRONG!

Check out the endorsements for Bill’s new book “The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World”. Bill accepts the standard dating, as do I, but he obviously does not accept evolution, and neither do I.

Well, I went straight to the endorsements. Everybody who is anybody is raving about this book, including some real heavy hitters like Don Page at the University of Alberta.

Here are a few of the endorsers:

  • Frank Turek
  • Hank Hanegraaff
  • Douglas Groothuis
  • Michael Licona
  • Gary R. Habermas
  • Peter S. Williams
  • Chuck Colson
  • Norman Geisler
  • John A. Bloom
  • Steve Fuller
  • Henry F. Schaefer III
  • Josh and Sean McDowell
  • Stephen T. Davis
  • Don Page
  • J. P. Moreland

I noticed he’s got TWO peer-reviewed papers on intelligent design that will be in print shortly. Here’s the first one and here’s the second one.

Ken Ham says that I am right about how to fix the church

Oh, I get a lot of flack from mean young-earth people who tell me that I am wrong to emphasize apologetics, and that I should really be focusing on praise songs and worship instead. (I am kidding!) But Ken Ham did some surveys of young people and he says that singing is dead last in the list of things that young people want in church. And he also says that apologetics is the answer for curing the the mass exodus of young people from the church.

The MP3 file is here. (35 minutes, 14 megs)

Listen to the last 10 minutes, especially.

Well, I agree with Ken Ham on that much, at least! Bet you’d never thought I would agree with him on anything!

(By the way, I know how kids think. I used to be a volunteer camp counselor, volunteer swimming instructor, volunteer athletic supervisor, volunteer apologetics instructor, paid math teacher, and paid math tutor)

5 thoughts on “William Dembski answers the top 3 objections to intelligent design”

  1. Off topic, but related to apologetics. I listened to the Turek-Hitchens debate (downloaded from Apologetics 315) yesterday.

    I’m amazed at just how bad Hitchens is as a “debater” or even an intellectual. Apart from not answering Turek’s actual arguments, he displayed an amazing lack of historical knowledge about the subject he thinks he’s discussing. For example, his extended attack was on the “ontological” argument, which he attributed to Aquinas. Aquinas, of course, rejected the ontological argument and opted for arguments not too far off from the arguments that Turek made. Also, I’m not sure that Hitchens understands what the ontological argument is.

    Likewise, in one throw-away comment, he ranted about the evil of the idea of Limbo which he said was invented by Augustine. Augustine had nothing to do with Limbo – which said that the unbaptized might obtain natural, but not supernatural, happiness. Augustine consigned all the unbaptized to Hell. Certainly, Hitchens can rant about theological doctrines all he wants, but these kinds of clunkers undermine whatever credit his British accent buys to being an intellectual.

    Like

    1. And yet the funny thing is, and I think this is worth remembering, he’s likable and therefore a lot of people think he does well in these.

      That’s not to say that you’re wrong in the least. He throws out a steady stream of unsubstantiated polemic and fails to address in anyway the substantive arguments of his opponents… yet people think he’s all that and a bag of chips.

      Being likable is at least as important as being right. Something I think I all too easily forget.

      Like

      1. “Being likable is at least as important as being right.”

        Amen.

        That’s right up there with Napoleon’s “It is better to be lucky than good.”

        Well, maybe Napoleon didn’t actually say that, but he said something like it.

        Like

  2. Thanks for the heads up. That’s an impressive list of endorsers, and the teaser is promising enough for me.

    Add it to the pile!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s