I just received my copy of the “Signature in the Cell” book from the Discovery Institute in the mail today. My former co-worker Robb got his last week. It’s a ~600 page hardcover, so perhaps Robb and I should have a contest to see who can finish it first! It has huge print and lots of space, and beautiful illustrations on practically every page. I’m so excited – I can tell that I am going to learn a lot by reading this book.
Stephen C. Meyer podcasts on intelligently designed DNA
This episode of ID the Future tells the story of how philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer first began his quest for the origin of life. How did one of the architects of the intelligent design movement move from the oilfields of Texas to the study halls of Cambridge to pursue the mystery of where biological information originated? Listen in and find out. (MP3 file)
On this episode of ID the Future philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer continues the story of how he became involved in intelligent design, sharing some of what he studied while at Cambridge University. What methods do scientists use to study biological origins? Is there a distinctive method of historical scientific inquiry? Meyer set off to investigate not only the history of scientific ideas about the origin of life, but also questions about the definition of science and about how scientists study and reason about ancient events in the past. Listen in and learn, and check out Dr. Meyer’s new book, Signature in the Cell, which tells more of the story, the culmination of over 20 years of study and research on the origins of life. (MP3 file)
On this episode of ID the Future CSC Director Stephen C. Meyer explains the problem that information presents to origin of life researchers within a naturalistic paradigm. Information within the cell presents a daunting challenge to Darwin’s theory — and provides significant evidence for a signature of a designing intelligence, as Meyer explains in his new book. (MP3 file)
On this episode of ID the Future philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer responds to critics of intelligent design, such as Richard Dawkins and his book, The God Delusion. (MP3 file)
“Unbelievable”, is a show broadcast every Saturday in the UK. Every week, they feature a debate between a Christian and a non-Christian. The debate this week was on the moral argument, which argues that meaningful morality, including free will, human rights, moral rules, moral obligations, and moral significance, must be grounded in God.
THIS IS A MUST-LISTEN.
The debate starts a bit into the podcast, after they review audience reactions to last week and preview the next week’s topic.
Here is the link to the podcast. (MP3 audio)
If you have trouble with that link, try here instead.
The atheist Paul Orton argues this:
- no moral absolutes
- morality is a set evolved conventions
- the set varies by time and place
The Christian David Robertson argues this:
- morality is meaningless unless there are moral absolutes
- cultural relativism doesn’t rationally ground moral judgments
- the Bible does not teach that slavery is good
One of the best parts of the debate is when David contrasts H.G. Wells, an atheistic socialist who embraced socialism and fascism as a natural extension of his atheism, and a Christian, William Wilberforce who spent over two decades of his life trying to free the slaves in the UK.
This debate can be seen as an illustration of the thesis that I advanced in my series of posts on atheism and morality, in which I argued that atheism does not ground the minimal requirements for rational morality.
This page contains a link to an excellent lecture on the ontological foundations of rational morality, as well as a number of debates between Christians and atheists on whether morality is rationally grounded by the worldview of atheism. And you can find some other apologetics posts here, including an article on whether the the moral statements of atheists are even intelligible, on atheism.
The best book ever written on this topic is Greg Koukl and Francis J. Beckwith’s “Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air“. You can see Greg deliver a lecture about relativism to an audience of students and faculty at UCLA (MP3 audio here). If you want to read something free on the web that explains the problems with moral relativism, which is the view of morality that is grounded by atheism, look here.
Audio of the debate is hosted by my buddy Brian Auten who operates the Apologetics 315 blog.
You can download the full MP3 audio here.
I listened to this debate and thought that Dawkins did well against Lennox. It is a very short debate. This is not a rigorous academic debate, as neither participant argued in a formal manner. Dawkins came across as firm, but gracious, and he does a lot better than Hitchens did in his recent debate against Craig.
This debate is recommended for beginners to get a bird’s eye view of some of the issues before moving on to professional academic debates featuring analytical philosophers such as William Lane Craig, Walter Sinott-Armstrong, etc. They don’t really go into complicated details.
My favorite academic debate is this one featuring William Lane Craig vs Walter Sinnott-Armstrong on the problems of evil and suffering. Another great debate featuring Bill Craig and Austin Dacey is here (video) and their re-match is here (audio).
Canadian/American free speech activist Mark Steyn on the line with Chicago radio show host Milt Rosenberg. Commercial free!
Extension 720 – Mark Steyn – June 1, 2009
Duration : 1 hours 29 mins 26 secs
He re-caps the history and outcome of his trial in Canada for offending Muslims, and goes on to discuss his previous book “America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It” and his new book “Lights Out: Islam, Free Speech And The Twilight Of The West“. He reviews the state of free speech, Western Civilization, single-payer health care, welfare, anti-Western attitudes in education, and the 2008 election results.
Ezra Levant reports on his debate against secular-leftist professor Lucie Lamarche on CBC radio. Note that the start time is 1:12 into the show. Press pause, let the clip buffer for a few minutes, then drag the slider to the 1:12 position.
Last Sunday I was on Michael Enright’s CBC radio show, The Sunday Edition, debating human rights commissions along with Keith Martin, the Liberal MP, and a nutty professor called Lucie Lamarche.
You can listen to the show here — it’s the May 31 edition. The debate starts at about 1 hour and 12 minutes into the show.
[Lamarche] loses her grip at 1:25 when Enright challenged her on the lack of due process and natural justice in HRCs. Her first response is to dismiss the horrors of HRCs as my own personal story. When I pushed back, citing the very section of the Alberta act that allows warrantless search and seizures, and pointing out that targets of HRCs don’t get legal aid, she just collapsed, saying that “discrimination is about attitudes… and transformation. It’s not only about due process.”
Oh. So to hell with the law or fairness. Guys like me need to have our attitudes transformed. It’s not law. It’s brutal politics pretending to be the law.
I like this Lucie Lamarche — for her honesty.
After a few minutes of her reading her talking points — likely authored by the battallion of PR flacks at the Canadian Human Rights Commission — she just stops pretending that HRCs are about justice. They’re about politics and propaganda — making political dissidents like me conform to the “official line”. And the high costs? That’s just an additional punishment for our thought crimes.
Seriously: when she ran out of her prepared talking points, she said what she truly believed: this was about transforming attitudes.
Ezra also hints at which kind of people fight back to defend human rights, and what kind of people destroy human rights:
Readers, do you think that Orwell or Solzhenitsyn would call Lamarche a defender of human rights, or a destroyer of them?
Do you think that giving the state the power to transform your attitudes is a protection of your freedoms, or an abridgement of them?
Do you think that Lucie Lamarche follows in the footsteps of dissidents who challenged the conventional wisdom, like Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi — or is she a descendant of the censors and bullies who tried to shut those two up?
Do not miss this debate podcast! Ezra is on fire!
And remember: we know that the secular-left believes in pounding down the good and lifting up the evil, so that moral judgments become impossible and no one feels badly for being morally evil. Remember Evan Sayet’s explanation for how progressives think: moral equivalence, postmodernism and moral relativism. And atheists do not have the ability to resist Islamo-fascism: they want to be happy, not to be heroes.