Category Archives: Podcasts

Jennifer Roback Morse podcasts on same-sex marriage and prop 8

Cloning her would solve the marriage problem
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse

From the Ruth Institute podcast page.

An update on the federal trial on California’s Proposition 8

The MP3 file is here. (from 1/19/2010)

Topics:

  • what is the prop 8 federal court trial about?
  • what is at stake in the prop 8 trial?
  • what is the only argument in favor of SSM?
  • what is the purpose of marriage?
  • what is the end goal of the marriage redefiners?
  • what would happen if sexual orientation were protected like race?
  • what happens to people today who disagree with SSM?
  • does SSM diminish the biological basis for assigning parenthood?

Reponding to Ted Olson’s pro-SSM arguments:

  • traditional marriage violate the Equal Protection clause
  • people have a right to demand respect from other people
  • children don’t need a mother and father
  • there are no differences between same-sex and opposite-sex couples

Understanding same-sex marriage

The MP3 file is here. (from 1/21/2010)

Topics:

  • how did Dr. J get interested in the marriage issue?
  • what got the pro-marriage Prop 8 movement started?
  • what do we know about the federal judge in the prop 8 trial?
  • how will the school curriculum change if SSM becomes legal?
  • how same-sex unions are a stepping stone to legalizing SSM
  • how SSM empowers the state to regulate private relationships
  • children have a right to a relationship with their parents
  • how SSM threatens the rights of free speech and association
  • how the purpose of SSM differs than the purpose of TM
  • how SSM expands the state’s power to coerce individuals
  • how the province of Quebec opposes heterosexuality as normal
  • SSM’s goal is the elimination of sex differences
  • how the SSM agenda is an extension of third-wave feminism

Wonderful stuff. I really, really like listening to her talk about these things!

Dr. J’s wonderful blog is here.  Please give it a visit! She has really been writing a lot of her own thoughts into her posts lately. It’s very fun and engaging!

It’s too bad that more single women don’t talk about the things that Dr. J talks about. Do you know what single Christian men think of when a single Christian woman comes along and starts talking about the role of husband/father, marriage and children? He thinks about marriage and children, of course, and it’s fun to talk about things like that.

Phillip E. Johnson lectures on science and the pre-supposition of materialism

Have you all heard of Phillip E. Johnson, the UC Berkeley professor who is the father of the intelligent design movement?

Here is a lecture by Phil in which he explains the relationship with materialist philosophy and the practice of science.

The MP3 file for lecture is here. There is some Q&A at the end.

Topics:

  • Can the diversity of life be explained by purposeless material processes?
  • What can changes over time have scientists actually observed?
  • What is the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution?
  • Has macro-evolution ever been observed?
  • Can observations of micro-evolution be extrapolated to prove unobserved macro-evolution?
  • What causes people to doubt that material processes can account for all of life?
  • Is evolution compatible with Judeo-Christian monotheism?
  • How do scientists respond when you ask them for evidence of macro-evolution?
  • Are observable mutations generally helpful or harmful?
  • How do scientists who pre-suppose materialism deal with dissenting scientists?
  • Why was the theory of Darwinian evolution accepted by early scientists?

Highly recommended. Phil is one of my favorite authors.

The one point you need to take away from this lecture is that if a scientist assumes a philosophy of materialism, then they will never be able to find evidence of intelligent causation in nature. They can look at all the evidence they want, or no evidence at all, and the answer will always be “no-God did it”.

So, consider the Big Bang. No-God did it. The fine-tuning? No-God did it. The origin of life? No-God did it. Molecular machines? No-God did it. Cambrian explosion. No-God did it. Origin of consciousness? No-God did it. Origin of free will? No-God did it. Origin of human rights? No-God did it. Origin of objective morality? No-God did it. Bodily resurrection? No-God did it. Galactic fine-tuning? No-God did it. Planetary fine-tuning? No-God did it. And so on. What else could have done it, once you assume matter is all there is?

The thing to do is to ask them what reasons they have for believing that this pre-supposition of materialism is absolute and undeniable. What is the evidence for it, that does not already assume it?

But many people change their pre-suppositions as evidence piles up that they are wrong. A combined approach is best. Surface their pre-suppositions and make them defend them. Then, stack up evidence against the pre-suppositions, e.g. – how can matter be all there is if science shows us that the entire physical universe came into being out of nothing in the Big Bang?

MUST-HEAR: Audio debate between James White and Michael Brown on Calvinism

A nice friendly debate with more light than heat. (H/T Apologetics 315)

The MP3 file is here.

Calvinism is the view that God decides whether you go to Heaven or Hell. Nothing a person does or abstains from doing throughout their entire life affects their post-mortem destination. In fact, no other person or circumstance affects where they end up, either. Everyone who goes to Hell goes there as a direct result of God’s free choice that determines, apart from any actionor circumstance, that a person will go to Hell.

Summary:

  • Introduction to Calvinist James White and some of his 90 debates
  • What is Calvinism and why is it important?
  • Does God love all people the same way in Calvinism?
  • Does God desire the salvation of all people in Calvinism?
  • Is the offer of salvation to all people a genuine offer on Calvinism?
  • Does Calvinism diminish or augment God’s sovereignty?
  • Can God accomplish his will by permitting evil creaturely actions?
  • Did Jesus die only for the “chosen”, or for the possibility of salvation for all?
  • Does a person’s responding to God’s offer of savaltion detract from Gods glory?
  • Does our ability to resist God’s grace mean that we are “stronger” than God?

There is a little static in the audio for a few seconds every time they come back from a break, but nothing major. There are no commercials. And the debate is SO worth it, because there are almost no good debates on this topic, although you may be interested in reading the debate between William Lane Craig and Ed Curley.

Related posts