Videos

Stephen C. Meyer lectures on intelligent design and the origin of life

Leave a comment

A MUST-SEE lecture based on Dr. Stephen C. Meyer’s book “Signature in the Cell“.

You can get an MP3 of the lecture here. (30 MB)

I highly recommend watching the lecture, and looking at the slides. The quality of the video and the content is first class. There is some Q&A (9 minutes) at the end of the lecture.

Topics:

  • intelligent design is concerned with measuring the information-creating capabilities of natural forces like mutation and selection
  • Darwinists think that random mutations and natural selection can explain the origin and diversification of living systems
  • Darwinian mechanisms are capable of explaining small-scale adaptive changes within types of organisms
  • but there is skepticism, even among naturalists, that Darwinian mechanisms can explain the origin of animal designs
  • even if you concede that Darwinism can account for all of the basic animal body plans, there is still the problem of life’s origin
  • can Darwinian mechanisms explain the origin of the first life? Is there a good naturalistic hypothesis to explain it?
  • there are at least two places in the history of life where new information is needed: origin of life, and Cambrian explosion
  • overview of the structure of DNA and protein synthesis (he has helpful pictures and he uses the snap lock blocks, too)
  • the DNA molecule is composed of a sequence of bases that code for proteins, and the sequence is carefully selected to have biological function
  • meaningful sequences of things like computer code, English sentences, etc. require an adequate cause
  • it is very hard to arrive at a meaningful sequence of a non-trivial length by randomly picking symbols/letters
  • although any random sequence of letters is improbable, the vast majority of sequences are gibberish/non-compiling code
  • similarly, most random sequences of amino acids are lab-proven (Doug Axe’s work) to be non-functional gibberish
  • the research showing this was conducted at Cambridge University and published in the Journal of Molecular Biology
  • so, random mutation cannot explain the origin of the first living cell
  • however, even natural selection coupled with random mutation cannot explain the first living cell
  • there must already be replication in order for mutation and selection to work, so they can’t explain the first replicator
  • but the origin of life is the origin of the first replicator – there is no replication prior to the first replicator
  • the information in the first replicator cannot be explained by law, such as by chemical bonding affinities
  • the amino acids are attached like magnetic letters on a refrigerator
  • the magnetic force sticks the letters ON the fridge, but they don’t determine the specific sequence of the letters
  • if laws did determine the sequence of letters, then the sequences would be repetitive
  • the three materialist explanations – chance alone, chance and law, law alone – are not adequate to explain the effect
  • the best explanation is that an intelligent cause is responsible for the biological explanation in the first replicator
  • we know that intelligent causes can produce functional sequences of information, e.g. – English, Java code
  • the structure and design of DNA matches up nicely with the design patterns used by software engineers (like WK!)

There are some very good tips in this lecture so that you will be able to explain intelligent design to others in simple ways, using everyday household items and children’s toys to symbolize the amino acids, proteins, sugar phosphate backbones, etc.

Proteins are constructed from a sequence of amino acids:

A sequence of amino acids forming a protein
A sequence of amino acids forming a protein

Proteins sticking onto the double helix structure of DNA:

Some proteins sticking onto the sugar phosphate backbone
Some proteins sticking onto the sugar phosphate backbone

I highly, highly recommend this lecture. You will be delighted and you will learn something.

Here is an article that gives a general overview of how intelligent design challenges. If you want to read something more detailed about the material that he is covering in the lecture above related to the origin of life, there is a pretty good article here.

There is a good breakdown of some of the slides with helpful flow charts here on Uncommon Descent.

Positive arguments for Christian theism

News

House Republicans pass bill to defund Planned Parenthood

1 Comment
I'm Scheming Unborn Baby, and I approve this study
I’m Scheming Unborn Baby, and I support these two pro-life bills

Actually there are two bills. The first Republican bill blocks Planned Parenthood from getting federal funds, because they harvest organs from born-alive babies. The second Republican bill holds Planned Parenthood criminally responsible for born-alive abortions. The Democrats are opposed to both defunding Planned Parenthood and preventing born-alive abortions. So this is a real battle.

Anyway, let’s see the first story, from Life News.

It says:

The House of Representatives voted today for legislation that would temporarily de-fund Planned Parenthood while an investigation continues into it s sale of aborted babies and their body parts.

The House voted 241 to 187 for the bill with 239 Republicans voting for the bill to defund the Planned Parenthood abortion business and 3 Democrats joining them. Three Republicans voted against the defunding bill while 183 Democrats voted against it. Republican Steve King of Iowa vote present.

Rep. Diane Black, a Tennessee Republican who is the pro-life lawmaker sponsoring the legislation and a nurse for more than 40 years, sponsored the legislation. The bill would freeze Planned Parenthood funding for one year while Congress conducts an investigation into its sales of aborted babies. The House vote would follow one the Senate had weeks ago, which saw Senate Democrats filibuster and block legislation to revoke $550 million in taxpayer funding. The Senate is expected to vote soon on a second attempt to de-fund Planned Parenthood.

A new Congressional report finds that de-funding the Planned Parenthood abortion business — even for one year — would save “several thousand” unborn babies from the nightmare of abortion. The report also finds de-funding Planned Parenthood would save the federal government $235 million.

During the debate, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy spoke on the House floor in defense of innocent human life and urged his colleagues to put a moratorium on Planned Parenthood funding in light of its barbaric practices.

“So if we know that this organization performs hundreds of thousands of abortions per year and we know that women have access to other sources for care, the question is, should we force taxpayers to fund a business that spends its money aborting 327,653 children per year?  Should we force taxpayers to fund an organization whose barbaric practices, as vividly shown in those videos, disregard and devalue the sanctity of the most innocent human lives?” he asked.

He added: “There is no reason—absolutely no reason—that we must choose between funding women’s health and compelling taxpayers to support abortion.”

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) talked about how Planned Parenthood is not in the business of women’s health care and is really just an abortion company.

[…]“In the history of Planned Parenthood, they have never, ever, ever done one mammogram, because they are not certified to do mammograms. They bring people in and refer them out to get their mammograms. So, for those of us –like in my case, three daughters and a wife of 37 years –look, I want good women’s healthcare. So, let’s fund it,” he said. “But, let’s give it directly to the facilities that will do the mammograms and not Planned Parenthood – for them to take their cut.”

President Barack Obama has already threatened to veto the bill.

Hillary Clinton also spoke out in favor of for-profit organ-harvesting from born-alive children.

After today’s House vote to de-fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business, Hillary Clinton took to twitter to adamantly defend taxpayer funding for the abortion company.

The second bill is even stronger than the first. It will hold Planned Parenthood responsible for performing abortions on born-alive babies.

Life News reports:

The House of Representatives today approved a pro-life bill that would hold the Planned Parenthood abortion business criminally liable for harvesting body parts from aborted babies who are technically still alive.

The center for Medical Progress has released 10 videos catching and exposing Planned Parenthood officials selling aborted babies and their body parts. One of the most shocking videos caught the nation’s biggest abortion business harvesting the brain of an aborted baby who was still alive.

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, sponsored by pro-life Congressman Trent Franks would make failure to provide standard medical care to children born alive during an abortion a federal crime.  It would also apply stronger penalties in cases where an overt act is taken to kill the abortion survivor.

[…]Congressman Chris Smith implored the House to pass the bill.

“Undercover videos by the Center for Medical Progress have again brought into sharp focus that some babies actually survive abortion,” the New jersey congressman said.

“Dr. Savita Ginde, Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains says ‘sometimes we get—if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure—they are intact…’  that is, Madame Speaker,  born alive. Breathing, crying, gasping for air. One fetal tissue broker describes on the video watching a ‘fetus …just fall out.’ And left to die.”

“We have a duty to protect these vulnerable children from violence, exploitation and death. Humanitarian due diligence requires that born alive babies be taken to a hospital to obtain care and enhance prospects of survival,” Smith added. “Abortion clinics have no incentive whatsoever to save the child. Abortion clinics do not have neonatal intensive care units—they are in the business of killing babies, not saving them.”

“The Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 3504), authored by pro-life champion Trent Franks simply says any child who survives an abortion must be given the same care as any other premature baby born at the same gestational age.  This legislation builds on the landmark Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 authored by Steve Chabot by adding important enforcement provisions,” he concluded.

The House voted 248 to 177 for the bill with 239 Republicans voting for the bill and 5 Democrats joining them. No Republicans voted against the pro-life bill while 177 Democrats voted against it. One member voted present.

A pro-life Senator says he will introduce the Senate version of the bill on Monday. Senator Ben Sasse told LifeNews.com that he will introduce companion legislation in the Senate when Congress resumes its work on Monday.

He said: “If this isn’t the most non-controversial sentence in American politics, it’s time to check our national conscience: newborn babies must receive care and attention. Societies are judged by how we care for the vulnerable and surely anyone with a heart— regardless of where they stand on the abortion debate— should be able to agree that our laws should protect newborns. I’m grateful that a bipartisan majority of the House stood up for babies and I look forward to introducing companion legislation in the Senate next week.”

Despite passage of the bill, the Obama administration says President Barack Obama would veto the measure.

Every time stories about how Obama will veto pro-life bills comes out, it makes me think of all the “Christians” who voted for him in 2008 and again in 2012. What will happen to them when God gets his hands on them? It was known during the election of 2008 that Obama had voted against a ban on born-alive abortions four times as a State senator in Illinois. I just think about how God will deal out punishment to the “Christians” who voted for him. Will he be most angry with them for voting for him for whatever reason? (e.g. – skin color or welfare, etc.) Or will he be most angry with their pastors for misleading them? Or will he be most angry with the national news media (e.g. – MSNBC) for refusing to inform the people about their chosen leftist candidate? Slavery and murder are serious crimes. There is plenty of blame to go around.

The bottom line is clear though… not everyone who comforts themselves with the idea that “God is love” will find God loving on that day.

Commentary

Greg Koukl explains the right way to handle an angry, aggressive atheist

4 Comments
A conflict of worldviews
A conflict of worldviews

Greg Koukl is one of the scholars who got me started in apologetics. In his “Solid Ground” newsletter for January/February 2009, he talked about dealing with angry, aggressive atheists.

Let’s start with the question “what is a steamroller?”:

The defining characteristic of a “steamroller” is that he constantly interrupts, rolling over you with the force of his personality. Steamrollers are not usually interested in answers. They are interested in winning through intimidation.

Greg breaks down the techniques for handling steamrollers in 3 steps.

Step 1: Stop Him.

Your first move when you find yourself in a conversation with a steamroller is a genial request for courtesy. Momentarily put the discussion on “pause.” Ask to continue making your point uninterrupted.

One of the ways you can do that is using body language. You can raise your hand in the stop motion to emphasize your verbal attempt to pause the conversation so that you can finish responding. Ask for a specific amount of time to make your point, and make sure that you him to agree that you will get that time to respond! But the most important thing is to not lose your temper.

Be careful not to let annoyance or hostility creep into your voice. That would be a mistake, especially with this kind of person. Don’t let a steamroller get under your skin. Being defensive and belligerent always looks weak. Instead, stay focused on the issues, not on the attitude. Talk calmly and try to look confident.

…don’t take unfair advantage of the time you buy with this little negotiation. Make your point, then ask, “Does that make sense to you?” This invites him back into the conversation. Give him the courtesy of offering you a reply without interruption.

I hear J.P. Moreland saying “Does that make sense to you?” all the time in his lectures, and now I’ve started doing it too! And so should you! But what if “stopping him” doesn’t work? Then we go on to step 2.

Step 2: Shame Him.

Suppose the steamroller interrupts you again during your negotiation response time. You want to gently draw attention to the fact that he is being rude and intimidating in the conversation. Again, the goal is not to show the slightest discomfort, but always to act with confidence.

Phase two of the Steamroller tactic is to shame him for his bad manners while maintaining your integrity. Stay on topic and don’t follow any “rabbit trails” he may voice.

That point about not taking on any new questions until you finish answering the first one is vital. Every time you make a point about the progress of science, they start complaining about how cruel God is to allow evil and/or send people to Hell. You have to get them to be patient while you answer their first question, before they can move on to the next.

Below is example of how to do step 2:

“Can I ask you a quick question? Do you really want a response from me? At first I thought you did, but when you continue to interrupt I get the impression all you want is an audience. If so, just let me know and I’ll listen. But if you want an answer, you’ll have to give me time to respond. Tell me what you want. I need to know before I can continue.” Wait for an answer.

Part of becoming a good ambassador is knowing how to gauge your opponent, and how much force you should use. Practice, practice! But suppose even step 2 doesn’t work. What should we do now?

Step 3: Leave Him.

The most difficult thing to do is to break off a defense, especially when there are people around listening in or even participating. Usually you do this when the person is moving the wrong way on the aggression scale. Greg cites a number of Bible verses to show that the Bible does support this kind of strategic withdrawal from an engagement that is going the wrong way.

Conclusion

The article concludes with some very useful points. First, you don’t have to win every debate. Just make your point and then let the Holy Spirit handle it from there. It is a mistake to think that you can change people’s minds just by talking to them at more and more. Mind changing usually happens much later, as the person weights both sides of the issues. So don’t rush, and remember, God values free will.

Second, always give an aggressive challenger the last word.

And let me just reiterate – do not lose your cool. A lot of arguing relates to your attitude under fire, especially for beginners who judge debates not on the evidence, but on appearances. You need to spend time studying in advance in order to get this confidence, and I do mean studying both sides, by studying debates. Under fire, the confidence you’ve gained through study, especially the study of debates, is more effective than your words.