Look what I found on Youtube, in 7 parts.
Here are the part:
I think he makes a really good case, but you really have to turn up the audio.
Tag Archives: Debate
Michael Behe and Stephen Barr debate intelligent design
Michael Behe is Catholic and Stephen Barr seems to be a theistic evolutionist (naturalist). (H/T Evolution News via ECM)
The main page is here, and it has the video.
There is an MP3 file here, 71 minutes long.
Michael Behe goes first, then Stephen Barr.
Keep in mind that the dividing line in the debate on intelligent design vs. Darwinism is between open-minded scientists who think that there might be objective evidence that material cause-and-effect may not be able to account for specific kinds of complexity (specified complexity) in nature, and philosophers who believe that is never permissible to overturn the philosophical assumption of materialism, regardless of what the scientific evidence shows.
So the pro-ID side is like “let’s look at the evidence and see what naturalism can and can’t do” and the anti-ID side is “the presupposition of materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”. It’s ID scientists vs naturalist materialism pre-supposers. Reason vs faith. Inquiry vs dogmatism.
UPDATE:
Upcoming conference features pro-ID scholars and theistic evolutionists in Austin, Texas in October.
Opening speeches from the Flannagan-Bradley debate on morality
Raymond Bradley and Matthew Flannagan will debate the topic “Is God the Source of Morality? Is it rational to ground right and wrong in commands issued by God?”
Bradley is an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy with areas of specialty in Philosophical Logic, Metaphysics, Logical Atomism; he has previously debated William Lane Craig, Edward Blaiklock and many other Christian scholars and describes himself as an older generation “new atheist”.
Matthew FlannaganFlannagan is an Auckland based Philosopher and Theologian with areas of specialty in Philosophy of Religion, Ethics and Theology; he has previously debated Bill Cooke, Zoe During and, of course, writes for this blog.
Matt posted both opening speeches on the MandM blog.
Opening speech by Ray Bradley.
Excerpt:
I’m going to indict God on four categories of charges. Each category has scores, if not hundreds or thousands of instances. If God is guilty of even one of these instances, that alone would be grounds for his conviction. Drawing upon evidence provided by God himself in his so-called Holy Scriptures, I hold that he’s guilty of them all.
- Crimes against Humanity
- War Crimes
- Licensing Moral Mayhem and Murder
- Crimes of Torture
Matt went second and responded to this argument.
Opening speech by Matthew Flannagan.
Matt defends a divine command theory of morality and he has 3 responses to Ray:
- The theist can deny that the Biblical record of what God did is infallible
- God’s moral duties are for humans, they are not necessarily binding on God
- Ray misinterprets the meaning and applicability of the Bible stories he cites
I recommend reading the two opening speeches now so you’re ready for when the full video comes out. Brian Auten of Apologetics 315 tells me that he has asked for the video and it should be posted soon. I will link to the video when it comes out.
Flannagan is awesome and you need to start to get familiar with him even though he is in New Zealand. He’s basically the William Lane Craig of New Zealand, and probably that whole area of the world. I don’t know any Australian scholars who are as capable as Matt. I must mention though that I do disagree with him on annihilationism, the view he articulates in this debate.
UPDATE: The audio has now been posted. (H/T Jason from Thinking Matters NZ)
Further study
And here is a blog post on Ray Bradley written by another New Zealander, theistic philosopher Glenn Peoples. Glenn’s post is short and to the point – he excerpts the main argument from a post by Bradley against the moral argument and shows why it has no force.
And you can read more about William Lane Craig’s debate with Ray Bradley on Hell, too.
WINTERY KNIGHT 