Re: [asa] William Lane Craig in Auckland

I do not worry about people who do not mention evolution and Adam and
Eve. Its the ones that do who sometimes give me concerns.
Don

Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> I've been listening to William Lane Craig's podcasts for quite a while.
> In general, he never mentions evolution, and he goes as far as to
> pre-empt the question that so that evolution is mute, when debating
> atheists (I can't remember the details on how he does that- I think he
> argues that there must be a beginning so there must be a creator- since
> he dispenses with atheism at this early stage he feels he doesn't have
> to debate evolution). A very good question for him would be to ask his
> opinion if Adam was a real person or not, and if it matters. I think it
> is a hot button topic he usually tries to avoid. Ravi Zacharius
> (www.rzim.org) is another leading Christian apologetics minister who
> also avoids theistic evolution, I think (I've also listened to him for
> quite some time).
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Don Nield
> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 4:37 PM
> To: j burg; AmericanScientificAffiliation
> Subject: [asa] William Lane Craig in Auckland
>
> Last night I attended a lecture by William Lane Craig at the Bible
> College of New Zealand in Auckland. His title was "A critical response
> to Richard Dawkins". He spent 15 minutes or so discussing Dawkin's
> central argument as presented on pages 157-158 of "The God Delusion" and
>
> then spent about 90 minutes taking questions from the audience. He
> pointed out that Dawkins' main conclusion, that God almost certainly
> does not exist, does not logically follow in any way from the list of
> six statements ( "premises"?) listed immediately above in his book, and
> that items 3, 4, 5, and 6 can all be challenged.
> The questions from the audience were mainly about apologetics. Craig
> said that he saw as a positive sign that a secular philosophy department
>
> (at the Victoria University of Wellington) had organized a seminar on
> Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom and had invited people like himself
>
> to attend. Ken Mickleson (like myself an ASA member) asked a question
> about the interpretation of Genesis. Craig replied that Christians
> should not insist on a particular interpretation of Genesis that
> required an age of 6000 years for the earth. He gave a plug at one stage
>
> for Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe. I asked him whether he held the
> view that methodological naturalism inevitably led to metaphysical
> naturalism, and as backgound I mentioned that he was listed as a Fellow
> of the Discovery Institute and that some of his fellow Fellows did hold
> that view. His answer was that he did not hold that view. He said that
> even Phillip Johnson, in his book Darwin on Trial, conceded that
> evolution was a satisfactory explanation at the methodological level.
> This was news to me -- I need to check.
> I got the impression that Craig disengages himself from the political
> activities of the US Intelligent Design movement and that he has an
> irenic attitude towards theistic evolutionists -- in distinct contrast
> to William Dembski ! I found myself in agreement with much of what he
> had to say.
> Don
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 16 22:22:07 2008