RE: [asa] RE: Apologetics Conference 2008

I wouldn't say he's (WLC) ignorant of biology at all, I quite agree with his
statements that you quote. But let's save that argument for a later date...

With regards to Denton, I put his book down (Nature's Destiny) pretty early
on (p60) to read Miller's Perspectives...an ongoing task. Denton talks a lot
about fitness (ID-like) but the second half of the book is about evolution.
He certainly uses the word evolution in a different sense than he did in his
first book, but that was just from a brief overview of the first few pages
of Part II.
James Patterson

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Austerberry, Charles
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 5:41 PM
To: asa@lists.calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] RE: Apologetics Conference 2008

"Michael Denton's point that we ought to see millions of transitional
forms if the neo-Darwinian paradigm were true is hardly out of date and
remains a pressing problem."

Hmmm ...

"I haven't seen any evidence that the hypothesis of random mutation and
natural selection has the sort of explanatory power which the
neo-Darwinian paradigm attributes to it."

Hmmm ...

I wonder exactly what Craig means by "the neo-Darwinian paradigm," and I
wonder where he's looked for evidence concerning random mutations and
natural selection (not to mention genetic drift, etc.).

However, when he states that evolution (if true) could be compatible
with Christian faith, that's positive, in my opinion.

His skepticism towards evolution seems derived from two sources: 1) his
ignorance of biology, and 2) his awareness that some atheists are biased
against considering the claims of intelligent design theory.

From what I've read, William Lane Craig is more familiar with cosmology
than with biology. But, I would like to know how professional
cosmologists rate Craig's handling of their science.

I find many of Craig's philosophical arguments reasonable. But again,
Craig's mishandling of biology makes me want to know what professional
philosophers think of his arguments.

CFA

Charles (Chuck) F. Austerberry, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Biology
Hixson-Lied Room 438
Creighton University
2500 California Plaza
Omaha, NE 68178
Phone: 402-280-2154
Fax: 402-280-5595
e-mail: cfauster@creighton.edu
http://groups.creighton.edu/premedsociety/
 
Nebraska Religious Coalition for Science Education
http://nrcse.creighton.edu
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-digest-owner@lists.calvin.edu
[mailto:asa-digest-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:49:57 -0500
From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [asa] RE: Apologetics Conference 2008

Funny timing in that regard. Just today WLC updated Reasonable Faith
about this very topic.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=q_and_a

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:35 AM, Dehler, Bernie
<bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> Looking at their agenda- looks like evolution is not a topic. From
> listening to William Lane Craig, I get the impression that he dodges
> the question of evolution at every opportunity. He's afraid to
> address it head-on in my experience. I've listened to a lot of his
> podcasts. I like him a lot- just think he is a coward in that
> respect... especially since he claims to be on the forefront of
apologetics.
>
> My guess is he thinks that the Christian faithful isn't yet ready to
> accept evolution, and so he avoids it, by saying other philosophical
> points make the debate unimportant. (The evidence for a Creator means
> you don't have to accept a naturalistic godless universe... but what
> about evolution as God's method of design??? I don't think he'll
> address it.)
>
> ...Bernie
>

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, 10 Nov 2008 19:38:11 -0600