This is very enjoyable book that deals with the problems of scientific pretensions amongst New Atheists. These unjustified claims served as facts tend to be too bold and frequently overstated and deliberately twisted “facts” by those who call themselves bright’s. David Berlinski chooses to treat them with ridicule and dishes out plenty of subtle put downs. Book is extremely enjoyable; if you are one of these people who like to read comments on other people’s blogs you will find this book very interesting. It is written in a way that anyone with even a limited knowledge of science could grasp and understand David’s reasons behind his desire to show their ignorance. He demonstrates how incorrect and illogical reasoning is often used when modern anti theists are attempting to make their arguments sound plausible.

Dr Berlinski is an agnostic, but this is exactly what makes his arguments that much more reasonable. He is not advocating religion, what he is doing is using his substantial knowledge of Mathematics, Biology and Philosophy (He holds two PhD’s) to show how irrational modern day aggressive atheist are. He is profound in his understanding of the subject and thoughtful in his approach to the topic of religion and is well loved writer.

I have read this book in 5 days as I have two young children that need entertaining, but with anyone with time to spare these 226 pages will feel very short / quick. The only thing I found disappointing about this book is that, like with any other great book it ended way to soon. It will leave you wanting more, I would not be surprised that once you finish this book like me you will be going back to Amazon looking for more great books by the great David Berlinski.

Kind regards

Defend the Word

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0465019374/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261602235&sr=8-1

Comments by other people:

…David Berlinski is a distinguished academic mathematician and philosopher, who was also a post-doctoral fellow in molecular biology at Columbia University.

… This is an incendiary attack on the New Atheism by a scientist with a quick mind and even quicker wit. Writing from the point of view of a secular Jew, Berlinski exposes the extremely tenuous arguments put up by those who have made fortunes out of selling books which say that science proves God does not exist.

… In this entertaining & thought-provoking work, Berlinski exposes the limitations of science and the pretensions of those who insist that it must be the ultimate basis for understanding the universe. As a secular scientist, he argues from a scientific perspective. Being intellectually honest, he admits ignorance as to the big questions but he does reach conclusions from the available information. With acuity and acerbic wit, he reveals flaws in the scientific theories from the scientific point of view.

The author considers the onslaught on religious belief as an attempt to establish science as the single secular religion in which rational people ought to place their faith. Science has made the world more mysterious than ever before, argues Berlinski, since we now know more about what we do not know & have never understood. As science progressed, so did the mysteries that it cannot explain. To mention a few, the following questions have no naturalistic answers: (a) Where existence came from; (b) The origin of life, consciousness & morality; (c) The fine-tuning of the universe that makes human life possible. No convincing answers exist among the plethora of speculation.

Berlinski values the great physical theories as treasures of knowledge while emphasizing that they cannot answer the questions raised by theology and do not offer a coherent view of the universe. By raising apposite issues, he turns the scientific community’s skepticism on itself. Does a rigid and oppressive orthodoxy of thought dominate the sciences? Are scientists prepared to believe in anything as long as religious thought is avoided? Did the secular ideologies of the terrible 20th century have an overall beneficial or evil effect? The religion of atheism and its detrimental influence in the scientific community are thoroughly dissected.

… He makes his case persuasively. For example, in response to the insistence that “miracles don’t happen” by anti-theists, he points out that whilst we can understand the chemical process by which the eye “sees” something, we don’t have a clue about what perception really is, and just because it is part of our everyday experience doesn’t mean that it is inappropriate to describe it as a miracle. In response to the dogmatic insistence that we are no more than animals, he points out the fact that if that is what we are in biological terms, then it simply demonstrates that biology is telling us nothing useful about what it means to be human at all. He demonstrates that the theories that supposedly prove that God isn’t necessary rarely do what they set out to, and say more about the presuppositions of the proponent than about the nature of the universe.

All comments are taken from Amazon web reviews

You can find complete comments here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/0465019374/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

This is an electronic copy of the entire article.

By Dr Gary R. Habermas
Originally published in Bibliotheca Sacra 146:584 Oct-Dec (1989): 437-450.

p. 437

Idealism was the dominant philosophy in the Western world in the early 20th century, a holdover from its prominence in the previous century. Stressing the metaphysical reality of mind or spirit and the epistemological centrality of ideas, idealism stood in stark contrast to naturalism, which took its position as the dominant school of thought in the middle of this century. Naturalistic convictions often included the supreme reality of matter, the belief that nature could potentially explain all phenomena, and faith in the empirical, scientific method as the chief means of discovering facts. Such beliefs continue to exercise control on many areas of study.

One interesting facet of the history of ideas is the possibility that either new data or new ways of interpreting the data will encourage new paradigm (or world view) shifts in thinking.1 Many trends indicate that just such a major shift may now be taking place. Just as idealism gave way to naturalism earlier this century, naturalism may now be losing its position of supremacy as a world view.

Physicists Puthoff and Targ, after research at Stanford Research Institute, published Mind-Reach, whose first chapter, “When the Paranormal Becomes Normal,” appropriately asks, “Where will you be standing when the paradigm shifts?”2 The authors consider that a shift in thinking may be occurring.

p. 438

In agreement with this thesis Koestler explains that a “profound transformation of the physicist’s world view” is now taking place—a change that involves the shattering of many established scientific concepts. He holds that those who ridicule the recent studies in parapsychology are in approximately the same position as those who belittled Einsteinian physics earlier this century. A similar breakthrough in studies of the human mind may now be imminent.3

An issue of the SCP Journal was dedicated to an investigation of these changing trends. As reported by Fetcho: “Science, the health professions, and the arts, not to mention psychology and religion, are all engaged in a fundamental reconstruction of their basic premises.”4 In another article Albrecht and Alexander note the rising influence of these new developments:

In the last five years, however, both the scope and the intensity of the occult/mystical encroachment upon the consciousness of the scientific “establishment” have greatly increased. . . . Certainly the Eastern/ occult view of reality is riding on the momentum of a cultural and intellectual shift of enormous proportions—and not just in physics.5

What reasons may be given for such alleged changes in the contemporary world view? As Kuhn points out, one paradigm is often basically intolerant of change, even though nature must frequently be forced into its inflexible conception of reality. Further, contrary facts are sometimes ignored.6 Some believe that naturalists are often guilty of suppressing the facts to propagate their dogma.

A more subjective reason for change is that people are ready for a new way of thinking. When such a time arrives, a different model suddenly “appears” and begins to influence contemporary thought.7

A number of factors suggest that the influence of the naturalistic, radically empirical paradigm may be declining. Naturalism fails to give an adequate answer in four areas: methodology, the origin of life, theistic argumentation, and philosophy of the mind.8

p. 439

Methodology

The naturalistic conviction that the scientific method of empirical observation and testing is the only (or the supreme) guide to knowledge has been a popular belief in many circles. Along with this position is the view that nature’s laws can explain all phenomena apart from any deity or divine purpose. Science alone yields knowable truth and other methods are unable to reveal factual knowledge. The majority of scholars, however, hold that this methodology is much too narrow and that there are other viable ways to learn. The question here is not whether the scientific method is a means of discovering truth, for virtually all hold that it is useful in ascertaining factual data. The issue is whether naturalism is an adequate world view by which to explain all events and facts. In other words in order for naturalism to be a viable paradigm, it must account for all data because it allows for no other source. But many philosophers hold that while the scientific method and mechanistic concept of nature are useful in understanding portions of the universe, they are inadequate to explain all reality.9

Also many have pointed out that there is no empirical verification of the belief that the scientific method is the only way to know facts. That is, there is no empirical means by which one can demonstrate that the only way to learn is by scientific empiricism. A comment by Brightman, leveled against mechanism, is applicable to naturalism as a whole:

If we declare that mechanism is the sole and complete explanation of everything we are going far beyond scientific verification. . . . It is arbitrary and unphilosophical to take one aspect of our scientific experience, such as the principle of mechanism, and extend it so as to cancel the meaning of our most meaningful experiences.10

Thus one may hold that the scientific method is a superior one without being the only one. What may be the best method cannot be confused with the only truth.

Just as the verification principle failed its own test of verifiability, thereby providing a major factor in the downfall of logical positivism earlier this century, so it is now being realized that any belief in strict empiricism is largely problematic for the same reasons— such a belief cannot be verified. One cannot demonstrate that scientific empiricism is the only way to learn; to suggest that it is

p. 440

confuses good evidence with the only evidence. Knowable reality is broader than allowed by the naturalistic paradigm; naturalism fails as the only approach to truth. Other evidence points to a reality beyond that of the naturalistic paradigm.

Origin of Life

Naturalism cannot give an adequate account of the origin of life. Naturalism postulates that at some point life arose from nonlife. Spontaneous generation of some variety is therefore required. However, science has long rejected such a hypothesis. As such, naturalism attempts to describe the survival of the fittest without explaining the arrival of the fittest.11

Naturalistic science is unable to supply an answer to this question of life; atheistic evolution is incapable of adequately accounting for the data. Numerous scientific efforts involving probability theory have revealed that it is extremely improbable that chance could produce even the first complete set of genes and the proteins needed for minimal life. Coppedge found that even after making several concessions to chance the probability of a random sequence yielding just one gene or protein is 10 [to the power] 236. [footnote]12 Calculations by other scientists, even from a naturalistic, evolutionary perspective, similarly reveal that there is only an infinitesimal chance for such a beginning for life. The naturalistic physicist Guye spoke of a probability of 2.02 x 10 [to the power] 231 for chance dissymetry in an extremely simple protein.13 Salisbury suggested a probability of 10 [to the power] 415 for mutations accounting for a new enzyme.14 Yale biophysicist Morowitz calculated a probability of 1 chance in 10 [to the power] 339,999,866 for the chance formation of the correct bond energies for a minimal cell.15 Quastler postulated two extreme limits of the improbability of life occurring by chance. The smaller figure was 1 in 10 [to the power] 255 while the larger extreme was approximately 1 in 10 to the three trillionth power (13 digits).16

p. 441

Naturalists typically respond that life in the universe could have occurred by chance because of the vast amount of time—about 20 billion years. However, this begs the question in favor of naturalism, and as many have pointed out, even this is not enough time. Using Guye’s probability figure, even if the possible combinations were produced at the speed of light, it would take 10 [to the power] 243 [billion years] to obtain even one protein molecule on earth!17

More recently astronomer Hoyle and his colleague Wickramasinghe concluded that there is only one chance in 10 [to the power] 40,000 that even a single enzyme could have evolved by random processes, a figure that is “statistically impossible.” It would require more attempts to form one enzyme than there are atoms in all the stars in all the known galaxies. This statistic was not arrived at by guessing but by computations based on the necessary components of enzymes.

Therefore according to Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, spontaneous generation is impossible, requiring a miracle. “Because of the impossibility of the chance formation and development of life anywhere in the universe”1 8 and since the universe is not eternal, they have abandoned the steady state theory Hoyle helped formulate years ago.19

Yockey studied the likelihood that naturalistic processes could account for the origin of life, which would involve some form of spontaneous biogenesis. He concentrated on explanations for the existence of information content in living organisms as contained in DNA.20 There is more information in the DNA in one human cell than there is in all the books in the Library of Congress, and that one cell contains far more information than there is human knowledge concerning the entire universe!21

Yockey concluded that the spontaneous origin of life could not account for the encoding of this tremendous amount of data.

The “warm little pond” scenario was invented ad hoc to serve as a materialistic reductionist explanation of the origin of life It is unsupported

by any other evidence and it will remain ad hoc until such evidence is found. . . . One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.22

True, these studies do not completely rule out naturalism. However, they do present a formidable roadblock to a rational formulation of a naturalistic theory for the origin of life.

Some naturalists hold that since life exists, naturalistic evolution must have occurred, in spite of the improbabilities. Others contend that some as yet unknown laws must have allowed life to begin without the action of any supernatural Being, again in spite of the improbabilities. These solutions beg the question. It is circular to assume naturalistic evolution to be the case in spite of the evidence against such nontheistic solutions.

Naturalism cannot account for the origin of life. Naturalism requires spontaneous generation and ignores an array of enormous odds against chance development of human life. Theistic Argumentation When theistic argumentation is brought up, a negative response is often evoked. Few care to approach the question of God’s existence by venturing into the world of abstract reasoning. Yet different avenues of inquiry have appeared in what had been treated by some as a stalemate. And again naturalism appears to be losing ground.

Time magazine noted that a “quiet revolution” taking place in philosophical circles has reopened the logical quest for a rational theism. Pointing out that science has been less presumptuous and closed minded on such issues in recent years, the article notes the revival of newly refined arguments for God’s existence, many of which utilize the “modern techniques of analytic philosophy and symbolic logic that were once used to discredit belief.”23

John Donnelly edited an anthology of essays by key philosophers in the linguistic analytic tradition who argue for a revival of certain forms of natural theology. Donnelly also points out the irony of using such philosophical techniques in this way when they had once been considered anathema to any theological formulation.24

Theistic argumentation has taken on some decidedly new fea-

p. 443

tures in contemporary thought. Even some scholars who have not been very interested in the past are taking more notice. Rather than developing any specific case, a few recent trends will simply be noted.

For example Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, both previously nontheistic, have concluded that God must exist. To counter their own agnosticism, they concluded that one is “driven, almost inescapably” to the conclusion that a Creator is responsible for the design and spread of life in the universe. In fact Hoyle and Wickramasinghe concluded that these calculations conclusively demonstrate the existence of God, so much so that it can no longer be questioned on scientific grounds, for the Creator’s existence has been brought “into the realm of empirical science.”25

Yockey’s research has led others to accept God’s existence. Gange asserts that though vast quantities of information were utilized when the first living things appeared, nature itself was not the source of this complexity.26 Capitalizing on Yockey’s statement that the vast information in living systems is the same as the mathematical pattern of a written language,27 Geisler asks how such could result from a chance system. Some, however, hold that it is unjustified to “jump” from such data to God’s existence. But definite and extremely complex patterns of information proceed from intelligence. One is justified, Geisler argues, in concluding that this data proceeded, not from chance development, but from an intelligent, ordered beginning.28

Naturalism, in its attempt to explain life, must resort to some form of infinite regress. But Craig, among others, utilized the cosmological argument for God’s existence to argue cogently that infinite regress in the universe is not possible, according to the canons of both philosophy and science. For instance any infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite and therefore cannot exist. Also a temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition, but it cannot be an actual infinite.29

p. 444

Astronomy uses the expansion of the universe to date its absolute beginning, which again makes infinite regress untenable. Also the second law of thermodynamics reveals that the universe is running down, thereby pointing up that the universe is a finite number of years old. For Craig, the only way out of the dilemma is to conclude that God exists and is personal in that He chose to create the universe.30

One other approach to the existence of God should be mentioned. This is the eclectic, cumulative argument recently popularized by Swinburne, who holds that while individual deductive theistic arguments are not compelling, the total inductive effect of many of them lends probable weight to theism.31

The current revival of theistic arguments, from the analytic philosophical tradition and from contemporary science, is yet another sign of the current dissatisfaction with naturalism. Since infinite regress is untenable, these arguments take on new significance, both individually and collectively. They provide the best explanation for the existence of the universe and life, which cannot be said for the naturalistic hypothesis.

For the rest of the article go here:

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/Bibliotheca-Sacra/habermas_BtS_paradigm-shift.htm

This text was sent to me recently by a friend and I thought it to be very relevant even though I may not used same words to share same points.

Same notion is true that our culture has given up on its roots and frequently this is costing us dearly. Our society has been looking down for far too long on bad things that church was responsible for. But at the cost that is just too high, we have thrown the baby out with the bath water and that is the sad part. Most of us desire to go to good old time where we felt more secure, our children could play in the streets and we did not worry about their safety.

Sense of community is almost completely lost, and values that are used today are all based on self preservation rather than community. The only things we share today is fear and sorrow for the lost innocence. I hope that you will find these interesting and even helpful in choosing what is important to you, and what you should concentrate your efforts on.

Kind regards

Defend the Word

Remarks from CBS Sunday Morning - Ben Stein

I Only hope we find GOD again before it is too late ! !

The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday  Morning  Commentary.

My confession:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish.  And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees.  I don’t feel threatened.  I don’t feel discriminated against. That’s what they are, Christmas trees.

It doesn’t bother me a bit when people say, ‘Merry Christmas’ to me. I don’t think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto.  In fact, I kind of like it.  It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn’t bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu .  If people want a creche, it’s just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don’t like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don’t think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians.  I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period.  I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country.  I can’t find it in the Constitution and I don’t like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren’t allowed to worship God as we understand Him?  I guess that’s a sign that I’m getting old, too.  But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different:  This is not intended to be a joke; it’s not funny, it’s intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham’s daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her ‘How could God let something like this happen?’ (regarding Hurricane Katrina)..  Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response..  She said, ‘I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we’ve been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives.  And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out.  How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?’

In light of recent events…. Terrorists attack, school shootings, etc.  I think it started when Madeleine Murray O’Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn’t want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.  Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school.  The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself.  And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn’t spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock’s son committed suicide).  We said an expert should know what he’s talking about.  And we said okay..

Now we’re asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don’t know right from wrong, and why it doesn’t bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out.  I think it has a great deal to do with ‘WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.’

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world’s going to hell.  Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.  Funny how you can send ‘jokes’ through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.  Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

(From a speech delivered at Discovery Institute’s God & Culture Conference, August 10,1996)

How do we see? In the 19th century the anatomy of the eye was known in great detail, and its sophisticated features astounded everyone who was familiar with them. Scientists of the time correctly observed that if a person were so unfortunate as to be missing one of the eye’s many integrated features, such as the lens, or iris, or ocular muscles, the inevitable result would be a severe loss of vision or outright blindness. So it was concluded that the eye could only function if it were nearly intact.

Charles Darwin knew about the eye too. In the Origin of Species, Darwin dealt with many objections to his theory of evolution by natural selection. He discussed the problem of the eye in a section of the book appropriately entitled “Organs of extreme perfection and complication.” Somehow, for evolution to be believable, Darwin had to convince the public that complex organs could be formed gradually, in a step-by-step process.

He succeeded brilliantly. Cleverly, Darwin didn’t try to discover a real pathway that evolution might have used to make the eye. Instead, he pointed to modern animals with different kinds of eyes, ranging from the simple to the complex, and suggested that the evolution of the human eye might have involved similar organs as intermediates.

Here is a paraphrase of Darwin’s argument. Although humans have complex camera-type eyes, many animals get by with less. Some tiny creatures have just a simple group of pigmented cells, or not much more than a light sensitive spot. That simple arrangement can hardly be said to confer vision, but it can sense light and dark, and so it meets the creature’s needs. The light-sensing organ of some starfishes is somewhat more sophisticated. Their eye is located in a depressed region. This allows the animal to sense which direction the light is coming from, since the curvature of the depression blocks off light from some directions. If the curvature becomes more pronounced, the directional sense of the eye improves. But more curvature lessens the amount of light that enters the eye, decreasing its sensitivity. The sensitivity can be increased by placement of gelatinous material in the cavity to act as a lens. Some modern animals have eyes with such crude lenses. Gradual improvements in the lens could then provide an image of increasing sharpness, as the requirements of the animal’s environment dictated.

Using reasoning like this, Darwin convinced many of his readers that an evolutionary pathway leads from the simplest light sensitive spot to the sophisticated camera-eye of man. But the question remains, how did vision begin? Darwin persuaded much of the world that a modern eye evolved gradually from a simpler structure, but he did not even try to explain where his starting point for the simple light sensitive spot came from. On the contrary, Darwin dismissed the question of the eye’s ultimate origin:

How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated. He had an excellent reason for declining the question: it was completely beyond nineteenth century science. How the eye works; that is, what happens when a photon of light first hits the retina simply could not be answered at that time. As a matter of fact, no question about the underlying mechanisms of life could be answered. How did animal muscles cause movement? How did photosynthesis work? How was energy extracted from food? How did the body fight infection? No one knew.

To Darwin vision was a black box, but today, after the hard, cumulative work of many biochemists, we are approaching answers to the question of sight. Here is a brief overview of the biochemistry of vision. When light first strikes the retina, a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. The change in the shape of retinal forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior, making it stick to another protein called transducin. Before bumping into activated rhodopsin, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with activated rhodopsin, the GDP falls off and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP.)

GTP-transducin-activated rhodopsin now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to activated rhodopsin and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability to chemically cut a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, like a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub.

Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane which, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.

My explanation is just a sketchy overview of the biochemistry of vision. Ultimately, though, this is what it means to “explain” vision. This is the level of explanation for which biological science must aim. In order to truly understand a function, one must understand in detail every relevant step in the process. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as vision, or digestion, or immunity must include its molecular explanation.

Now that the black box of vision has been opened it is no longer enough for an “evolutionary explanation” of that power to consider only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the nineteenth century, and as popularizers of evolution continue to do today. Each of the anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought were so simple actually involves staggeringly complicated biochemical processes that cannot be papered over with rhetoric. Darwin’s simple steps are now revealed to be huge leaps between carefully tailored machines. Thus biochemistry offers a Lilliputian challenge to Darwin. Now the black box of the cell has been opened and a Lilliputian world of staggering complexity stands revealed. It must be explained.

For more of the Good stuff from Dr Behe go to here;

http://www.vedicsciences.net/articles/intelligent-design.html

Part one of the Dawkin’s Delusion lecture and Q/A session delivered by Dr. William Lane Craig that coincided with the 2007 “Does God Exist?” debate at UBC.

Part 1

Part 2

This is a short video of Dr. William Lane Craig in a debate addressing faulty arguments for atheism.

Check www.leestrobel.com for hundreds of excellent FREE Christian videos.

This is a short video of Dr. Frank Turek addressing the evidence for the New Testament and why we can have complete confidence in it.

Check www.leestrobel.com for hundreds of excellent FREE Christian videos.

Fingerprints of God. Frank Turek looks at the Anthropic Principle and numerous cosmological evidences for a Creator God. Go to www.CrossExamined.org for more compelling stuff!

Intelligent Design. Frank Turek examines Information Theory, DNA, the Cell, and other evidence for Intelligent Design. Visit www.CrossExamined.org for more on Frank Turek and his awesome presentations at university campuses.

Evidence for God. Frank Turek looks at the Big Bang and the observational evidence pointing to the creation of the universe from nothing. Please visit www.CrossExamined.org for more!

Cultural relativism, or what is true for you may not be true for me, is often used to explain why we should agree to disagree, theory of relativity is often misquoted in order to justify lack of readiness to look at the implications of what is being said. It looks to me that today the “only truth” some people are prepared to accept is that we can’t know the truth, and they would usually say it that the only absolute truth we know is that there is no absolute truth. Problem with this argument is that is self-defeating as it uses assertion that will have to be derived from the observation of truth or false propositions. All one needs to ask is are you absolutely sure about that? Hope this challenges your thinking and changes your attitude to the information that we all process.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

“Letters From a Skeptic” Q&A series at Woodland Hills Church with Greg Boyd. Recorded in several sessions during January 2009

In his June 28, 2009 sermon, pastor Greg Boyd uses the story of Jesus and the blind beggar in Luke 8:34-43 to caution that, sometimes, followers of Jesus can become the obstacles to the growth of His Kingdom.