More on the presentation
I was going to write a post on what I saw at the presentation on Thursday night, since I took some notes. But I received an email from a friend of mine who was there with me and he found this, which is the powerpoint slide presentation Dr. Heddle used, which he modified to an Adobe .pdf file for easy viewing. The only thing missing are his actual words, but since he based his talk on these 53 slides, you can get the gist of what he was saying.
Also, Dr. Heddle's blog is now linked over on the right. Enjoy.
posted by Tim @ 18:52
4 Comments:
This is amazing stuff, Green.
I've been to a similar seminar, and have to say the most compelling element is the discussion of "If gravity/EM was changed by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, there could be no life sustaining stars" like our Sun.
Even the brilliant mind of Steven Hawking concedes this point!
What an incredible, beautifully designed universe we have.
kayla: yeah it was pretty cool. I thought it was very interesting. It amazes me when I talk to people and they think that the universe (and life itself) came about because of luck, chance, coincidence or whatever. I'm amazed that they can't see the evidence of design or a designer, which implies intelligence beyond human capacity, just because they can't think outside of the box.
though i was naturally skeptical of this guy, i'm impressed by his honesty. He's upfront that this whole id business isn't science, and he doen't pretend that it's not all about xianity.
He also seems to have an active dislike for young earth types and the answers in genesis man, so he's got that going for him, too.
By the way, re your comment on his blog: I can't help but feel that you were referring to me. I never claimed that scientists couldn't be religious. It's just that science and religion are two diferrent fields and niether benefits from pretending to be the other.
ag: i had you in mind, true - and the general lot of pro-darwin commenters on GvD as well.
I guess that my point is that if you can't classify ID as science, then you can't classify evolution (cosmological or otherwise) as science either, since naturalistic "science" can't tell us how or why we all got here, either.
The fact is that life exists (we're here) and it/we didn't get here by dumb luck, chance, coincidence or whatever as evolution requires. There's simply too much order and design and purpose in the universe (including all life on Earth), to believe otherwise. Design of any kind requires intelligence.
What ID v. darwinism comes down to in the end is a heavyweight, philosophical debate.
Post a Comment
<< Home