Podcasts about blind watchmaker

In this episode of The Poetry of Reality, Richard Dawkins engages in an insightful conversation with Steven Pinker about evolution, his motivation for writing The Blind Watchmaker, and a breakdown of his latest book, The Genetic Book of the Dead Steven Pinker is a Canadian-American cognitive psychologist, psycholinguist, popular science author, and public intellectual. He is an advocate of evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind. This was filmed in Boston, Massachusetts, as part of Richard Dawkins' tour.

Simon and Rachel speak to Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and bestselling science writer. His first book, "The Selfish Gene", published in 1976, has sold over a million copies and been translated into more than 25 languages. Other titles include "The Ancestor's Tale", "The Blind Watchmaker" and "The God Delusion". The latter book, published in 2006, espoused the criticism of religion for which Richard is well known. From 1995 to 2008 he was the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, and he has also written two volumes of memoir. We spoke with Richard about moving from research science to writing books for a general audience, his breakout with "The Selfish Gene" in the 1970s, and his latest title, "The Genetic Book of the Dead".  “Always Take Notes: Advice From Some Of The World's Greatest Writers” - a book drawing on our podcast interviews - is published by Ithaka Press. You can order it via ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Amazon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Bookshop.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Hatchards⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Waterstones⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. You can find us online at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠alwaystakenotes.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, on Twitter @takenotesalways and on Instagram @alwaystakenotes. Our crowdfunding page is ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠patreon.com/alwaystakenotes⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Always Take Notes is presented by Simon Akam and Rachel Lloyd, and produced by Artemis Irvine. Our music is by Jessica Dannheisser and our logo was designed by James Edgar.

Share this episode: https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/382-the-eye-of-nature Sam Harris speaks with Richard Dawkins about his new book The Genetic Book of the Dead, the genome as a palimpsest, what scientists of the future may do with genetic information, genotypes and phenotypes, embryology and epigenetics, why the Lamarckian theory of acquired characteristics couldn't be true, how environmental selection pressure works, why evolution is hard to think about, human dependence on material culture, the future of genetic enhancement of human beings, viral DNA, symbiotic bacteria, AI and the future of scholarship, resurrecting extinct species, the problem of free speech in the UK, the problem of political Islam and antisemitism in the UK, reflections on Dan Dennett, and other topics. Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and a best-selling author. He is celebrated globally for his unwavering critique of religion and his commitment to critical thinking. His books include The Ancestor’s Tale, The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, A Devil’s Chaplain, The God Delusion, The Greatest Show on Earth, The Magic of Reality, his two-part autobiography An Appetite for Wonder and Brief Candle in the Dark, and Outgrowing God: A Beginner’s Guide. His final book tour, “An Evening with Richard Dawkins,” is currently underway. Website: richarddawkinstour.com Twitter: @RichardDawkins Learning how to train your mind is the single greatest investment you can make in life. That’s why Sam Harris created the Waking Up app. From rational mindfulness practice to lessons on some of life’s most important topics, join Sam as he demystifies the practice of meditation and explores the theory behind it.

Evolutionary biologist and author, Richard Dawkins, explores how the body, behavior, and genes of every living creature serve as a record of their ancestors' worlds, similar to how a lizard's skin reflects its desert origins. In his new book, Dawkins shows that these genetic “books of the dead” offer insights into the history of life, revealing how animals have adapted to challenges over time. He argues that understanding these evolutionary patterns unlocks a vivid and nuanced view of the past, allowing us to see the remarkable continuity in how life overcomes obstacles. Richard Dawkins was the inaugural Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is best known for The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and The God Delusion. Dawkins has made significant contributions to evolutionary theory and popular science, emphasizing the gene-centered view of evolution. His latest book, The Genetic Book of the Dead, explores how genes serve as an archive of ancestral history. Dawkins continues to write and lecture on science and reason. Shermer and Dawkins discuss Dawkins' new book, The Genetic Book of the Dead, exploring how an animal's genes can be interpreted as a record of its ancestral history. They delve into the interdisciplinary nature of evolutionary studies, linking archaeology, biology, and geology. The conversation clarifies the difference between genetic and phenotypic records, using the metaphor of QR codes to explain how genetic information encodes environmental history. They also touch on the future implications of this research for understanding evolution.

Friday night presentation by Matthew Priebe on July 12, 2024 at the Cape Cod Seventh-day Adventist Church in Osterville, MA. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCH52C2ZFMESVjhp0kHpSpPQ https://www.facebook.com/capecodsda/ http://www.capecodsda.org/

In this episode I look at the evolutionary exposition of Richard Dawkins in his classic The Blind Watchmaker, with a closer look at how DNA replicates and evolves.

Were Adam and Eve real? In this 1988 interview, renowned evolutionary biologist and author Richard Dawkins discusses evolution, creationism, and the concept of the "Blind Watchmaker." Get The Blind Watchnaker by Richard DawkinsAs an Amazon Associate, Now I've Heard Everything earns from qualifying purchases.You may also enjoy my interviews with James Watson and Jane Goodall For more vintage interviews with celebrities, leaders, and influencers, subscribe to Now I've Heard Everything on Spotify, Apple Podcasts. and now on YouTube Photo by Steve Jurvetson Hashtags:

Episode 223 – Seriousness of Sin – Part 2 – Hell Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: The rich man also died and was buried. He went to hell and was suffering terribly. … he said to Abraham, “Have pity on me! … I'm suffering terribly in this fire.” Luke, Chapter 16, verse 23, Contemporary English Version ******** VK: Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. We’re very happy to be with you again. Today on Anchored by Truth we’re going to continue the series we began last time that we are calling this series “The Seriousness of Sin.” This may very well be the most important series that we have ever done because of the biggest challenges confronting Christianity today is a determined attempt to eradicate the concept of sin. We live in a day and time that shuns the idea that there could be a holy God who has given commands to mankind and that He will hold people accountable when they violate those commands. So, we are going to spend several episodes of Anchored by Truth reaffirming that not only does the Bible firmly teach the reality of sin, but also that our ordinary life experiences ratify that sin is a continuing plague and problem for all of us. In the studio as we continue our series we have RD Fierro who is an author and the founder of Crystal Sea Books. RD, why don’t you give us a brief overview of some of the big ideas that we discussed last time? RD: Well, one idea we covered, as you just mentioned, is there are many people today who vehemently disagree that sin even exists. Our broader culture wants to do away with the idea of sin because the concept of sin affirms the existence of God and affirms not only that God exists but also that God has established obligations to which all people are subject. And a third concept that applies to the concept of sin is that of failure – and not just failure but willful failure, willful disobedience. These three elements, at a minimum, all make the notion of sin a very unpopular notion is a society that believes reality is so malleable that there are dozens of genders. As some commentators have put it, when we believe we can establish our own reality the next step is to see ourselves as God. That’s all nonsense, of course, but all we have to do is look around and we see that people are starting to buy into the nonsense. It’s dangerous and eternally deadly. VK: People have chased the idea that they can be like God ever since Satan first tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. In Genesis, chapter 3, verse 5 we hear Satan saying to Eve, “God understands what will happen on the day you eat fruit from [the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil]. You will see what you have done, and you will know the difference between right and wrong, just as God does.” That’s from the Contemporary English Version. RD: Right. People, especially in the west, find the idea of obligatory standards and commands one of the most objectionable ideas possible. In previous decades people at least had a basic understanding that the universe, the created order, could not exist without a Creator. God’s necessity as the Creator formed a common starting point for just about all world views. But today we have embraced deep time, evolution, and uniformitarianism as concepts to explain the universe’s appearance as it is. We have thereby done away with the necessity to believe in God as the Creator much less in God as the ultimate lawgiver. VK: As the prominent atheist Richard Dawkins put it in his book The Blind Watchmaker, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” RD: Sadly, yes. So, do away with God as Creator and you’ve done away with God as Lawgiver. Do away with God and you do away with any transcendent moral or ethical standards that bind human behavior. Do away with standards and you’ve done away with the possibility that you might fail those standards or that anyone might judge you and assign consequences for that failure. So, in one short sequence of thought you have done away with sin. VK: This is one reason that what some term “the battle for the beginning” is so important. When God is replaced by evolutionary thought the door to all kinds of mischief swings wide open. RD: Yes. But the door that is swinging open is actually the gate to hell. The God of the Bible is a perfectly sovereign, holy, and just God. He has set standards and given commands to the creature He created in His image. The commission of the first sin by a man and woman resulted in the loss of an earthly Paradise. The commission of all subsequent sins creates the risk of people losing an eternal Paradise. That’s why we are doing this series. We have all lost that original earthly paradise. We don’t want people losing out on an eternal one also. VK: So, today we want to talk about what the Bible tells us is in store for those who do forsake their eternal paradise – who are condemned to hell as a consequence of their sin. RD: Right. There is a lot at stake –an immeasurable amount – when people don’t understand the seriousness of sin. Actually, the simple fact that Jesus had to die on the cross to atone for our sins should be all that we need to understand just how serious sin is. The eternal, almighty Son of God had to leave a throne He had occupied for all eternity, come to earth to assume a human nature, be born in humble circumstances, and then die a miserable death of the worst kind just to make our delivery from sin possible. Just thinking about that straightforward fact ought to be all that we need to say about how serious sin really is. VK: But today, it’s not. As we have mentioned many people today don’t believe in God. They don’t believe in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God, the Bible, and even many who do believe in God and the Bible don’t acknowledge the reality of sin and hell. They allegorize the parts of the Bible that plainly talk about hell or treat them as poetic moral lessons designed to teach but without any underlying substantive reality. But, we might ask, if there is no corresponding, underlying reality that is horrible then why would the so-called moral lesson have any moral value or meaning? We warn children about the consequences of making bad decisions because the consequences are real. The child who touches the hot stove knows that the lesson “don’t touch” was important. The consequence reinforces the importance of the lesson. But the child who is told not to touch the stove and touches when it’s cold learns nothing. Or worse the child forms the very dangerous false idea that the stove may be touched at any time without repercussions. If hell is not real with real suffering then of what value is a moral lesson that uses hell as a potential consequence. RD: As I sometimes say in our Life Lessons with a Laugh, “exactamundo.” A little thinking quickly tells you that there must be a real place that possesses the attributes of hell otherwise the idea of hell is of little to no value in teaching a moral lesson. So, the cynics who doubt the Bible’s descriptions of hell as being a literal place are just being silly when they say that the idea of hell was just a way of trying to convey a moral imperative. But there is another and even more serious reason that we cannot reasonably allegorize or diminish the reality of hell. VK: What is that? RD: Because the person in the Bible that talked the most about hell – from whom we get the most information about hell – is Jesus. So, we can’t dismiss the reality of hell without dismissing the sinlessness of Jesus. VK: For instance, in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 13, verses 49 and 50 Jesus said, “That is the way it will be at the end of the world. The angels will come and separate the wicked people from the righteous, throwing the wicked into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” In the Gospel of Mark, chapter 9, verses 47 and 48 Jesus said, “It’s better to enter the Kingdom of God with only one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, ‘where the maggots never die and the fire never goes out.’” And in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5, verse 22 Jesus said, “But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell.” These are just examples of some things that Jesus said about hell. RD: No one in the Bible talked more about hell than Jesus. That makes sense because Jesus mission on the earth was to provide the means by which sinful people could avoid hell as their eternal destiny. His mission would have made absolutely no sense if hell didn’t exist as a real place and a real possibility. And if Jesus had somehow just been threatening people with a non-existent penalty he would have been the opposite of a great teacher or a good man. And He certainly could not have been the sinless Savior if he had lied to people so many times and on such a serious subject. But since hell is real Jesus had every reason to mention it frequently during his teaching. VK: Just those few verses show how remarkable it is for anyone who claims to be a Christian to doubt that hell exists as a literal place. It is one thing for an unbeliever to doubt whether hell is real, but it is another thing for a Christian to do so. Literally, our salvation depends on whether Jesus was right about hell being a place of real terror and torment. If Jesus was mistaken about hell or He lied about it that would mean Jesus could be wrong or He sinned. But God can do neither. For Jesus to be our Savior He must be fully divine as well as fully human. God cannot be wrong or sin. Fortunately, our salvation is intact because Jesus was not wrong about hell and He was being straight when He warned His audiences to fear it. RD: Right. Some people will object to the reality of hell under the assertion that “a loving God could never send anyone to hell.” But what those people miss is that God is holy and just besides being loving. A just God cannot not punish evil and rebellion. VK: And there is plenty of evil and rebellion in this world. RD: Amen. A perfectly just God (which God is) must punish rebellion, sin, and evil. A holy God cannot tolerate unrighteousness or wickedness in His sight or presence and God does not. Even with respect to the redeemed God has already vindicated His just and holy nature by punishing someone for the sins of the redeemed. It’s just that Jesus has already borne the punishment for the sins of His people. When the Bible says that Jesus “propitiated” our sins it means He willingly accepted the punishment that was due to us and so restored our holy status in the sight of God. The American Heritage Dictionary defines “propitiation “to gain or regain the goodwill or favor of; appease.” As some commentators have phrased it, “God saved us from Himself, for Himself, by Himself.” VK: So, for the redeemed God has already punished their sin through Jesus. That’s why we can say that we possess the righteousness of Christ. Jesus accepted the punishment that we deserve so we can receive the rewards that He deserved. A righteous God cannot punish us because Jesus has already been punished for us. But the story is different for those who reject Jesus’ offer of salvation. Since they refuse to allow Jesus sacrifice to apply to them the will have to suffer for their own sins. But a finite man can never repay an infinite sin debt. So, their repayment attempt must last for all eternity. RD: So, the people who say a loving God would never send anyone to hell are correct. God is loving and God has expressed that love through the sacrifice that Jesus made for us. But to reject Jesus is to reject God’s love and mercy. Those who are unwilling to be examples of God’s mercy and grace will automatically be examples of God’s perfect justice. And that justice demands punishment for sin. VK: So, for people the stakes – the stakes of sin - really don’t get any higher than that. As we said last time, strictly speaking nothing can separate us from God’s presence. God is omnipresent. He is present at all times and all places including hell. But hell is where God’s wrath is eternally present not His goodness, His kindness. Sin separates us from God’s favor and blessing and that is the danger that we must all consider. But in a very real sense God is not sending anyone to hell. God is simply honoring the choice they are making when they reject His offer of mercy. God is willing to save everyone. 2 (second) Peter, chapter 3, verse 9 puts it this way. “The Lord isn’t really being slow about his promise, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent.” That’s from the New Living Translation. RD: God wants everyone to repent. All who repent and accept Christ are saved. Those who repent receive the consequences of their choice – a life for all eternity with God and Jesus where they live, which is in heaven. Those who reject Christ receive the consequences of their choice. They live for all eternity away from the blessings of heaven and with the misery of hell. C.S. Lewis famously said in his book The Problem of Pain that the “gates to hell are locked from the inside.” Said differently, hell is a consequence of our choices not a consequence of our composition. VK: You are alluding to the fact that hell was not a necessary part of our physical creation. In Genesis, chapter 1, verse 31 we hear that, “Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good!” That’s from the New Living Translation. Well, God would not have pronounced everything “very good” if sin and death were present in the original creation. They weren’t. Sin entered the world through Satan’s temptation and death entered the world because of sin. The entrance of sin made the reality of hell an inevitable consequence for those who choose to remain in their sin. RD: So, all of this points out why we need to soberly and honestly discuss the seriousness of sin. Sin and hell are inextricably linked. Sin separates from man from God’s goodness. Those who regret that separation can seek reconciliation through Jesus. That’s why we open every show of Anchored by Truth with the quote from Jesus in John 14:6. “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” Jesus is the way to salvation and heaven. Despite the objections of the world Jesus is the only way to salvation. So, when people reject Jesus they are announcing to the world their preference to continue their separation from God and Jesus. As someone has wryly observed to force an unrepentant sinner to be in heaven in the immediate presence of God’s face would be hell for that person. As some have put it, in the end there are only two choices. There are those who say to God, “thy will be done.” And there are those to whom God says, “thy will be done.” VK: God’s will as we heard in 2 Peter 3:9 is for everyone to come to repentance and thereby go to heaven. But I suppose there are those who say “well, why doesn’t God just end the existence of anyone who rejects Him?” In other words, wouldn’t oblivion just be an alternative to consigning people to a place where, in Jesus’ words, “where the maggots never die and the fire never goes out.” RD: Well, I suppose the immediate response to someone who suggests that oblivion would be preferable to an eternity in hell would be to ask them, “how do you know?” It’s pretty obvious those recommending oblivion are still around. And there is a basic category error that is present in their assertion – that nothing is better than something. Oblivion would be non-existence. Is non-existence better than existence? We can’t ask the non-existent. VK: Because they don’t exist. Fair point. RD: But there is another problem with the assertion that oblivion is a preferable alternative to hell for the rebellious. It diminishes the dignity of human beings. When God made man He made man His image bearer. With that special status came the ability to reason, understand the world around him, and make free choices. Adam and Eve made the free choice to eat from the one tree that was off limits. And if we are being honest we would all have to admit that we have all freely sinned of our own free choice. We may not like the consequences of our sin but we have all chosen to sin. Hell is one of the consequences of our sin. As dire and sad as it may be God confirms the fact that He will respect the consequences of man’s free choices. VK: God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The first consequence of their rebellion fell on an innocent animal. This was a foreshadowing of the fact that one day the consequences of their sin would be borne by the innocent Lamb of God. But another consequence of their rebellion was that they were exiled from earthly paradise - Eden. That foreshadowed that one day some of their descendants would be exiled from the heavenly paradise that surrounds God’s throne. Actions have consequences. Adam and Eve found that out. Unfortunately, those who impenitently reject Jesus offer of salvation will also find out that their rejection has consequences. RD: Yes. If God had left Adam and Eve in Eden they would have rightly learned that they could ignore God’s commands without consequence. That would exhibit blatant disrespect for God. But Adam and Eve bore God’s image. Disrespect for the Image Creator also diminishes the image bearer. Just as if we have a bruise and look at ourselves in the mirror we don’t just see our image we see our bruise. Well, a perfectly holy, infinite Being can’t tolerate rebellion, disrespect, or be bruised. So, one of the consequences of Adam and Eve’s rebellion besides being cast out of Eden was to create the possibility of eternal damnation. Similarly, Adam and Eve would have been far less protected from the elements if they had not accepted God’s provision for covering their nakedness – the skin of the innocent animal. VK: I see what you’re getting at. Adam and Eve’s actions in the garden set off a chain of consequences. The skin of the innocent animal partially offset as least some of the consequence. Jesus’ death as an atonement for sin offsets the consequences of sin, one of which is hell, but only partially – only for those who accept Christ as their Savior. Jesus’ sacrifice is sufficient to offset the sins of everyone and God would like that – but many people, even today, continue to reject Jesus of their own free will. God permits free choice but as you say in your Christmas epic poem The Golden Tree: Eagle Enigma “[God] knows that if we [make the wrong choice] we'll suffer though we had good intent. For the [God] permits free choice even when it brings sad events.” RD: Yes. If God simply obliterated everyone who rebels against Him He would be treating people differently. The people in heaven would receive the consequences of their choice to accept Christ’s provision for their sin. And those consequences will go on for all eternity. But the people obliterated would not receive eternal consequences of their choice because they would go out of existence. It is absolutely true that the experiences of the two groups are going to be dramatically different but the duration of the experiences is going to be identical – all of eternity. But that’s why we do what we do on Anchored by Truth. There is no need for anyone listening to ever suffer in hell. Avoiding hell is as simple as acknowledging their sin and accepting Jesus’ offer of salvation. VK: I am always reminded of the thief on the cross next to Jesus. In the Gospel of Luke, chapter 23, verse 42 where we hear “Then [the thief] said, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your Kingdom.’ And Jesus replied, ‘I assure you, today you will be with me in paradise.’” Jesus didn’t tell the thief to do anything or be anything. The thief recognized that Jesus could save him and simply announced that tiny bit of faith. His faith was instantly rewarded by Jesus with the promise that the thief would be with Him that day in paradise. Eden restored for one lost sinner. RD: Yes. And Eden can be restored for all lost sinners. Hell is not just a possibility, it is a certainty for all who reject Jesus. So, why do that? Why risk eternal fire when there is no need. Jesus would happily save every person alive on the earth today, every person who has ever lived. It is the stubborn refusal to acknowledge that we have rebelled that consigns people to hell. And that alone tells us how serious sin is. Sin is so serious that the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity left His eternal throne to remove the need for anyone to endure hell. Yet we not only treat sin lightly today, many people try to deny its existence and reality entirely. VK: So, the big idea that we wanted to introduce in this series is that sin is seriousness. Sin’s seriousness is revealed by looking at the provisions that God has made to change the consequence of our sin from eternal damnation to eternal blessing. The stakes of sin have been addressed by Jesus. The question for us is whether we will accept the provisions that He made for us or stubbornly continue to insist that sin is just an outdated concept with no relevance to our modern world. This sounds like a great time to pray. Since we have just been talking about the fact that there are many people who have yet to acknowledge the fact that they are separated from God, today let’s listen to a prayer for the spiritually lost. Peter told us that God wants everyone to come to repentance. This prayer is us setting our hearts in agreement with the Apostle that God’s gracious offer of salvation has not changed for over 2,000 years. ---- PRAYER FOR THE SPIRITUALLY LOST VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not perfect but our Boss is!” (Opening Bible Quote from the Contemporary English Version) Luke, Chapter 16, verse 23, Contemporary English Version

Introduction This episode features Jack Symes in conversation with four of the biggest names in philosophy: Richard Dawkins (representing science and atheism), Jessica Frazier (on Hinduism), Silvia Jonas (speaking on Jewish philosophy), and Richard Swinburne (defending Christianity). With over six-hundred people registering for tickets, we were absolutely overwhelmed by your support; thank you to everybody who came along! A very special thank you to our Patrons and the Global Philosophy of Religion Project at the University of Birmingham for making the event possible. We hope you enjoy the show! ‘The origin of our universe is the greatest mystery of all. Why is there something rather than nothing? Further still, how did we come to exist in a world with such precise laws of nature and complex creatures? As we shall see, how we answer these questions determines everything: from the meaning of our lives to the secrets of our futures.' Contents Part I. The Debate Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links General The Global Philosophy of Religion Project, University of Birmingham. Philosophers on God: Talking about Existence (Bloomsbury, 2024). Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene (book). The Blind Watchmaker (book). The God Delusion (book). Outgrowing God (book). Flights of Fancy (book). www.richarddawkins.com www.richarddawkins.net Jessica Frazier About (webpage). Reality, Religion, and Passion (book). The Bloomsbury Companion to Hindu Studies (book). Hindu Worldviews: Theories of Self, Ritual and Reality (book). Categorisation in Indian Philosophy: Thinking Inside the Box (book). BBC In Our Times: Hindu Creation (podcast). History of Philosophy without Any Gaps (podcast). Silvia Jonas Silvia Jonas (website). Silvia Jonas: Research (website). Ineffability and its Metaphysics (book). Richard Swinburne The Existence of God (book). Is There a God? (book). More books by Richard Swinburne.

Introduction This episode features Jack Symes in conversation with four of the biggest names in philosophy: Richard Dawkins (representing science and atheism), Jessica Frazier (on Hinduism), Silvia Jonas (speaking on Jewish philosophy), and Richard Swinburne (defending Christianity). With over six-hundred people registering for tickets, we were absolutely overwhelmed by your support; thank you to everybody who came along! A very special thank you to our Patrons and the Global Philosophy of Religion Project at the University of Birmingham for making the event possible. We hope you enjoy the show! ‘The origin of our universe is the greatest mystery of all. Why is there something rather than nothing? Further still, how did we come to exist in a world with such precise laws of nature and complex creatures? As we shall see, how we answer these questions determines everything: from the meaning of our lives to the secrets of our futures.' Contents Part I. The Debate Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links General The Global Philosophy of Religion Project, University of Birmingham. Philosophers on God: Talking about Existence (Bloomsbury, 2024). Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene (book). The Blind Watchmaker (book). The God Delusion (book). Outgrowing God (book). Flights of Fancy (book). www.richarddawkins.com www.richarddawkins.net Jessica Frazier About (webpage). Reality, Religion, and Passion (book). The Bloomsbury Companion to Hindu Studies (book). Hindu Worldviews: Theories of Self, Ritual and Reality (book). Categorisation in Indian Philosophy: Thinking Inside the Box (book). BBC In Our Times: Hindu Creation (podcast). History of Philosophy without Any Gaps (podcast). Silvia Jonas Silvia Jonas (website). Silvia Jonas: Research (website). Ineffability and its Metaphysics (book). Richard Swinburne The Existence of God (book). Is There a God? (book). More books by Richard Swinburne.

Dr. Winston Ewert had his faith challenged. He was raised in a Christian home, with a keen scientific interest, and was told to read Professor Dawkins' book, "The Blind Watchmaker" where Dawkins uses a computer algorithm to simulate evolution. Dr. Ewert, an expert in computers himself, reviews the evolutionary computer algorithms, and explains computer algorithms that make testable predictions for ID that have already been published. This interview answers objections and so much more!

Luke 6:39 "And He spoke a parable to them: Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into the ditch?' To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/1232/29

Matthew reviews episode 94 of When Belief Dies, in which they interview John Lennox Episode 94 of When Belief Dies 1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF6JySDwrHQ 2) https://open.spotify.com/show/5nUeWwl36pBXpPSXFsP5R0 Dawkins on scientism 3) https://unherd.com/thepost/richard-dawkins-scientism-is-a-dirty-word/ 4) https://terebess.hu/keletkultinfo/The_Blind_Watchmaker.pdf Review of Nagel's book 5) https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/mind-and-cosmos-why-the-materialist-neo-darwinian-conception-of-nature-is-almost-certainly-false/ 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis 7) https://books.google.ca/books?id=HqflJ99KzsEC&pg=PA830&lpg=PA830&dq=ridley+%2B+%22who+doubts+evolution%22&source=bl&ots=CLv--5pAgs&sig=dMCnStG9LevjawmiiYMoQrJ3Op8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwib0c7i-fHXAhVK5YMKHfBMD2wQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=ridley%20%2B%20%22who%20doubts%20evolution%22&f=false 8) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html 9) https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html 10) https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8-Xm_gQgboUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA51&ots=4oJQb-7EFA&sig=iPZW_ejg-26aXe0QIF0_RCeaQMQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false 11) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew 12) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-3-what-is-panpsychism/id1436336109?i=1000465737651 13) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_McClintock To contact us, email: reasonpress@gmail.com Our Theme Music was written for us by Holly, to support her and to purchase her music use the links below: https://hollykirstensongs.com/ https://hollykirsten.bandcamp.com/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/still-unbelievable/message

Introduction The flight of a hummingbird, the sprint of a cheetah, the breath of a whale, a daisy turning towards the sunlight. Given the complexity of the natural world, we can understand why – before the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species – people believed that the universe was the work of an intelligent designer. These days, however – although creationism continues to be defended by religious fundamentalists – the scientific consensus is that the world's organisms evolved through the long and arduous process of natural selection. ‘With a complete physical explanation,' say the new atheists, ‘there's no need to appeal to the supernatural.' In this interview, we'll be discussing atheism with Professor Richard Dawkins. It's no exaggeration to say that Richard Dawkins is one of the most influential scientists, and the most famous atheist, of all time. Alongside his invaluable contributions to evolutionary biology, his books – including The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and The God Delusion – have a readership in the tens of millions, resulting in numerous prestigious awards and recognition as ‘the world's top thinker'. ‘Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin', says Dawkins, ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.' It is time we seized that possibility: that we embrace the godless universe, craft our own meaning, and stop suffering fools gladly. Contents Part I. Why I'm an Atheist Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins, Outgrowing God. Richard Dawkins, Flights of Fancy. www.richarddawkins.com www.richarddawkins.net

On this ID the Future from the vault, host Sarah Chaffee talks with Center for Science and Culture Research Coordinator Brian Miller about the growing ID underground. Miller says that as many as one-quarter of Harvard post-docs in relevant fields privately express sympathy for intelligent design. And more and more scientists who don't agree with ID are at least standing up against common sound-bite misrepresentations. In their conversation Miller also reviews what he describes as three “major pillars” of evolutionary theory that in recent years have been “dramatically shaken.” The conversation cues off of Miller's Evolution News article on the subject. Source

Introduction The flight of a hummingbird, the sprint of a cheetah, the breath of a whale, a daisy turning towards the sunlight. Given the complexity of the natural world, we can understand why – before the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species – people believed that the universe was the work of an intelligent designer. These days, however – although creationism continues to be defended by religious fundamentalists – the scientific consensus is that the world's organisms evolved through the long and arduous process of natural selection. ‘With a complete physical explanation,' say the new atheists, ‘there's no need to appeal to the supernatural.' In this interview, we'll be discussing atheism with Professor Richard Dawkins. It's no exaggeration to say that Richard Dawkins is one of the most influential scientists, and the most famous atheist, of all time. Alongside his invaluable contributions to evolutionary biology, his books – including The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and The God Delusion – have a readership in the tens of millions, resulting in numerous prestigious awards and recognition as ‘the world's top thinker'. ‘Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin', says Dawkins, ‘Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.' It is time we seized that possibility: that we embrace the godless universe, craft our own meaning, and stop suffering fools gladly. Contents Part I. Why I'm an Atheist Part II. Further Analysis and Discussion Links Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins, Outgrowing God. Richard Dawkins, Flights of Fancy. www.richarddawkins.com www.richarddawkins.net

Do you sometimes dream you can fly like a bird? Gliding effortlessly above the treetops, soaring and swooping, playing and dodging through the third dimension. Computer games, virtual reality headsets, and some drugs can lift our imagination and fly us through fabled, magical spaces. But it's not the real thing. No wonder some of the past's greatest minds, including Leonardo da Vinci's, have yearned for flying machines and struggled to design them. Shermer and Dawkins discuss: nationalism • Russian revanchism • the recent rise of authoritarianism and autocracies: worrying trend or temporary stumble in the arc of the moral universe? • U.S. acceptance of the theory of evolution finally breaks the 50% barrier • woke attacks on E. O. Wilson: why? • why Dawkins dedicated his book to Elon • What good is half a wing? • What is flight good for? • Why do some animals lose their wings? • Why flying is easier if you are small • physics of flying • unpowered flight: parachuting and gliding • powered flight and how it works • weightlessness • aerial plankton • winged plants • the difference between evolved and designed flying machines. Richard Dawkins is one of the world's most eminent writers and thinkers, and a major contributor to the public understanding of the science of evolution. The award-winning author of The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, The God Delusion and a string of other bestselling science books, he is a Fellow of the Royal Society and of the Royal Society of Literature.

Evolution has equipped species with a variety of ways to travel through the air — flapping, gliding, floating, not to mention jumping really high. But it hasn't invented jet engines. What are the different ways that heavier-than-air objects might be made to fly, and why does natural selection produce some of them but not others? Richard Dawkins has a new book on the subject, Flights of Fancy: Defying Gravity by Design and Evolution. We take the opportunity to talk about other central issues in evolution: levels of selection, the extended phenotype, the role of adaptation, and how genes relate to organisms.Support Mindscape on Patreon.Richard Dawkins received his Ph.D. in zoology from the University of Oxford. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, where he was previously the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science. He is an internationally best-selling author, whose books include The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and The God Delusion. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Literature.Web siteRichard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and ScienceWikipediaTwitterAmazon author pageSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

My guest today is Richard Dawkins. I assume most of you know who he is, but in case you've been living under a rock; Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and emeritus fellow at Oxford University. If I listed all the awards he's received in his lifetime, this description will not end. His books include The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, The Blind Watchmaker, The God Delusion, Unweaving the Rainbow, and many others. His latest book is called "Flights of Fancy: Defying Gravity by Design and Evolution" in which he explores and explains the phenomenon of flight both in the animal world and in manmade technology. We didn't get to discuss this book in this episode, but I really recommend you all check it out.  In this episode, we discuss technological progress, whether race is a social construct or biological reality, the mystery of consciousness, the concept of a meme (which Richard invented), religion and its relationship to a happy life, whether wokeness plays the role of a religion in people's lives, and finally, Richard gives his advice to up and coming scientists. I hope you enjoy this episode as much as I did. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

My guest today is Richard Dawkins. I assume most of you know who he is, but in case you've been living under a rock; Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and emeritus fellow at Oxford University. If I listed all the awards he's received in his lifetime, this description will not end. His books include The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, The Blind Watchmaker, The God Delusion, Unweaving the Rainbow, and many others. His latest book is called "Flights of Fancy: Defying Gravity by Design and Evolution" in which he explores and explains the phenomenon of flight both in the animal world and in manmade technology. We didn't get to discuss this book in this episode, but I really recommend you all check it out. In this episode, we discuss technological progress, whether race is a social construct or biological reality, the mystery of consciousness, the concept of a meme (which Richard invented), religion and its relationship to a happy life, whether wokeness plays the role of a religion in people's lives, and finally, Richard gives his advice to up and coming scientists. I hope you enjoy this episode as much as I did.

My guest today is Richard Dawkins. I assume most of you know who he is, but in case you've been living under a rock; Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and emeritus fellow at Oxford University. If I listed all the awards he's received in his lifetime, this description will not end. His books include The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, The Blind Watchmaker, The God Delusion, Unweaving the Rainbow, and many others. His latest book is called "Flights of Fancy: Defying Gravity by Design and Evolution" in which he explores and explains the phenomenon of flight both in the animal world and in manmade technology. We didn't get to discuss this book in this episode, but I really recommend you all check it out. In this episode, we discuss technological progress, whether race is a social construct or biological reality, the mystery of consciousness, the concept of a meme (which Richard invented), religion and its relationship to a happy life, whether wokeness plays the role of a religion in people's lives, and finally, Richard gives his advice to up and coming scientists. I hope you enjoy this episode as much as I did.

V tejto časti si povieme o tom, kto to bol William Paley a jeho analógii Boha ako hodinára, ktorá je zložitejšia ako sa zdá na prvý pohľad. Kto to bol William Paley a s čím prišiel? Ako znie naozaj jeho analógia o Bohu-hodinárovi? Ako a prečo ho mnohí evoluční biológovia chápu úplne zle? ----more---- Prečítajte si túto dávku aj ako článok na SME. Použitá a odporúčaná literatúra: Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986. McGrath, Darwinism and the Divine, 2011. Paley, Natural Theology, 1802. Súvisiace dávky: PD#239:  O láske a viere v Darwinovom manželstve, http://bit.ly/davka239 PD#155: Rasy a Genezis II, http://bit.ly/davka155 PD#151: Rasy a Genezis I, http://bit.ly/davka151 PD#120: Hume a náboženstvo, http://bit.ly/davka120 PD#92: O pôvode druhov, http://bit.ly/davka92 PD#88: Charles Darwin, http://bit.ly/davka88   PD#84: Svet pred Darwinom, http://bit.ly/davka84 *** Baví ťa s nami rozmýšľať? ❤️ Podpor našu tvorbu ľubovoľným darom, https://bit.ly/PDdar, alebo cez Patreon, https://bit.ly/PDtreon, a čo tak štýlový merch, https://bit.ly/mercPD? Ďakujeme za podporu!

Episode 148 – Truth and Proof – Part 8 – Purpose and Design Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: That’s the whole story. Here now is my final conclusion: Fear God and obey his commands, for this is everyone’s duty. God will judge us for everything we do, including every secret thing, whether good or bad. Ecclesiastes, Chapter 12, verses 13 and 14, New Living Translation ******** Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. We’re excited to be with you as we continue our series we’ve called “Truth and Proof.” This series is all about helping our listeners think carefully about their faith. Specifically, we want people to understand that the Christian faith is not a belief system that requires its followers to abandon their brains when they surrender their hearts to Jesus. Far from it. Jesus told his followers that they were supposed to love God with all their heart, soul, strength, and mind. Yet, all too often today we are told that we must choose between faith and reason or between faith and science. But that’s a false dichotomy. And today to help us explore the solid foundation of logic and reason that supports Christianity we have RD Fierro in the studio. RD is an author and the founder of Crystal Sea Books. RD, on Anchored by Truth, we often cover the fact that the world’s demand is not only unnecessary but it is also unreasonable, don’t we? RD: We certainly do and the reason we do is because that demand gets circulated almost continuously in the popular culture and media. And even many Christians are taken in by it. The idea that people must abandon their confidence in logic, reason, and science if they want to be faithful Christians is practically a pillar of every show that purports to discuss issues that pertain to the origin of the world and cosmos. It’s become such a staple of modern philosophy that it serves as a great illustration of the old aphorism that if you tell a lie often enough people will begin to accept the lie as the truth. Our culture has completely lost sight of the fact that some of the greatest minds of the last 2,000 years – including scientists who founded major branches of modern science were devout Christians. Gottfried Leibnitz and Sir Isaac Newton who invented calculus were Christians. So, was Johann Kepler who articulated the major laws of planetary motion. Ditto for Robert Boyle who is regarded as the first modern chemist and the founder of modern chemistry. And Carolus Linnaeus who is credited with establishing the modern taxonomic system was also a Biblical creationist. The list goes on and on. VK: The point is that many people today regard Christians as being almost simple minded. But nothing could be further from the truth. RD: I agree. 10, 20, or 30 years ago we lived in a culture that readily accepted Christianity even if some individuals did not. 50 years ago you would even find some support for the Christian world view taught in grade schools and high schools because the truth of Christianity was widely accepted. But those days are long behind us. Our broader culture is not only not receptive to Christianity, but also it is outright intolerant of it. And some elements of our society are vehemently hostile. We have entered one of those periods of history where Christians can no longer be complacent. The opposition to Christianity enters every home, every day if in no other way through the internet and the so-called mainstream media outlets. Arguments against the validity of Christianity are all around us. If we do not actively prepare to counter them, first within our homes and then in our communities, the fabric of our society will continue to erode. VK: But the good news is that it does not have to be that way, does it? We have the truth on our side. But we must equip ourselves to be able to present that truth. It is not up to us to change anyone’s heart. That’s God’s job. Our job is just to be able to witness to the truth in gentle and respectful ways. RD: Yes. The good news is that the truth is on our side – and that’s what we have been reviewing in this series. We called this series “Truth and Proof” because the first task we undertook was to demonstrate that absolute truth exists. And then we have proceeded to show the lines of reasoning that support the proof of that truth. VK: And many of the ideas that we have been discussing fall within the larger umbrella of what is termed apologetics. Simply put, apologetics is a defense of the Christian faith. And thus far in our series we have gone over two apologetic approaches: a metaphysical approach to apologetics and a cosmological approach to apologetics. And anyone who would like to review those approaches in detail can simply listen to earlier versions of the “Truth and Proof” series on their favorite podcast app. Today’s lesson is the 8th in this series and we anticipate that there will be two more episodes in this series after todays. That will make a total of 10 episodes in the Truth and Proof series. So, today we want to move on to another apologetic approach – the teleological approach. RD: Right. In our last couple of lessons we discussed the cosmological argument for the existence of God. It’s the first of the commonly used arguments, but probably not the one used the most in the media, in books, or in casual conversation. The argument most likely to be used is the Teleological Argument – better known as the argument from “Intelligent Design.” “Teleological” comes from the Greek word telos, meaning “end, or purpose.” “In brief, the teleological argument reasons from design to an intelligent Designer: • All designs imply a designer. • There is great design in the universe. • Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the universe. In his Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics Norman Geisler put it this way: “Any time we have seen a complex design, we know by previous experience that it came from the mind of a designer. Watches imply watchmakers; buildings imply architects; paintings imply artists; and coded messages imply an intelligent sender. VK: Geisler went on to say, “the greater the design, the greater the designer. Beavers make log dams, but they have never constructed anything like the Golden Gate Bridge. A thousand monkeys sitting at typewriters for millions of years would never produce Hamlet by accident. Shakespeare did it on the first try. The more complex the design, the greater the intelligence required to produce it.” RD: Well, having written a few things myself I’m not sure if Shakespeare necessarily did it on the first try but it certainly didn’t take him millions, thousands, or hundreds of years. The point is that only an intelligent being can form letters into words, words into sentences, sentences into paragraphs, paragraphs into books, books into libraries. Yet, the complexity of Hamlet is miniscule when compared to the genetic code. The genetic code, which is really the genetic message, contained in one amoeba equals the information in 1,000 sets of encyclopedias. There is no such thing as simple life! We see evidence of incredibly sophisticated and complicated design in the micro-universe of the genetic code, but we also see it in the macro-universe of the solar system, the stars, and the galaxies. VK: There is a principle that is sometimes referred to as the anthropic principle. The Greek word, “anthropos, means human being. The anthropic principle states that the universe was fitted from the very first moment of its existence for the emergence of life in general and human life in particular. If there were even the slightest variation in the conditions of the universe, even to a small degree, no life of any kind would exist. In order for life to be present there is an incredibly restrictive set of demands that must be present in the universe – and they are. All of our empirical observations tell us this. Not only does the scientific evidence point to a beginning of the cosmos, but it points to a very sophisticated high tuning of the universe from the very beginning that makes human life possible. For life to be present today, an incredibly restrictive set of demands must have been present in the early universe. RD: And this evidence of design is well recognized by scientists. Astrophysicist Robert Dicke said “that in fact it may be necessary for the universe to have the enormous size and complexity which modern astronomy has revealed, in order for the earth to be a possible habitation for living beings.” Astronomer Alan Sandage states that “the world is too complicated in all of its parts to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? The more one learns . . . the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some kind of organizing principle – an architect.” Likewise, the mass, the entropy level of the universe, the stability of the proton, and innumerable other things must be just right to make life possible. VK: Even Stephen Hawking who was not a friend of Christianity said “There may only be a small number of laws, which are self-consistent and which lead to complicated beings like ourselves who can ask the question: What is the nature of God?” And Albert Einstein seems to have almost anticipated Hawking’s question when he wrote “The harmony of natural law . . . reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.” RD: And writer, broadcaster, professor, “astrobiologist,” cosmologist, and physicist Paul Davies – who typically indicates his religious belief as “undecided” – wrote in 1989, “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. . . . It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. . . . The impression of design is overwhelming.” VK: But understandably and predictably just because the universe contains an abundance of evidence of being designed there are those who don’t accept the testimony of the evidence. The arguments against intelligent design come from those who don’t believe in an intelligent designer. For them the answer to the question of how things came to be as they are is, of course, evolution. One point of Charles Darwin’s work was to establish that random purposeless natural processes can substitute for intelligent design. Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species that he was convinced that natural selection was the main mechanism responsible for the evolution of life from simple forms to complex forms. RD: And writer and Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins begins his book The Blind Watchmaker with the statement “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” His book’s title challenged the work of William Paley (1743-1805) who used the analogy of a watchmaker to support the teleological argument for the existence of God which argues from the evidence of design to the necessity of a designer. Paley built on the arguments of Socrates, Plato, Philo, and Aquinas, and believed that the complexity of the world implies a great designer. Paley studied the physical world for evidence of purpose. He concluded that a designing intelligence was responsible for the features of the natural world, and he identified this intelligence with the God of Christianity. His argument for design was published in 1802 as Natural Theology: Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature, and his work remains a foundational pillar of the debate over “Intelligent Design.” VK: Dawkins and Tufts philosopher/sociologist Daniel Dennett are among the most visible, most vocal, and most angry of the atheists who have in the last few decades led an attack on the existence of God. Dawkins’ attitudes are summarized in this statement recorded in the April 9, 1989 New York Times: “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane.” Some people have observed that as a scientist Dawkins is mediocre but as an apologist for atheism he is unparalleled. So, that opens up the question why do so many prominent scientists resist and reject God? RD: Simply put, scientists in our day and age have a profound bias toward materialism. In other words in their world view the only thing that exists is matter. Now this is not true of all scientists by any means. There are many fine, competent scientists who are not only outstanding scientists in their fields but also strong Biblical creationists. But, in this case, the exception identifies the rule. And one of the most amazing things about this situation is that science itself, that is the objective pursuit of the acquisition of knowledge about our universe through disciplined study, does not require that they be philosophical materialists. But most are either by individual bias or indoctrination through our education system. And even more amazingly many of them recognize this bias and the fact that is unnecessary for scientific purposes. Why don’t you read that quote from Harvard evolutionary biologist and geneticist Richard Lewontin: VK: Lewontin wrote: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failures to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” RD: So, let’s compare Lewontin’s statement with the statement we heard earlier from the opening of Richard Dawkins book The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins said “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” So, Dawkins acknowledges that the evidence for design exists in nature. He just doesn’t like the conclusion that the evidence leads to. So, Dawkins observes the evidence, acknowledges where it leads, but then changes direction because he doesn’t like the destination. Lewontin simply says out loud the forbidden truth that this change of direction isn’t necessary according to the rules of science. Rather, it comes about because the individual persons – or persons – just don’t like the thought that the presence of design also means the presence of a Designer. So, instead of acknowledging that Designer the materialist, the scientist, adopts conventions and rules that exclude, in Lewontin’s words, “a Divine Foot in the door.” VK: Yikes. I don’t know whether that’s sad, scary, or both. RD: Probably both, but at a minimum the one thing that such an a priori commitment is not is “scientific.” And a great many scientists have recognized this. For instance Michael Denton who is a British-Australian author and biochemist wrote a book in 1985 entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis was published the year before Dawkins Blind Watchmaker. Well, those books set off a sort of chain reaction of other books where the debate about the presence of design in nature received a lot of attention. In effect, what we saw in several publications was an extended presentation of the teleological argument for the existence of God. VK: For instance, in 1991 Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson wrote a book called Darwin on Trial. Johnson’s book was so compelling that the debate about design in nature and supernatural Designer was forever changed. Johnson wrote “In brief, what makes me a ‘critic of evolution’ is that I distinguish between naturalistic philosophy and empirical science, and oppose the former when it comes cloaked in the authority of the latter.” Johnson’s critics retreated into the defensive posture of “specialized scientific knowledge” inaccessible to a legal scholar, but many of these were the same champions of evolution who had previously argued for its simplicity. Johnson answered the critics in 1995 with Reason in the Balance, subtitled “The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law, and Education.” RD: And Johnson quickly gained support from biochemist Michael Behe who wrote Darwin’s Black Box in 1996. Behe explained the intricate interactions of cellular components and molecular mechanisms, showing that biological systems are irreducibly complex. This means that systems are “composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.” Behe asserted that any irreducibly complex system cannot be produced by slight, successive modifications of a precursor, because any precursor to the system would be, by definition, non-functional. VK: So, when Behe [BEE-HEE] pointed out that irreducibly complex systems could not be produced by a series of minor changes in a biological organism he was effectively pointing out that Darwin criticism of his own theory was valid. In The Origin of Species Darwin wrote a chapter entitled “Difficulties of the Theory.” It happened to be chapter 6. In that chapter Darwin offered some comments on the evolution of the eye which have been widely quoted since he wrote them. Darwin said this about his own theory. Now, remember, this is Charles Darwin talking about his own conclusion that the eye could have evolved through a Darwinian type series of steps. Darwin wrote: “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” RD: Darwin went on, of course, to give an explanation of how he thought it could have happened. But Behe took Darwin’s argument apart by showing that Darwin speculated on how the eye and vision might have happened but Darwin never considered the most fundamental question, i.e., how did vision happen? Darwin looked only at the anatomy – which was all he could look at because 19th century science had no knowledge of biochemistry as we have it today. But in his book Behe, went through the dozens of biochemical changes that are involved in a photon of light striking the retina and this enabling the brain to form an image. After walking us through the very complicated biochemistry of vision Behe says this: “To Darwin, vision was a black box, but after the cumulative hard work of many biochemists, we are now approaching answers to the question of sight. . . . 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. . . . Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant to the question of whether evolution could take place on the molecular level. So is the fossil record. Neither do the patterns of biogeography matter, nor those of population biology, nor the traditional theory for rudimentary organs or species abundance. . . Until recently, however, evolutionary biologists could be unconcerned with the molecular details of life because so little was known about them. Now the black box of the cell has been opened, and the infinitesimal world that stands revealed must be explained.” VK: So, what Behe was pointing out was that the appearance of design in nature wasn’t just apparent in the anatomical structures that we can see, that Darwin could see, but in the very molecular chemistry that comprises those structures. Again, design isn’t just present in the big structures of the universe – the stars and galaxies – but in the very tiniest ones as well. And how can you have design anywhere at any level without a Designer? You can’t. RD: Right. And if vision is a dramatic example of a biological system that can’t arise in the absence of design the clotting system that is present in blood is even more dramatic. For a clot to form over a cut and stop an animal from bleeding to death even more biomolecular steps are involved than in vision. But the clotting system only works a system. Miss one step and clots never form. The blood clotting system was designed. It had to be. It could not arise in an evolutionary fashion because any animal that didn’t have the entire system would die before it could randomly pass along any of its genes. VK: Well, before we close for today let’s mention one more book that participated in the design debate. A mathematician and philosopher William Dembski published his book The Design Inference in 1998. Dembski saw a possible flaw in Behe’s work. So, he strengthened the concept of irreducible complexity to include a minimal complexity condition, stating that “this condition says that the system cannot be simplified and still retain the level of function needed for selective advantage.” Dembski defined intelligent design as the science that studies signs of design, and he notes that intelligence leaves behind a characteristic trademark or signature – what he calls specified complexity. RD: Right. Dembski and others have looked for signs ranging from the microscopic to the telescopic. As we mentioned at the start of today’s episode, not only do biological systems show the signs of intelligent design, but also the universe in general displays the “anthropic principle” – that the cosmos is precisely designed for the emergence and sustenance of life, and especially human life, on earth. In the simplest terms, “the cosmos gives evidence of design.” VK: The irresistible conclusion from this line of reasoning is that the evidence of design is present throughout the universe. It’s present in the cosmos. It’s present in the cell. It’s present in our consciousness. You cannot have design anywhere without a Designer. And in the universe doesn’t just have design in a few places. It has it everywhere. RD: Right. Biochemist, atheist, and co-discoverer of DNA, the late Francis Crick, began studying biochemistry in the 1940’s as a way to disprove the existence of God. But, in fact, what he discovered was that there was an irreducibly complex information system at the heart of all life. Crick was a phenomenal scientist but he wrong about God. His materialistic presuppositions prevented him from acknowledging the very truth that his own work pointed out. But this shouldn’t surprise us. Romans, chapter 1, verse 20, has been pointing out this problem with human nature for 2,000 years. VK: That verse says, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Crick believed there is no God, but God has the final word. Psalm 14, verse 1 says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Well, we hope everyone will join us next time as we continue this fascinating discussion about the arguments and evidence that demonstrates that there is a firm basis in logic and reason for our Christian faith. This sounds like a time to go to God I prayer. Today let’s listen to a prayer for all those around the world who suffer for their faith. We should all take time to regularly pray for God’s mercy and favor to be with them. ---- PRAYER FOR PERSECUTED CHRISTIANS VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!” (Bible Quote from the New Living Translation) Ecclesiastes, Chapter 12, verses 13 and 14, New Living Translation

Richard Dawkins is arguably one of the foremost critics of religion and by extension "God" in the world. And is one of the central figures of the New Atheist movement. Richard Dawkins is noted for his contributions to the modern secular critic of religion and at the same time for being one of the foremost defenders and advocates of Darwinian evolution: the particular understanding of evolution that lends itself most strongly to the atheistic cause. Richard Dawkins has built a reputation (a global one seemingly) by attacking religion, most notably via a number of bestselling books. Among the most notable are The God Delusion (2006), The Blind Watchmaker (1986), and The Selfish Gene (1976). All best sellers. The latter two books, were notable in advancing a critic of religion by advancing the plausibility for the emergence of complex life via purely naturalistic processes: Notably Darwinian evolution. My critic of Richard Dawkins focuses on the apparent conclusiveness of his worldview. His espousal of Darwinian evolution, which has been well noted, is one of a number of problems with his worldview. In his bestselling books his ideas on God, religion, life, and its significance (or insignificance in relation to undirected evolution) have been outlined. At one level, Dawkins's success comes down to his writing ability and his capacity for weaving wonderful analogies which seem to simplify apparently complex scientific phenomena into packets of info that are digestible for the laymen. But that is also where the problem lies: the question of life, origins, its complexity, and development are immensely complex subject matters that seem to be waved away by invoking the theory of (Darwinian) evolution. Which today has become something akin to a secular dogma. This critic will engage Dawkins's views on God. For which I have selected a number of quotes from the said biologist. These quotes focus on the underlying sensibility that Dawkins has when it comes to the idea of God and religion in relation to the theory of evolution, which Dawkins, as I will point out, values, if not worship. Further, Dawkins critic of religion/God, nonetheless masks a deeper urge for the unknown, and potentially mystical, which seems to find in the theory of evolution. Richard Dawkins in all of his attempts to demystify the world through the study and pursuit of science, to my understanding has come full circle in mystifying science itself.

This ID the Future brings in protein scientist Douglas Axe to discuss his contribution to a new book, The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith. Axe and host Casey Luskin discuss Axe's thinking on the design intuition, the evidence that it's triggered almost universally in small children when they observe things like dragonflies or fresh-baked cookies, and why he's convinced that this intuition is a rational one rooted in our true sense of what sorts of things require know-how for their creation. For those who retort “Science!,” Axe has some of that to offer as well. As he tells Luskin, he led an experiment at a lab in Cambridge, England, on the abilities and limits of an enzyme to evolve. The research findings Read More › Source

Critically-acclaimed author and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and world-renowned theoretical physicist and author Lawrence Krauss discuss biology, cosmology, religion, and a host of other topics at this event entitled 'Something for Nothing'. This video was recorded at The Australian National University on 10 April 2012. Richard Dawkins FRS is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford. Born in British colonial Africa, he was educated in England, where he now lives. He did his doctorate at Oxford under the Nobel Prize winning zoologist Niko Tinbergen, then was briefly an Assistant Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, from 1967 to 1969, after which he returned to Oxford, first as a Lecturer in Zoology, then Reader, before being elected to his present professorship. He is the author of nine books: The Selfish Gene (1976, 2nd Ed 1989), The Extended Phenotype (1982), The Blind Watchmaker (1986), River Out of Eden (1995), Climbing Mount Improbable (1996), Unweaving the Rainbow (1998), A Devil's Chaplain (2003), The Ancestor's Tale (2004) and The God Delusion (2006). The God Delusion has sold more than two million copies in English, and is being published in 30 other languages. Dawkins is now editing an anthology of scientific writing for Oxford University Press, The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing. In 2006, to promote the values of education, science, and critical thinking skills, he established The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS) which is now a registered charity in both the UK and USA. Richard Dawkins has Honorary Doctorates of Literature as well as Science, and is a Fellow of both the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Literature. He has been awarded the Silver Medal of the Zoological Society of London, the Michael Faraday Award of the Royal Society, the Nakayama Prize, the Cosmos International Prize, the Kistler Prize, the Shakespeare Prize and the Lewis Thomas Prize. Lawrence M. Krauss is a renowned cosmologist and science populariser, and is Foundation Professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration, and director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University. Hailed by Scientific American as a rare public intellectual, he is also the author of more than three hundred scientific publications and nine books, including the international bestseller, The Physics of Star Trek, and his most recent bestseller entitled A Universe from Nothing. He received his PhD from MIT in 1982 and then joined the Society of Fellows at Harvard, and was a professor at Yale University and Chair of the Physics Department at Case Western Reserve University before taking his present position. Internationally known for his work in theoretical physics, he is the winner of numerous international awards, and is the only physicist to have received major awards from all three US physics societies, the American Physical Society, the American Institute of Physics, and the American Association of Physics Teachers. Krauss is also a commentator and essayist for newspapers such as the New York Times, and the Wall St. Journal, and has written regular columns for New Scientist and Scientific American and appears regularly on radio and television. He is one of the few scientists to have crossed the chasm between science and popular culture, and is also active in issues of science and society. He serves as co-chair of the Board of Sponsors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and on the Board of Directors of the Federation of American Scientists.

In episode 205, Michael Shermer speaks with Richard Dawkins, the author of The Selfish Gene, voted The Royal Society's Most Inspiring Science Book of All Time, and also the bestsellers The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Ancestor's Tale, The God Delusion, and two volumes of autobiography, An Appetite for Wonder and Brief Candle in the Dark. He is a Fellow of New College, Oxford and both the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Literature. In 2013, Dawkins was voted the world's top thinker in Prospect magazine's poll of 10,000 readers from over 100 countries. This episode is heavily edited because Dawkins was having trouble with his voice, and Shermer tried to speak a little more to give Dawkins a chance to let his voice rest.

On today’s ID the Future, host Eric Anderson and physicist Brian Miller, research director for Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, discuss a recent debate between YouTube science educator Dave Farina and Rice University synthetic organic chemist James Tour. Tour has argued that no one—not even the most elite of origin-of-life scientists–has a clue how life could have arisen through blind natural forces on the early earth. Farina created a YouTube response on his channel arguing that Tour is wrong and that origin-of-life researchers are well on their way to solving the mystery of life’s origin. Tour then responded in his own YouTube video series. Now Miller and Anderson boil it all down and argue that Tour is right Read More › Source

In this short segment, I discuss why consultants are more than just people who tell you the time from your own watch. Join me. No watches were harmed in the making of this segment. Follow along with the transcript to this segment on BarcVox, where you can also find related content: http://barcvox.com/2021/03/21/blind-watchmaker/ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barcvox/message

Hello Everyone. Welcome to the New Humanist Podcast. I am Damian. This is episode 16. Continuing the theme of Part III: the start of the critic of a secular basis of humanism. A matter which I will engage by looking at the views expressed by a key secular spokesperson: Richard Dawkins. I will critically engage two quotations from this atheist, in the course of this episode. They are: “The total amount of  suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this  sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being  devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is  a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other  people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the  properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose,  no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”  (River Out of Eden- 1986) "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist"  (The Blind Watchmaker- 1986).

How can faith be rationalised against the theory of evolution? Is conflict inevitable, or might faith complement Darwinian science? http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/darwin-evolution-and-god-the-present-debatesThis lecture sets the scientific and religious context for Darwin's theory of evolution, before considering this theory and the challenges this raised for traditional religious beliefs. In particular, we will consider some issues raised by Richard Dawkins in his Blind Watchmaker (1986) and The God Delusion (2006). The lecture will then conclude by looking at "social Darwinism", particularly the controversial question of eugenics. If we understand how evolution happens, can we - and should we - take control of the process?The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/darwin-evolution-and-god-the-present-debatesGresham College has been giving free public lectures since 1597. This tradition continues today with all of our five or so public lectures a week being made available for free download from our website. There are currently over 1,900 lectures free to access or download from the website.Website: http://www.gresham.ac.ukTwitter: http://twitter.com/GreshamCollegeFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/greshamcollegeInstagram: http://www.instagram.com/greshamcollege

The castaway in Desert Island Discs this week is the biologist Dr Richard Dawkins. Author of popular science books such as The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker, he'll be talking to Sue Lawley about his scientific beliefs which are firmly rooted in the conviction that Darwin's theory of evolution provides the starting point for all we need to know about our world. He'll be discussing the implications of his theories, as well as choosing eight records for his island exile. [Taken from the original programme material for this archive edition of Desert Island Discs] Favourite track: String Quintet In C Major 163 by Franz Schubert Book: The Jeeves Omnibus by P G Wodehouse Luxury: Computer (solar-powered)