Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

William Lane Craig

2009-07-02T00:03:41Z

AlexL: fixing liberal wording bias

[[Image:Billcraig_czvx.jpg‎‎|thumb|150px|Dr. William Lane Craig]]
'''William Lane Craig''' is a renowned [[Christianity|Christian]] scholar, [[philosopher]], and [[apologist]]. He currently holds the position of Research Professor of Philosophy at the Talbot School of Theology in La Miranda, California.

Born 23 August 1949, at age sixteen W. L. Craig pledged his life to [[Jesus Christ]], his Lord and Savior. Thus began a career, indeed a calling, dedicated to the [[Gospel]]. Craig completed a B. A. at [[Wheaton College]] in 1971, and two M. A. degrees at [[Trinity Evangelical Divinity School]] in 1974 and 1975 (in the philosophy of religion and church history), and a Ph. D. from the University of Birmingham (England) in 1977. Craig also received a D. Theol. from the University of Munich in 1984, where he studied under the famous [[Wolfhart Pannenberg]].

Craig is known for his [[Christian apologetics]], specifically concerning the [[Resurrection]], the existence of God, and theocentric ethics. Craig's case for the existence of God usually involves five central arguments:
*the [[cosmological argument]], which includes Craig's specially-developed Kalam argument
*the argument from fine-tuning
*the moral argument
*the argument from the historicity of the [[Resurrection]]
*the argument from personal experience

Craig has won all or nearly all of his debates with atheists and is one of the most impressive debaters currently alive, a fact which even atheists attest to.<ref>http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392#more-392</ref>
==William Lane Craig is Reported to Have Called [[Richard Dawkins]] a Coward ==
[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] Dr. Victor Reppert is the author of ''[[C. S. Lewis]]'s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason''.<ref>http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/dawkins-ducks-craig.html</ref> In 2007, Dr. Reppert wrote:
{{cquote|Bill Craig sent me a newsletter in which he will be debating twice in the UK on "Is God a Delusion" but will not be debating [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] himself. Now that would be the debate to see! Having seen this, I wrote him saying "Oh drat! no debate with Dawkins!" He responded:

The coward! He said, "I've never heard of William
Craig. A debate with him might look good on his
resume, but it wouldn't look good on mine!"

Bill<ref>http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/01/dawkins-ducks-craig.html</ref>}}

There is now growing public pressure for the prominent [[evolution|evolutionist]] and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] to debate the Christian [[philosophy|philosopher]] of science and Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig.<ref>http://manawatu.christian-apologetics.org/sign-the-richard-dawkins-should-debate-william-craig-petition/</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQlB78Hgsj4&feature=channel_page</ref> For example, currently there is a petition for Richard Dawkins debate William Lane Craig. <ref>http://manawatu.christian-apologetics.org/sign-the-richard-dawkins-should-debate-william-craig-petition/</ref> [[YouTube]] recently featured a video which incorporates an audio excerpt of Craig stating that he would like to debate Dawkins and also features Dr. Craig commenting on Dawkins refusal to debate him.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQlB78Hgsj4&feature=channel_page</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Philosophers]]
[[Category:Christian Apologists]]
[[Category:Academics]]
[[Category:Religious People]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Craig, William}}

Counterexamples to Evolution

2009-07-02T00:00:55Z

AlexL: more insights

A scientific or logical theory cannot permit any counterexamples. Therefore, the [[theory of evolution|theory of evolution by natural selection acting upon random mutation]] must be able to explain the origins of all things in terms of a purely mechanistic view. Although natural selection and common descent are both very well-supported by evidence, the ability of random mutations to generate higher levels of complexity remains in doubt.

The following are some counterexamples to the abilities of random mutation. If just one cannot be explained by the idea, then logically the theory of evolution as it is must be inadequate.

* evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation
* the remarkable whale, which is a mammal, has no plausible evolutionary ancestor
* the [[immune system]] is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection<ref>Behe, Michael J. 1996. ''Darwin's Black Box'', New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.</ref><ref>[http://biology.creighton.edu/courses/BIO432/Evolution%2005.htm]</ref>
* [[Jellyfish]] in [[Hawaii]] swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full [[moon]], for no apparent evolutionary reason<ref>http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html</ref>
* the fact that [[cicada]]s appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others<ref>http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html</ref>
* the extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
* the extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. It serves no function (the theory that giraffes use the long neck to eat from tree trunks was never true). The presence of valves in the neck (which are necessary because of its great length) raises a question of how one could have arisen without the other being there first (see the irreducible complexity argument).<ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>
* the enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record.
* the manner in which chickens return to their chicken coops at the same time, and enter the chicken coops in the same order, each day
* The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>
*[[Pterosaurs]]; a scientist recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html</ref>
* The development of wings, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
* The [[flagellum]] a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] and cannot arise according to the theory of evolution.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref>
* Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4. Thus, for the chromosome count of a species to change (and thus account for the variety of counts in nature) a vast portion of a species would have to evolve a new chromosome set simultaneously.
* Symbiosis - There are many examples where creatures rely on each other to survive which could not arise through evolution. Grass cannot survive without a certain fungus that helps it fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and the fungus can't survive without the grass. They must have appeared on earth at the same time.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070410084136.htm]</ref>
*Many [[bat]]s which live in caves employs a type of sonar in order to navigate and find prey. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a squirrel-like animal, but a squirrel would have no use for a sonar system. The bats can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it. Therefore, bats must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight.
* No clear transition from unicellular to multicellular organisms.
* The [[human]] [[prostate]] surrounds the [[urethra]] and in doing so provides many benefits. Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5757 The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?], 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</ref>
* Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.
* Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref>
* Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
* No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
* Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome, as well as the origin of the information-processing systems in the cell. Information always has a sender, who must be God in this case.
* [[Ant]]s and other social [[insect]]s, for at least two reasons: First, their complex social structure is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; second, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they cannot perpetuate their genetic material, as evolution requires.
* Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>
* Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body. While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix (the classic example). <ref>Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, ''Your Appendix: It's There for a Reason.'' (1997)</ref>
* Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "junk DNA" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
* While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "bad design" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one.
* Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.
* The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>
* Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
* For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>
* In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two X chromosomes whereas males have an X and Y chromosome, but in birds, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed. In flies, sex is determined the ratio of non-sex chromosomes to X chromosomes (so that males have only one X whereas females have two). It is impossible for evolution to create these new sex-determining systems ''ex nihilo''.

== Logical Conclusion ==
As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.

{{evolution}}

== References ==

<references/>
[[category:Evolution]]

Counterexamples to Evolution

2009-06-15T22:51:32Z

AlexL: New insights

A scientific or logical theory cannot permit any counterexamples. Therefore, the [[theory of evolution|theory of evolution by natural selection acting upon random mutation]] must be able to explain the origins of all things in terms of a purely mechanistic view. Although natural selection and common descent are both very well-supported by evidence, the ability of random mutations to generate higher levels of complexity remains in doubt.

The following are some counterexamples to the abilities of random mutation. If just one cannot be explained by the idea, then logically the theory of evolution as it is must be inadequate.

* evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation
* the remarkable whale, which is a mammal, has no plausible evolutionary ancestor
* the [[immune system]] is irreducibly complex, as without one which is thoroughly developed, an organism would not be able to resist any infection<ref>Behe, Michael J. 1996. ''Darwin's Black Box'', New York: The Free Press, pp. 117-139.</ref><ref>[http://biology.creighton.edu/courses/BIO432/Evolution%2005.htm]</ref>
* [[Jellyfish]] in [[Hawaii]] swarm to the beaches roughly 9 to 10 days after each full [[moon]], for no apparent evolutionary reason<ref>http://www.aloha.com/~lifeguards/jelyfish.html</ref>
* the fact that [[cicada]]s appear like clockwork every 13 years for some species, and every 17 years for others<ref>http://inside.msj.edu/academics/faculty/kritskg/cicada/faq.html</ref>
* the extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
* the extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. It serves no function (the theory that giraffes use the long neck to eat from tree trunks was never true). The presence of valves in the neck (which are necessary because of its great length) raises a question of how one could have arisen without the other being there first (see the irreducible complexity argument).<ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>
* the enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record.
* the manner in which chickens return to their chicken coops at the same time, and enter the chicken coops in the same order, each day
* The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of dinosaurs<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>
*[[Pterosaurs]]; a scientist recently stated that they could not have flown, but why then did they evolve wings?<ref>http://www.physorg.com/news142086647.html</ref>
* The development of wings, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
* The [[flagellum]] a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] and cannot arise according to the theory of evolution.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref>
* Variation in chromosome count (ploidy) is impossible in evolution. One member of a species with 2 sets of chromosomes cannot mate with a member with 4. Thus, for the chromosome count of a species to change (and thus account for the variety of counts in nature) a vast portion of a species would have to evolve a new chromosome set simultaneously.
* Symbiosis - There are many examples where creatures rely on each other to survive which could not arise through evolution. Grass cannot survive without a certain fungus that helps it fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and the fungus can't survive without the grass. They must have appeared on earth at the same time.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070410084136.htm]</ref>
*Many [[bat]]s which live in caves employs a type of sonar in order to navigate and find prey. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a squirrel-like animal, but a squirrel would have no use for a sonar system. The bats can't fly without sonar, and an animal that can't fly doesn't need it therefore those bat must have been created with fully functioning sonar and flight.
* No clear transition from unicellular to multicellular organisms.
* The [[human]] [[prostate]] surrounds the [[urethra]] and in doing so provides many benefits. Evolutionists consider the structure to be poor design, which should mean that natural selection would have eliminated that design.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5757 The Prostate Gland–is it ‘badly designed’?], 1st August 2008 (Creation Ministries International)</ref>
* Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.
* Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref>
* Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
* No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
* [[Ant]]s and other social [[insect]]s, for at least two reasons: First, their complex social structure is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; second, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they cannot perpetuate their genetic material, as evolution requires.
* Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>
* Lack of any vestigial organs in the human body. While evolutionists used to claim dozens or even hundreds of human traits and organs were vestigial, useless items disused through evolution, we now know what functions they all have, including the appendix (the classic example). <ref>Ken Ham and Carl Wieland, ''Your Appendix: It's There for a Reason.'' (1997)</ref>
* Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "junk DNA" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
* The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>
* Trematode parasites lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
* For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>

== Logical Conclusion ==
As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.

{{evolution}}

== References ==

<references/>
[[category:Evolution]]