Casey Luskin: Why the New Atheists Won't Be Appeased [God & Evolution]

Can you believe in God and evolution at the same time? What is "theistic" evolution, and how consistent is it with traditional theism? What challenges does Darwin's theory pose for Protestants, Catholics, and Jews? Is it "anti-science" to question Darwinian theory? Explore these questions and more in this conference at Biola University.

Sponsored by the Discovery Institute and Biola's Master of Arts in Science and Religion.

October 16, 2010.

[chanceratcliff]

I heart Luskin! Thank you for all your hard work, Casey.

[vincecruz]

Concerning Stephen Jay Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" -it's not a new & unique idea.  Pope Leo XIII in 1893 wrote, “There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful” (Providentissimus Deus [On the Study of Holy Scripture], 18).

Gould got it right.

[elionadvancing]

I cant help but notice that ALL of the people who attack God end up dead so who is winning? Im not implying they were struck down, my point is we ALL die - you'll not defeat God, you'll die and God will still be on his throne laughing pslam 2

[standupREALscience]

Luskin wrongfully maligned Jason Rosenhouse with the way he used the quote at 14:30. Unfortunately, Luskin didn't bother to cite the source of the quote. See Rosenhouse's blog post entitled "Miller Joins the Party" at EvolutionBlog for the full context. Basically, Rosenhouse was referring to the problem of Creationist attacks on science education, not religion in general. Sadly, this kind of misrepresentation is a common tactic used by Luskin and his fellow ID promoters.

[sanjosemike]

I will report that Richard Dawkins has gone online admitting that the "argument of Fine Tuning" is the best argument for God. Hitchens also said this before he died. The argument for God with Fine Tuning becomes more solid every year with more and more evidence for it.

I don't think this is surprising actually. It is my opinion that God has an OBLIGATION to show us that science has a road to God. We inherit the ability to endure horrendous suffering at our birth. God has an obligation (in my opinion) to prove to us that this is temporal and that our real existence is eternal. So this is a two way street. Christianity, in my opinion is openly honest and does not try to "push aside or ignore suffering."

I am not a Christian. But I admit that it appears to be the most honest of most religions in this regard.

Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

[Metsada]

The New Atheists? I honestly think that's an insult to clowns. They are far worse.

[busby]

sorry, but it's too much work to try to understand someone who talks that fast and pronounces the words so poorly

[Oatmeal_Mann]

If they want war with us, we can only smile and answer with a defense so mighty that they won't know what hit them. Never capitulate. Fight tooth and nail until the last breath.

[albertomartinez]

I'd believe in god too if I looked like Casey Luskin. What a freaky looking guy.

[JaneNayes]

Luskin just got embarrassed by Professor Dave. Luskin is done.

[Scaldaver]

Dawkin's reconcillatory approach to Evolution and Christianity is not to nefariously build up some faction to fight creationists. In the same way we don't jump in to teach toddlers about the quantum behaviour of atoms: we start with things they can comprehend (small things, small balls) and work our way down to help them understand. As a toddler needs to have their belief that all that is real is what they see be slowly deconstructed, so does a creationist need to be slowly introduced to ideas their religion deems heretical.

[twoheadedboy]

these guys are clowns, Biola you can do much better

[nayanmipun]

I believe in evolution I belive in God