Posts Tagged ‘science’

john_lennox 2

A number of us have been praying for two years to have Dr. John Lennox come to the University of Toronto. He accepted our invitation and will be in Toronto from March 19-22, 2015. This is indeed an answer to prayer as Dr. Lennox receives countless speaking requests a month. John Lennox is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford. He received his D.Phil. from Oxford, a Ph.D. from Cambridge, and a D.Sc. from Cardiff. He is famous for debating atheist Richard Dawkins on “The God Delusion” at the University of Alabama (2007) and on “Has Science buried God?” at the Oxford Museum of Natural History (2008). He has also debated Christopher Hitchens on the New Atheism (Edinburgh Festival, 2008) and the question of “Is God Great?” (Samford University, 2010). He has written a number of books on the interface between science, philosophy and theology. These include God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (2009), God and Stephen Hawking, a response to The Grand Design (2011), Gunning for God, on the new atheism (2011), and Seven Days that Divide the World, on the early chapters of Genesis (2011). Furthermore, in addition to over seventy published mathematical papers, he is the co-author of two research level texts in algebra in the Oxford Mathematical Monographs series.

Here are some of his debates and talks below:

The God Delusion Debate with Richard Dawkins

“Has Science Buried God?” with Richard Dawkins

“Is God Great?” with Christopher Hitchens

Talk on his book Seven Days that Divide the World

 

I had the privilege of organizing and hosting Dr. Michael Behe as he delivered the following two lectures at the University of Toronto. Amazingly, almost 12,000 people have viewed the videos so far. Here they are below. Enjoy!

1. What are the Limits of Darwinism?

2. Evidence of Design from Biology

I really enjoyed watching this with my friend Ed last night. Enjoy!

John Lennox is Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford, Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science, and Pastoral Advisor at Green Templeton College, Oxford. He is also an adjunct Lecturer at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University and at the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics and is a Senior Fellow of the Trinity Forum. In addition, he teaches for the Oxford Strategic Leadership Programme at the Executive Education Centre, Said Business School, Oxford University.

He studied at the Royal School Armagh, Northern Ireland and was Exhibitioner and Senior Scholar at Emmanuel College, Cambridge University from which he took his MA, MMath and PhD. He worked for many years in the Mathematics Institute at the University of Wales in Cardiff which awarded him a DSc for his research. He also holds an MA and DPhil from Oxford University and an MA in Bioethics from the University of Surrey. He was a Senior Alexander Von Humboldt Fellow at the Universities of Würzburg and Freiburg in Germany. He has lectured extensively in North America, Eastern and Western Europe and Australasia on mathematics, the philosophy of science and the intellectual defence of Christianity.

He has written a number of books on the interface between science, philosophy and theology. These include God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (2009), God and Stephen Hawking, a response to The Grand Design (2011), Gunning for God, on the new atheism (2011), and Seven Days that Divide the World, on the early chapters of Genesis (2011). Furthermore, in addition to over seventy published mathematical papers, he is the co-author of two research level texts in algebra in the Oxford Mathematical Monographs series.

Dr. Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL is an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and author. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford’s Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008.

Dawkins came to prominence with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, which popularised the gene-centred view of evolution and introduced the term meme. In 1982, he introduced into evolutionary biology the influential concept that the phenotypic effects of a gene are not necessarily limited to an organism’s body, but can stretch far into the environment, including the bodies of other organisms; this concept is presented in his book The Extended Phenotype.

Dawkins is an atheist, a vice president of the British Humanist Association, and a supporter of the Brights movement. He is well known for his criticism of creationism and intelligent design. In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, he argues against the watchmaker analogy, an argument for the existence of a supernatural creator based upon the complexity of living organisms. Instead, he describes evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker.

He has since written several popular science books, and makes regular television and radio appearances, predominantly discussing these topics. In his 2006 book The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that religious faith is a delusion—”a fixed false belief.”

He studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, graduating in 1962; while there, he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. He continued as a research student under Tinbergen’s supervision, receiving his M.A. and D.Phil. degrees by 1966.

Last year I had the privilege of helping to organize the following at the University of Toronto:

On February 9th, 2012 Power to Change hosted a lively debate titled “Should a Scientist Believe in God?”

Arguing for the Affirmative was Dr. Kirk Durston. Dr. Durston earned his Ph.D. in Biophysics from the University of Guelph. Trained as an engineer and physicist, he also earned an M.A. in Philosophy from the University of Manitoba on the problem of evil. He has peer-reviewed articles in both philosophy and science journals.

Arguing for the Negative was Dr. James Robert Brown, professor of Philosophy of Science at the University of Toronto. He received his Ph.D. at the University of Western Ontario. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and Leopoldina, the German Academy of Sciences. He has peer-reviewed articles in both philosophy and science journals.

This is the second lecture that world renowned biochemist Dr. Michael Behe gave at the University of Toronto. In it he presents a strong case for the evidence of design from biology. Watch for yourself to see if the empirical evidence he presents is convincing.

Dr. Michael Behe is the author of Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, which The Washington Times described as “A persuasive book.” He has written, in addition to numerous peer-reviewed journal articles, editorial features in the Boston Review, American Spectator, and The New York Times.

Here is a summary of his research in his own words:

I am interested in the evolution of complex biochemical systems. Many molecular systems in the cell require multiple components in order to function. I have dubbed such systems “irreducibly complex” (Behe 1996b, 2001). Irreducibly complex systems appear to me to be very difficult to explain within a traditional gradualistic Darwinian framework, because the function of the system only appears when the system is essentially complete. (An illustration of the concept of irreducible complexity is the mousetrap pictured on this page, which needs all its parts to work.) Despite much general progress by science in the past half century in understanding how complex biochemical systems work, little progress has been made in explaining how such systems arise in a Darwinian fashion. I have proposed that a better explanation is that such systems were deliberately designed by an intelligent agent (Behe 1996b, 2001). The proposal of intelligent design has proven to be extremely controversial, both in the scientific community (for example, see Brumfiel, G. 2005. Nature 434:1062‑1065) and in the general news media (Behe 1996a, 1999, 2005). My current work involves: 1) educating various groups to overcome mistaken ideas of what exactly intelligent design entails, so that they can make informed judgments on whether they think it is a plausible hypothesis; and 2) trying to establish a reasoned way to determine a rough dividing line between design and non-design in biochemical systems.

mousetrap

In the fall, world renowned biochemist Dr. Michael Behe came to Toronto to deliver a series of lectures. I had the privilege of organizing the events at the University of Toronto. A standing room only crowd of over 400 packed into the lecture hall, with a number of people being turned away.

Dr. Michael Behe is the author of Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, which The Washington Times described as “A persuasive book.” He has written, in addition to numerous peer-reviewed journal articles, editorial features in the Boston Review, American Spectator, and The New York Times.

Here is a summary of his research in his own words:

I am interested in the evolution of complex biochemical systems. Many molecular systems in the cell require multiple components in order to function. I have dubbed such systems “irreducibly complex” (Behe 1996b, 2001). Irreducibly complex systems appear to me to be very difficult to explain within a traditional gradualistic Darwinian framework, because the function of the system only appears when the system is essentially complete. (An illustration of the concept of irreducible complexity is the mousetrap pictured on this page, which needs all its parts to work.) Despite much general progress by science in the past half century in understanding how complex biochemical systems work, little progress has been made in explaining how such systems arise in a Darwinian fashion. I have proposed that a better explanation is that such systems were deliberately designed by an intelligent agent (Behe 1996b, 2001). The proposal of intelligent design has proven to be extremely controversial, both in the scientific community (for example, see Brumfiel, G. 2005. Nature 434:1062‑1065) and in the general news media (Behe 1996a, 1999, 2005). My current work involves: 1) educating various groups to overcome mistaken ideas of what exactly intelligent design entails, so that they can make informed judgments on whether they think it is a plausible hypothesis; and 2) trying to establish a reasoned way to determine a rough dividing line between design and non-design in biochemical systems.

mousetrap