Home » News » Stephen Meyer and Ravi Zacharias On Moody Radio

Stephen Meyer and Ravi Zacharias On Moody Radio

On Friday, Dr. Stephen C. Meyer joined Dr. Ravi Zacharias in a discussion on Moody Radio’s In The Market with Janet Parshall. You can read the details here.

Hour 1, which you can download here, features Ravi Zacharias. The website’s description states,

Respected apologist Ravi Zacharias was once sharing his faith with a Hindu who asked: “If the Christian faith is truly supernatural, why is it not more evident in the lives of so many Christians I know?” The question hit hard, and led Dr. Ravi Zacharias to write Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend. Dr. Ravi Zacharias will join us today to talk about the importance of equipping Christians everywhere to simultaneously defend the faith and be transformed by it.

Hour 2, which you can download here, features Stephen C. Meyer. The website’s description states,

How do you know God is real? Is there evidence for a Creator? Dr. Stephen Meyer will join us to discuss the evidence that proves the reality of biblical Truth.

I.D. itself, of course, has nothing to say about the nature or identity of the designer — these are inherently secondary metaphysical questions. I link to this here because of the I.D. pertinent content contained in the second hour. Enjoy!

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

7 Responses to Stephen Meyer and Ravi Zacharias On Moody Radio

  1. OT: Consider using the following in an OP.

    nature’s flaws

  2. Jonathan M
    I.D. itself, of course, has nothing to say about the nature or identity of the designer — these are inherently secondary metaphysical questions

    We appreciate bringing to our attention the pronouncements of these very prominent christian / ID personalities. But I would appreciate if you can forgive me for expressing some criticism on the final statement in your text.

    I think we commit a common error when we say that “ID has nothing to say about the nature of the designer”. I believe ID is in a position to say some substantial things about the “nature of the designer” – assuming that the designers for the following are one and the same designer:

    – the miracle of life
    – cells, tissues, organs, brains, eyes, vision systems, whole organisms
    – the humans – the beauty of the human body and human face
    – the miracle of human reason, thinking, conscience and soul
    – planet Earth with its metallic, magnetic core, tectonic plates, oceans
    – multiplicity of wonderfully inter-related echo system on our planet
    – the beauty and complexity of natural world on Earth with herbs, plants, animals, fish insects
    – our planetary system with the sun and carefully crafted planets, planet satellites
    – the galaxies, galaxy clusters
    – the whole Univers
    – the foundation of the material world from atomic and sub-atomic particles, the amazing chemical elements that are used to make the organic and in-organic substances
    – the amazing chemical and physical properties of the basic organic elements: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus as well as substances like water

    What can ID say about the NATURE of the designer (or designers)?

    He is extremely powerful, wise, inventive, creative and showing these abilities on a much, much, much greaer scale we ever saw them in humans. May we speculate also that He is “loving” if he created us with our own abilities and placed us in such an amazing natural world and Universe?

    We cannot contradict the epistle to Romans that clearly says:

    “….since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 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 people are without excuse.” (emphasize added)

    Romans 1, 19-20.

  3. OT: Neurosurgeon Dr. Michael Egnor has a very good article up on ENV:

    Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist’s Evidentiary Standards to the Test – Dr. Michael Egnor – October 15, 2012
    Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE’s are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception — such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE’s have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,,
    The most “parsimonious” explanation — the simplest scientific explanation — is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species (or origin of life), which is never.,,,
    The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE’s show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it’s earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it’s all a big yawn.
    Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65301.html

    supplemental notes:

    Dr. Jeffery Long: Just how strong is the evidence for a afterlife? – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mptGAc3XWPs

    Famous Cardiac Surgeon’s Stories of Near Death Experiences in Surgery
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL1oDuvQR08

    The Scientific Evidence for Near Death Experiences – Dr Jeffery Long – Melvin Morse M.D. – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4454627

    The Day I Died – Part 4 of 6 – The Extremely ‘Monitored’ Near Death Experience of Pam Reynolds – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045560

  4. “Biologist Douglas Axe on Evolution’s (non) Ability to Produce New Functions ” – podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....5_14-07_00

  5. 5
    Kantian Naturalist

    In re: (2) above, I think that Kant’s position on the “argument from design” (to which the “proof” below refers) is pertinent:

    the purposiveness and well-adaptedness of so many natural arrangements would have to prove merely the contingency of the form, but not of the matter, i.e. of substance, in the world, for the latter would require further that it be able to be proved that the things of the world would in themselves be unsuited for such an order and harmony according to universal laws if they were not in their substance the product of a highest wisdom; but entirely different grounds of proof from those provided by the analogy with human art would be required for this. Thus the proof could at most establish a highest architect of the world, who would always be limited by the suitability of the material on which he works, but not a creator of the world, to whose idea everything is subject, which is far from sufficient for the great aim that one has in view, namely that of proving an all-sufficient original being. If one wanted to prove the contingency of matter itself, then we would have to take refuge in a transcendental argument, which, however, is exactly what was supposed to be avoided here. (Critique of Pure Reason A 626/B 655; Guyer & Wood trans. 581)

    In other words, to the extent that design theory has metaphysical commitments of the inference-to-the-best-explanation variety, it can show at most that the world has an “architect,” but not a “creator,” as classical theism maintains.

    (Notice, for example, that neither Plato’s Demiurge in Timaeus nor Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover in Metaphysics are creators ex nihilo. The former is constrained by the geometric properties of matter on which the forms are imposed; the latter organizes all beings by virtue of how each kind of thing is drawn to the unmoved mover in accordance with its own specific essence.)

    So while design theory can posit an intelligent being, an “architect,” of some kind, that’s a far cry from identifying the architect with the creator. And I suspect that the philosophers of design theory, having read Kant, are unwilling to take the argument from design as far as, say, Paley did, in part because they’ve read Kant.

  6. Kantian Naturalist,

    It was interesting to read your comments – that seems to be a reaction to my thoughts at #2 above.

    I am only marginally familiar with Kant or Aristotle philosophy and more so (i.e. unfamiliar) with this specific topic. Maybe this way I dare to react to your comments and in the process commit some philosophical sacrilege.

    But here are my thoughts and questions to you.

    Is an architect a little bit of a creator? Definitely a creator is an architect and as you say maybe more than that.

    Is the designer of life an architect of life or a creator of life? Isn’t a kind of “creative continuum” or “creative space” where the notion of “architect” and “creator” may be placed somehow arbitrarily in this space and in a not clearly defined relationship with one another but with good overlapping? These are questions that invite to reflect more on the similarities between the “architect” and “creator” terms. You seem to consider them quite different and having a considerable “space” between them in this hypothetical “design space”.

    On another front, we as observers of the world (both the “natural world” (and of what may be behind the natural world) ask these questions:

    If it is legitimate to think of the architect/creator of the biological cell or biological life why it is not legitimate to think of the architect/creator of the material (and supernatural/spiritual) foundation of the world? Or why these two types of designers need to have different “essences” or be of different natures or have different identities?

    If we rightly hypothesize that the living world has a designer – because the living world exists and we have convincing introspections in its complex design intricacies, why can’t we apply the same thinking and conclude that the material (or immaterial) foundation of the world (I am talking here about particle physics/or foundational information that constitutes the foundation of material reality) has also a designer/creator which is of the same essence as the designer/creator of other natural artifacts? Why can’t we use the same type of inference to the best explanation in both cases?

    To be specific, I think that the designer of biological life created (first) a material/immaterial/informational reality – based on organic elements, C, H, O, N, P, etc., that he endowed with specific physical and chemical properties which were absolutely necessary to create/design life as we know it. This is not to say that this designer/creator were limited to only “this set of solutions”. But that there is a tight coordination between the nature and properties of the foundations of the material reality and the design of biological life in the same manner that exists infinite coordination between the design of life forms that participate in so many ecological systems on our planet. And this might be the logical argument that supports the hypothesis that we are dealing with the same designer (because the designs are tightly, complexly coordinated). One way to say this is this Super-natural designer has a Spectrum of creative/design capabilities that surpasses both in degree and in scope/extent zillion times those that are endowed to most gifted humans.

    I hope I did not misunderstand you (too much) and that I addressed your arguments from your previous post.

  7. Re #5 and #6:

    “Creator” can certainly be used a lot more broadly than some specific religious sense, especially today. For example, I have no problem saying that science has demonstrated that a creator(s) was involved in the origin of life.

    I don’t think science supports a lot of additional speculation about the creator’s purpose, plans, intent, personality, etc. beyond the evident capabilities necessary to do the creating. But that there was a creator, yes.

    Architect, creator. You say ‘tomayto,’ I say ‘tomahto.’

Leave a Reply