Frank Turek Apologetics Simulcast Tonight on the “Youth Exodus”

_{William Dembski

January 19, 2010

Atheism, Culture, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Tonight my friend Frank Turek will be interviewing me as well as other Christian apologists (such as William Lane Craig and Josh McDowell). Below are the details.

==========================

This Tuesday, January 19th I’ll be hosting a live radio and internet simulcast event called Church Dropout: Overcoming the Youth Exodus. The producers tell me that this program will draw an audience of over 200,000 to hear and see evidence for Christianity. The program is intended to help reverse the trend that 75% of Christian youth leave the church after high school.

My guests will be some of the top Christian apologists in the world:

We’ll start the evening with the man who is currently the best debater on our side, Dr. William Lane Craig (http://www.ReasonableFaith.org). Bill does scores of college events every year, and he provides great resources on his website. You need to hear Bill’s evidence for the existence of God– irrefutable!

We’ll then turn to one of the founding fathers of the Intelligent Design movement– Dr. Bill Dembski (http://www.designinference.com). Bill has two PhD’s, but he’ll show us very simply how life points to an intelligent designer, and how most of the so-called “evidence” for macroevolution is based on materialistic and counter-factual philosophical assumptions.

My third expert guest will be Dr. Mike Adams, a Christian professor on a secular campus (Yes, there are a few!) and one of the most popular conservative columnists on www.Townhall.com. Mike gets students motivated to make a difference for Christ! He will give us advice on how to prepare yourself (or your child) for the radically anti-Christian environment found on many college campuses (he’ll make you laugh too!).

We’ll then cap the show with one of my all-time heroes of apologetics– his books helped bring me to faith– the one and only Josh McDowell (www.Josh.org). Josh will give us very helpful insights on the importance of relationships to a young person’s faith. Josh is not only the most popular apologist but also the most passionate!

During the show, I’ll also provide evidence for Christianity from our book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, and take your calls. Overall, the program will equip you with the critical information you need to keep yourself, your family, and your church firmly grounded in the truth.

It’s this Tuesday, January 19, 7-10 p.m. CENTRAL time: A listing of the 200 stations carrying the program can be found here (http://action.afa.net/Radio/). For the live web simulcast, go here:

http://action.afa.net/Webcast/WebcastPlayer.aspx?id=2147491014

Our friends at the American Family Association, who are producing this event, will create a DVD of the program that will be available afterwards.

Check www.CrossExamined.org later for details.

Please pray that thousands are touched for Christ!

Blessings,
Frank

Dr. Frank Turek
Founder & President of CrossExamined.org
Speaker and author/co-author of:
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
Correct, NOT Politically Correct
Legislating Morality
TV Monday Nights @ 8 pm & Midnight ET DirecTV Ch. 378
Radio Saturdays @ 11 am ET www.afr.net
704-845-1997nk

Comments

Clive wrote:
"...it just seemed rather unsophisticated, to put it lightly, and humorous at the same time, so I suspected it might have been sarcasm..."
Well if it caused some amusement and even a little doubt about my world view, then I suppose I hit the mark. However I thought the Gossip Girl comment was a dead givaway. :)Apollos_{January 21, 2010
January
01
Jan
21
21
2010
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

Were you violent towards believers?
Yes. Just like Saul of Tarsus and Richard Dawkins I despised Christians. I thought that Christians were utter fools suffering from self-imposed ignorance -- miserably stupid and uneducated, and in need of a crutch in order not to face the obvious reality that we are just products of mindless, purposeless, ultimate-meaning-destroying materialism. I delighted in trying to talk Christians out of their faith with all the powers of my intellect. Little did I know during those years that I was the fool, stupid, uneducated, and not in need of a crutch, but a hospital to heal my broken soul.GilDodgen_{January 21, 2010
January
01
Jan
21
21
2010
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT}

---GilDodgen --- As a youth, and into my middle years, I was a militant, materialist atheist.-- What were your behaviors as a 'militant, materialist atheist'? Were you violent towards believers?critter_{January 21, 2010
January
01
Jan
21
21
2010
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

Apollos,
Clive, it’s the commentary of a caricature. I didn’t really intend mockery, but I suppose it is. If it’s inappropriate for the thread, please delete. I’ll try to be more constructive going forward.
Well, sometimes that sort of argument is necessary to prove a point, and I think you're comment did just that, while it doesn't really bother me in general, it's not always constructive. But, like I said, sometimes it's necessary to prove a point. I was more just sincerely interested in whether that was your own personal point of view or not. Not to be demeaning if it was, it just seemed rather unsophisticated, to put it lightly, and humorous at the same time, so I suspected it might have been sarcasm, and since it was, I think it was spot on with folks who think along those lines.Clive Hayden_{January 21, 2010
January
01
Jan
21
21
2010
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

BillyWheaton, as the founding father of science said about atheism:
It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.
Lord Kelvin, one of the founding fathers of physics said: Do not be afraid to be free thinkers. If you think strongly enough, you will be forced by science to the belief in God. Science is Christian.tribune7_{January 21, 2010
January
01
Jan
21
21
2010
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

1 - Billy, I understand some of what you are saying. I don't have a lot of time right now, so I can't give a full reply.
Yet, I don’t get it either way. Let’s suppose everything about ID proves successful. Then what? Will it make science more interesting for young people of all backgrounds? Most importantly, would it have much of an impact on the “75% of Christian youth” who leave the church?
1.) ID is a theory that seeks the truth. A scientific endeavor doesn't seek to make science more interesting for young people or people of any age. The truth is the truth and that's all any scienific activity seeks. As a side note, I personally find the implications of ID absolutely fascinating. In 5 years of engineering school, my favorite class was Physiology. It was basically the study of the most fascinating, elegant, brilliant engineering feats in the known universe. After that class, heat exchangers and screw threads seemed quite archaic. I once had a discussion with a very intelligent biomechanics PhD who was an atheist. We were talking about ID and this very same issue. He said if biology is designed then he'd no longer be interested in studying it. I disagreed and said the idea of studying and discovering the works of someone/something far beyond our intelligence is absolutely thrilling! Wouldn't it be interesting if we found some more works of DaVinci or some other genius? Microbiological discoveries continually make even human geniuses look like cavemen. That's my opinion, anyway. 2.) I don't know how much of an impact it would have on the "75%", but I know it would have a positive impact (if you find the idea of people staying with Christianity positive). You seemed to base most of your post on personal experience. Well my personal experience was that early in college I was all but driven to atheism by naturalism and claims of Darwinian evangelicals. The only rebuttal I had ever heard to "blind watchmaking" was Young Earth creationism or some other make-the-science-fit-the-doctrine system. I found them terribly unconvincing. It took me a while to truly understand what ID says because the atheist machine that calls ID "creationism" actually made me believe it was another make-the-science-fit-the-doctrine system. Once I took the time to study it, I found it undeniable. Law and chance CANNOT produce FCSI on the order of this Universe and it's lifespan. The main theme of your response seems to be a strong belief in absolute relativism. I must suggest Tim Keller's The Reason For God, or at least the first chapter. Why is it wrong to be certain in your faith? You are certain that others shouldn't be certain - does not your view contradict itself? I respect the view of the atheist comedian Penn Jillete (spelling?). Look up the video from his video diary about the guy who gave him a bible. He said he definitely does not believe Christianity but respects Christians who evangelize to him. He says if you truly believe what Christianity says (the only way to salvation and heaven is through faith in Christ) and you don't try to convert him and other non-believers to Christianity, you are despicable.uoflcard_{January 21, 2010
January
01
Jan
21
21
2010
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

Dear Billy, As a youth, and into my middle years, I was a militant, materialist atheist. But the more I learned about science, the more I began to question my faith. I no longer have enough faith to be an atheist, because of the evidence -- not just from cosmology and biology -- but from an honest inventory of the fallen nature of the human condition (that includes me, of course), from which neither you nor I have the power in our own strength to rescue ourselves. This observation and admission changes everything that matters, not only philosophically, but in one's personal life. I suggest that you reconsider your conclusions.GilDodgen_{January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

Clive, it's the commentary of a caricature. I didn't really intend mockery, but I suppose it is. If it's inappropriate for the thread, please delete. I'll try to be more constructive going forward.Apollos_{January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

Apollos,
One of the big problems with Christianity is that it presents a rigid view of morality which is not reconcilable with the modern age. I’m sure we could make a bigger tent for contemporary evangelicals if we considered the scriptures as a “living document,” which could be interpreted in light of our society’s (and the world’s) enlightened sense of morality. After all, those writings are at least a couple thousand years old. We know much more about pretty much everything these days. Not to mention, who can understand all those parables anyway? We need a more inclusive brand of religion. This dogmatic sense to “truth” that some of the characters in the bible proclaim is frankly offputting. If we know anything today, it’s that we don’t know anything — nothing is black and white — except for science, where we seem to have just about everything all figured out. From what I read in the newspapers, there isn’t much left to discover in order to cement our understanding of life and the universe. We’re almost there. Why not let our antiquated religious notions adjust to accommodate what is continuing to become a more illuminated modern age?
Is this sarcasm? I can't help but think that your comment is intended to be a mockery and that you're making light of this way of thinking.Clive Hayden_{January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

One of the big problems with Christianity is that it presents a rigid view of morality which is not reconcilable with the modern age. I'm sure we could make a bigger tent for contemporary evangelicals if we considered the scriptures as a "living document," which could be interpreted in light of our society's (and the world's) enlightened sense of morality. After all, those writings are at least a couple thousand years old. We know much more about pretty much everything these days. Not to mention, who can understand all those parables anyway? We need a more inclusive brand of religion. This dogmatic sense to "truth" that some of the characters in the bible proclaim is frankly offputting. If we know anything today, it's that we don't know anything -- nothing is black and white -- except for science, where we seem to have just about everything all figured out. From what I read in the newspapers, there isn't much left to discover in order to cement our understanding of life and the universe. We're almost there. Why not let our antiquated religious notions adjust to accommodate what is continuing to become a more illuminated modern age? Yes, our religious beliefs should be reigned in by our scientific ones, because the latter can be put to the test. Christianity can't survive much longer unless it makes serious accommodations for a more modern and sophisticated way of thinking. It's a wonder that it has survived this long. Let's face it, the bible just can't compete in today's world. Unless scripture (and church) can be made as interesting as an episode of Gossip Girl, I just can't get all that exited about Christianity. The bible is too contrary to my sense of culture. It's rigid, dogmatic, anachronistic; it claims to present the only path to truth. Besides, we really don't know what it's saying -- there are too many different interpretations.Apollos_{January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

Nakashima you can buy it but it looks like you also have to buy the TV series too for $75. :( Dembski's spot wasn't very long and it was pretty stock. Ok Billy, I'll bite. What are "the concerns of the Christians who were considering leaving evangelical Christianity behind"? It looks to me like this deal was addressed mostly to parents anyway. Also, what is wrong with an "attitude of certainty"? Can you give examples of people who don't have that?tragic mishap_{January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

Although not the complete answer, a large part of the problem is the reluctance on the part of parents to realize that public school is bad for their children.yorzhik_{January 20, 2010
January
01
Jan
20
20
2010
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

I missed it, will it be available as a podcast?Nakashima_{January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

Before the percentages were as high, I was one on the people Dr. Turek refers to now as, "The trend that 75% of Christian youth leave the church after high school." For me, and for many I know, events like this only served to accelerate the exodus. They weren't designed to address the concerns of the Christians who were considering leaving evangelical Christianity behind, but rather to reinforce the main problem, which is a prevailing attitude of certainty. It seems as though many ID propenents are blinded, and actually seem to believe the blatant participation of nearly only evangelical Christians in the ID debate should go unnoticed. As it is against the rules of this site to even bring it up for discussion. Yet, I don't get it either way. Let's suppose everything about ID proves successful. Then what? Will it make science more interesting for young people of all backgrounds? Most importantly, would it have much of an impact on the "75% of Christian youth" who leave the church? I doubt that it would, because the problem is, and has been, most Christian leaders shut out earnest believers who attempt to apply reason and evidence to their lives, and the discussions they have with church leaders. And there will always be young minds (thank God), who ask, "Suppose I am wrong. Let's see where this other path leads me." I came to far different conclusions than Turek, McDowell, Craig, and others. You can tell me it's against the rules to discuss why I came to those conclusions, but it won't help you stop the bleeding. More than likely, events like the one tonight will only open the wound more, and lead to more hemorrhaging. Billy Wheatonbillywheaton_{January 19, 2010
January
01
Jan
19
19
2010
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply