Dr. Greg Bahnsen Lecture - A Philosophical Critique of Evolution (Audio Only)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лют 2020
- This is a clip from a lecture presented by the great Christian apologist and philosopher Greg Bahnsen who is engaging in a critical analysis of evolution.
I would maintain that evolution is compatible at least with various forms of Christian Theism. At any rate, I post this video because I think that (as usual) Bahnsen gives us good reason to engage in deeper reflection on these matters.
This is a hidden gem from the great man. The Road to Rome is another great series. To God be the glory!
A wonderful critique with great evidence from proponents of the theory itself
Nope.
Fantastic! Is the rest available?
Yes, I have the entire lecture. I don't think the entire lecture was on the topic of evolution, but he did say more about it than what is recorded here. Once I find it, I'll upload a part 2 segment.
@@deveritateapologeticsandph4908 Thank you; this lecture is some real destruction of powers and principalities.
@@matOpera Ive settled on soft tissue in dinosaur fossils, and now even collagen, and NOW even dna strands:
1. Cannot POSSIBLY be 100,000 years old. It is a hard falsification. Soft tissue maybe could. Collagen no way. Dna even more ridiculous
2. Doesn’t the fact that the popular science press hasn’t mentioned this bombshell tell you all you need to know about the reliability of the processes that filter informations down to you.
I just keep hammering those. People are so dumb and arrogant (me included not all that long ago) that detailed discussion will always lead to denial.
Exposing modern sophistry
The first 4 minutes of this lecture clip are of Bahnsen misrepresenting and misparaphrasing Gould. Bahnsen claims Gould explicitly stated in his 1977 Paleo Biology article, where he introduced Punctuated Equillibrium, that, "..the theory of evolution is not a high level generalization from the study of nature..."
At 19:36 of another lecture called, "Answering Evolution and Islam", Bahnsen quoted Gould directly.
Bahnsen said,
"And so, in Paleobiology, 1977, page 145, Stephen Jay Gould explains to us why gradualism has been preferred. And I quote, 'The general preference that so many of us hold for gradualism is a metaphysical stance embedded in the history of Western cultures. It is not a high order empirical observation induced from the objective study of nature.'"
That's interesting. In one lecture Bahnsen said Gould admitted that all of evolutionary theory is not based on observation, then in another he says Gould admitted that gradualism is what is not based on observation.
Maybe so, but the crotique of the pseudosciencein general is spot on, no?
@@FightFilms Not sure if I understand your question. Can you elaborate? Are you referring to Gould's statement about gradualism, the assumption that evolution happens gradually and at a steady rate?
At 2:27, Bahnsen takes a statement from Huxley, and caims that what he said regarding evolution and how its results have some theological implications is somehow true of evolutionary theory itself. This was just one person's commentary regarding some socio-religious aspect or result of it. If Gould came out and said, "Wow! Evolution is so amazing! Isn't God amazing to have put that into motion?" it would not make evolutionary theory theistic all of a sudden because one professional scientist said something like this.
Likewise, it is highly probable that there are many disagreements among those who profess Christianity. It would not be appropriate for me to take the statement of Kenneth Copeland regarding the prosperity gospel and conclude that this statement is true of Christianity as a whole, on the basis that a preacher said it.
Bahnsen claims that, although Darwinian evolution was debunked immediately, it was still popular because of its anti-religious motivation. What evidence is there that Darwin was popular back in the mid to late 1800s because people liked that his theory was anti-religious?
There is no evidence of Darwinism being accepted for anti-religious motivation. It wasn't well accepted at first, though. At the same time, Darwinism wasn't the only view for evolution at the time. Most Christian scientists were evolutionists before Darwin came along but they didn't accept it immediately.
"By the 1880s, Darwinism had made little headway in the scientific community even while evolution itself was nearly universally held.[18] Scientists simply felt that natural selection was not the primary mechanism. In other words, the Christian response to Darwin was nearly identical to that of the broader scientific community." Seth Hart, Christianity’s War on Darwinism, or the War that Never Happened
It would make no sense for Darwinism to be accepted because of anti-religious motivation considering...
"In fact, Darwin’s most famous and vocal proponent in the United States was the Harvard botanist and evangelical Christian Asa Gray, and it was through his assistance that The Origin of Species was first published and propagated within the United States. Like many of his contemporaries, Gray found in Darwinism an even greater case for a cosmic designer than in special creationism.[3] " Seth Hart, Did American Christians Wage War on Darwin? (Spoiler Alert: No)
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou Awesome! Thanks for the references. I'll check them out.
It's a shame this guy died so hopelessly ignorant. Makes me hope he was a huckster. Given his intentional misquote of Gould he may well be.
How did he misquote Gould?
@@FightFilms the idea that Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium because of some deficiency in the fossil record is an intentional misrepresentation. It could only be believed by those who have never read Gould and are completely ignorant of the topic. He counts on his audience's ignorance and their unwillingness or inability to look things up and check what the preacher is saying to them.
@@FightFilms or to let Gould speak for himself: "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." (Gould 1983) --Still think Gould felt he had to "explain away" a lack of transitional forms in the fossil record?
@@FightFilms In another comment I point out that Bahnsen here says Gould admitted in print that "the theory of evolution" is a metaphysical stance not based on evidence, but Gould said this about gradualism, not the whole of evolutionary theory itself. Bahnsen often equates gradualism with the entire theory of evolution. Gradualism merely suggests that evolutionary change happens at a slow, steady rate. It is a huge error to conflate these matters to an audience.
It's ashame your ignorance has misled you down the wrong path.