Dr. Frank Turek

I've seen some videos with him speaking. He's a smart dude. Definitely a good contributor if you want to discuss the interrelationships among observations, scientific work, and religious ideas.

In this video he is asked for his best argument against evolution. He says micro evolution makes sense but not macro evolution (humans from a primordial goo). I'm curious where the cutoff is between the two because it would seem the micro dictates the macro to some extent.

He uses an acronym LIFE.
L - limits to genetic change. This means that gene changes whether random or manipulated have a limit to what they can manifest. Dogs change but they remain dogs, for example.

I - irreducible complexity. Our cells are complex. They are a system of systems with many parts within and between the systems interacting with each other. One change to one part will ripple through and affect the other parts. He says you would need a particular change in all the parts of all the systems in order to produce some substantive change in the organism. This means a rather large change across the board in order to yield a substantively different organism. And it means that gradualism is rendered moot. Then he points out that even Dawkins has admitted that without gradualism, that "we're back to a miracle". This one is interesting because if it's system of systems and each part can affect the other parts like a ripple effect, and if there are/were trillions and trillions of interactions, it would seem you would end up with some that produce a ripple effect that leads to significant change. I see the logic here either way you slice it and I guess the exact parameters of a system must be known to know which way things actually lean. And that is a real problem.

F - fossil record. The record does not support gradualism, as there is an explosion in the appearance of fossils of different types. I think he said that 20 of the 28 major phyla in the plant world just appeared, fully formed, in the fossil record. No gradual changes etc. He quotes Dawkins again as saying that it looks like those things were just placed there. This leans more to a creation or design than a gradual change, in his estimation.

E - epigenetic information. You can't alter DNA and get a new organism. The structure stays the same. I guess he's saying that the machinery for protein construction is separate from DNA, and that it would have to change its capabilities to accommodate different instructions from DNA.

Finally he says that the laws that would be needed to drive macro evolution require an intelligence component, so you can't really ditch the God component.

I think he does a lot of college campus type talks. The few I've watched have been solid from an Evangelical Christian perspective.

quote:

---

He won’t convince anyone who doesn't already have a predisposition or openness to what he’s saying.

---

No one will.

You know why? Because no matter what anyone says, people who refuse to believe have already made up their minds and DON'T WANT God to exist.

Which is why Turek will stop and ask at a certain point, "If I were to give you a book, would you read it?" Or, "If I could—and I know this kind of proof doesn't exist—but theoretically IF I could prove to you beyond any shadow of any doubt that the Christian God exists, would you be glad and consider that good news?"

Because he knows that.

And I've never seen anyone he's asked that say they would read his (free) book, nor will any of them answer the second question. Which is answer enough. They don't disbelieve due to a lack of nuance in the arguments...hell, they can't keep up with the nuance that's in the arguments already (see below). They disbelieve because they want to, because in the final analysis, however it's dressed up on the way to this, believe comes down to one thing: I'm either willing for God's will to be done, or I insist that my will be done in my life.

William Lane Craig has debated everybody from Hitchens to Harris and according to the academic judges who moderate the events, has beaten them all. I literally am not aware of a single debate he has been judged by academic judges to have lost.

Doesn't make a bit of difference. The comments section is filled with people who declare the atheist the winner because they had such great Flying Spaghetti Monster jokes or they even claim that Craig is "using word tricks" just because he's using actual academic logic (which the atheists in the debates NEVER use).

Belief in God is a matter of the heart and of the soul. People don't believe because they don't want to. They literally choose to not believe.

Like any other generalization that may not be true of every single atheist on the planet, but I've seen enough of this sort of debate to convince me that it is true of the vast, vast majority of them.

I’ve watched many, maybe most, of his Utube videos. Most are compelling, and all are worth watching. However, I do disagree with him on somethings. Macro evolution is one of them. I’m Christian, but not a young earth Christian.

But I recommend him as a clear speaking thought provoking moral gentleman.

I watched some of his other videos and people left with a different perspective.