Counter Apologetics

The Discovery Institute, an ID thinktank, has a list of “Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design.” On this list is an article authored by Michael Behe, alleging to prove the irreducible complexity of certain protein binding sites. However, his experiment demonstrated the exact opposite point as intended. He had to rig his study to an incredible degree, only to fall short nonetheless.

Watch it on YouTube here: Intelligent Design Theorist Accidentally Produces Scientific Evidence Against Intelligent Design

Behe’s article, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues”

For more on intelligent design, irreducible complexity, and evolutionary biology, check out my Biology and Design playlist

Rate the show on iTunes!

Support on Patreon here

Transcript 

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

linktr.ee/emersongreen

watch the video version here

Support at patreon.com/counter or /waldenpod

Follow on Twitter @waldenpod

Transcript 

Linktree

Answers in Reason – Ten Questions for Theists

Braxton Hunter – Ten Questions for Atheists

my responses to Braxton

We’ll be exploring what the discovery of evolution potentially means for religion. Is evolution evidence against theism? If so, why? Is it incompatible with Christianity, as some Christians maintain? What is the conceptual landscape vis-à-vis evolution and theism—as in, what is the range of potential options available to a religious believer when it comes to evolution? We also briefly discuss evolutionary evil as evidence against God’s existence, and argue that the acceptance of evolution does not dissolve all the problems that arise between evolution and theism. Accepting evolution doesn’t mean you’re off the hook.

linktr.ee/emersongreen

YouTube

Transcript (and further links)

Support the Show

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here

Rate the show on iTunes here

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

Joe Schmid & Micah Edvenson on Evolutionary Evil

Joe Schmid & Non-Alchemist on Evolutionary Evil

Human beings seem cosmically unimportant. Though certainly from God’s perspective, we are more important than stars, rocks, vast stretches of empty space and time, and other things that don’t seem to possess any value in and of themselves, the latter group seems to have been afforded the lion’s share of the cosmos. Human beings, presumably the jewel of God’s creation, don’t seem to be the main event. So, does this favor naturalism or theism? Is the unimaginable vastness of time and space, and the lack of human centrality therein more probable on naturalism, or on theism?

If the universe is indifferent to human life, it’s no surprise that humans seem cosmically unimportant, not occupying a position of centrality or significance in an incomprehensibly vast ocean of space. The reality of our situation is sharply contrasted with the one our ancestors imagined themselves to be in. As William Lane Craig put it, “on the cozy, pre-Copernican cosmology—what C. S. Lewis called ‘the discarded image’ of the cosmos—theism seemed vastly more probable than atheism. Like a Fabergé egg, the little universe centered on the Earth, with the spheres of the planets and fixed stars revolving about it, cried out for an explanation in terms of a Cosmic Designer.”

We also discuss the “symmetry of evidence” and get a bit into the weeds of Bayes’ theorem.

linktr.ee/emersongreen

Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here

Rate the show on iTunes here

Support on Patreon here

YouTube

Transcript

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

/ / / 

On likelihoodism observation O is evidence for hypothesis H over ¬H iff P(O|H) > P(O|¬H). 

Since P(O|H) + P(¬O|H) = 1 and P(O|¬H) + P(¬O|¬H) = 1, we can insert it into the prior formula to get an interesting result:

1 – P(¬O|H) > 1 – P(¬O|¬H)

P(¬O|¬H) > P(¬O|H)

So, in English, O is evidence for H over ¬H iff ¬O is evidence for ¬H over H. The means that you can have evidence for a hypothesis iff you can have evidence against a hypothesis.

Two other ways of expressing the same point that “O is evidence for H over ¬H iff ¬O is evidence for ¬H over H”:

P(h|e) > P(h) iff P(h|~e) < P(h)

E being evidence for H entails that ~E is evidence for ~H

Read more here from Hugh Jidiette

or here from Michael Huemer

William Lane Craig – Does the Vastness of the Universe Support Naturalism?

Emily Thomas – Does the size of the universe prove God doesn’t exist?

Carl Sagan – The Cosmic Calendar

After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right – NYT

New Scientist – Vatican admits Galileo was right

Arguments from Scale – Tim Mulgan

Today, I’m speaking with The Non-Alchemist about the trials and tribulations of deconversion, reasons for being an atheist, lacktheism, Calvinism, Christian double-standards regarding testimonial evidence, the state of apologetics, what stuff is real, and more. Here’s this interview on YouTube with video (this episode was recorded on Streamyard and originally posted on YouTube).

NA’s channel

Emerson’s appearance on NA’s channel

Follow us @waldenpod and @AlchemistNon

Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here

Rate the show on iTunes here

Support on Patreon here

Linktree

Here’s my debate with Zac of Adherent Apologetics on the problem of evil, hosted by the Non–Alchemist. I focus on the problem of animal suffering and defend an argument called the teleological argument from evil.

Video of the debate here

linktr.ee/emersongreen

Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here

Rate the show on iTunes here

Support on Patreon here

YouTube

emersongreenblog.wordpress.com

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

There are five reasons, broadly, why I’m an atheist: 

I. We don’t need God to explain anything.

II. There are few phenomena that are better explained by theistic models than by atheistic models.

III. There are many phenomena that are better explained by atheistic models than by theistic models.

IV. Theism is more metaphysically profligate than naturalism as an explanation.

V. Theism suffers from various internal problems.

We discuss each of these reasons, abductive atheology, and several issues related to atheism.

linktr.ee/emersongreen

Listen to our sister show, Walden Pod here

Rate the show on iTunes here

Support on Patreon here

YouTube

Follow me on Twitter @waldenpod

Music by ichika Nito & Whalers. Used with permission.

Transcript 

/ / / 

Abductive Atheology – Timothy Perrine & Stephen Wykstra

Paul Draper’s Case for Naturalism (with transcript)

Graham Oppy explains “The Best Argument Against God”

Richard Swinburne on building a cumulative case

A few thoughts on what it means to be an atheist

On Atheism’s Intuitive Appeal:

100,000 Years

God’s Checklist

The “Good News”

Can you be an “agnostic atheist,” or are those terms mutually exclusive? I try to explain how the famous four quadrant graph misunderstands the nature of belief, knowledge, and agnosticism.

the chart in question

Joe Schmid on Agnosticism and Justification [YouTube]

Gettier and knowledge with Kane B and Cole Nasrallah [YouTube]

What is knowledge? [SEP]

The Analysis of Knowledge [SEP]

Graham Oppy – Atheism: The Basics [Amazon]

Transcript for this episode

twitter.com/waldenpod (@waldenpod)

linktr.ee/emersongreen