Dr. Charles Thaxton presents a lecture on Darwin's Surprise: Why Darwin Wouldn't Write the Origin Were He Alive Today. This lecture suggests what Darwin would think and write about if he were doing research today.
Full MP3 Audio here. (originally found here)
Enjoy.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(336)
-
▼
September
(27)
- James White vs. Dan Barker MP3: Was Jesus a Myth? ...
- Michael Licona Answering Bart Ehrman Interview MP3...
- William Lane Craig vs. George Williamson: Does God...
- Sunday Quote: F.F. Bruce on Jesus Christ
- Book Review: The Existence of God edited by John Hick
- Argument from the Irreducible Complexity of Living...
- The Inner Life of the Cell Video
- Dinesh D'Souza vs. Daniel Dennett: Is God a Man-Ma...
- William Lane Craig vs. Lewis Wolpert: Is God a Del...
- Sunday Quote: Don Stewart on Faith
- Book Review: Metaphysics: Constructing a Worldview...
- Argument from the Existence of Necessary Truths
- Free Apologetics Curriculum from Please Convince Me
- Ronald Nash Apologetics & Philosophy MP3 Audio
- William Lane Craig Q&A Videos and MP3s
- Saddleback Apologetics Conference Audio MP3 and Video
- Sunday Quote: Socrates on Reading
- Book Review: Philosophy of Religion by C. Stephen ...
- Argument from the Definition of God and the Superi...
- Featured Podcast: Theology Unplugged
- Apologetics 315 Blog Interview at Cloud of Witnesses
- Learning Skills 101: Series by Kenneth Samples MP3...
- Sunday Quote: Francis Crick on Origin of Life
- Book Review: The Existence of God by Richard Swinb...
- Argument from the Fine-Tuning of the Universe
- Darwin's Surprise MP3 Audio by Dr. Charles Thaxton
- Confidence in the Gospel MP3 Audio by Michael Green
-
▼
September
(27)
2 comments :
"Why Darwin Wouldn't Write the Origin Were He Alive Today."
Well, if Darwin didn't write it 150 years ago, Wallace would (and did) :-)
This all sounds like a car accident.
I should not listen, but I will have to download it.
Lee
I just finished listening to this and I must say it is almost complete rubbish. The scientific knowledge presented is at least from the 80’s which makes many of his arguments irrelevant and out of date (and they were probably bad in the 80’s too). It also comes across very demeaning to biologist. The most insulting part is when he says that the reason why biologists don’t accept intelligent design is because of psychological issues and not intellectual issues. Has he even looked at the mountains and mountains of evidence?! Argh!! (tearing my hair out!).
Post a Comment
Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.