I was just thinking if it would be a good idea or not for this group to start doing an interview with the theist they have discussions/debates with.  I think it would help make it clear where these people stand and give the debate more of a flow.  Also, it wouldn't have to be a long one but just a 2 minute deal or so kind of like something you would see on Inside the Actors Studio, but of course with different questions.

For instance

#1 How long have you been religious?

#2 Do you consider it possible that there is not a God in some form or that the holy text you read is imperfect?

#3  Do you consider people who do not follow your beliefs immoral or less moral?

 Something along those lines.

At one point he said something about 6 days could be 6 minutes or 6 years, something to that effect.

I think it was you Brian who said they would not talk about Falwell because the guest "was not Falwell" and that they were two different people.

It makes me wonder how the guest could have become acting president considering Falwell's offical stance on the 6 day creation story of Genisis. It is my understanding that Falwell litterally believes that it happened in 6-24 hour days.

Mind you though, it wasn't untill the mid 90s, if I remember correctly, seeing Falwell on TV finally admitting that the Bible was written over a thousand year period.

Hey I couldn't get to the site when the show started!!! Bandwidth problems? I sooo wanted to watch this show live! Is it available for download somewhere?

For a man of his age, his theology was no better than the average 17 year old you-tuber.

I mean com'n!  The bible is infallible, but we must individually interpret it?   This guy wasn't doing an interview, he was playing 'dodge the question'.

The most telling comment he made was when he said "I am a contextual apologist".  What the hell is that?  Change the context whenever you don't like or understand something to better fit your preconceptions?

I was totally unimpressed with anything he said and became frustrated about 2/3 the way in and stopped listening.  When the video is put up, I will finish it but as it stands, I felt very disappointed in his evasive and juvenile answers.

I wrote a review of last night's interview of Dr Caner on my blog. Here is a short excerpt:

"When I consider the replies Dr Caner gave to the RRS's questions, ultimately I find myself looking at two very different worldviews which do nevertheless coincide somewhere in the middle. Goodness knows how! Not only was he willing (and forthcoming) to admit that religion is a very dangerous idea, but that those who peddle blind-faith are also dangerous. He actively promotes doubt, though I must wonder if this is not simply done in a theatrical way, a way through which he can set forth a stage and create unilateral scenarios for a premeditated conclusion, since though for instance he did cast doubt on his faith and on certain interpretations of the Bible, his relentless conclusion was one of biblical inerrancy and of the certainty (not doubt) that his god existed.

I also found myself screaming out at the feed with frustrated "but you're not answering the question" or "but that was not the question". In a sense, I suppose it is only fair to concede that, as Dr Caner put it, because he is trained as a philosopher, he does find it difficult to restrict himself to a particular subject without looking to explore the question just as much as he does the answer. I also could not put away the feeling that he was attempting to fall back on previously thought-out and well rehearsed tracks. In the most powerful example of this, Dr Caner attempts to explain the reason why Adam and Eve must be punished by their god based upon the order by this god to not eat the apple. He uses freewill to explain this, which is a technique to which I am very accustomed. But he fails to answer the question put to him by the RRS, which was that of the futility of punishing a person if they do not know the difference between right and wrong since it was only after they ate the apple (after hearing the truth put to them by the snake) that they acquired this knowledge. Prior to this, they had no conception that disobeying their god was wrong or of the consequences, so punishing these two child-like gullible fools for this was not only unfair but also extremely overkill. Either Dr Caner did not understand this point or he wanted to avoid the issue, the question remained unanswered (I suspect that it was the former since he struck me as a genuine person).

I was also struck by the blind faith of this person. When asked for the 3 best pieces of evidence by which to prove his god, Dr Caner expanded somewhat too much and ended up forwarding a few others. But when I consider the deistic nature of his proposals, I fail to see how any of this could lead anyone, let alone a group of Atheists, to accept his particular brand of Christianity. A few examples of his evidence were the "universality of theism", "first cause" and "the need for something bigger". These struck me not only as being poor arguments to put to a group of intelligent skeptics, but aslo as being extremely weak since not only do they support an agnostic deistic stance, they also go so far as to support every single other theistic stance imaginable. Nowhere during the interview does Dr Caner answer the question of validity of one particular religion over another. He seems very much content on establishing arbitrarily that a god exist and then puts a beard and a white robe on this faceless, unidentified entity. But I suppose that this is were faith jumps in and why I always fail to make that leap (though in all honesty, I never make it past First Cause anyway).

Similarly, in very interesting but oft circular discussions with Rook, Dr Caner seems to arbitrarily establish that the Bible is inerrant, but when asked to prove this, he utilizes a panoply of techniques to extract one particular apologetic interpretation from the text. All other interpretations are dismissed and not even considered because they contradict his foregone conclusion. The fact that he, himself, states that he may be wrong should at least open him to the possibility that since his interpretation may be wrong, the Bible may in that particular instance contradict itself. But with the arbitrary decision that the Bible is inerrant and only human interpretation found to be flawed, Dr Caner fails to prove his point and simply saps the ground under his feet and is left standing on nothing more than blind faith, which of course inevitably proves the RRS' point: You cannot prove that something is inerrant by utilizing blind faith. It is no different than proving that orcs exist by reading Lord of the Rings and saying "trust me on this one".

Nevertheless, Dr Caner is by far the most intelligent and educated Christian apologist that I have had the pleasure of hearing. Listening to him, I have finally realized why I am wasting my time debating literalist and absolutist Christians on MySpace: Dr Caner is academically trained and hasn't learnt everything he knows from reading Lee Strobbel and watching YouTube videos. Dr Caner's thoughts are his own and he's considered the alternatives, which is why he so honestly embraces doubt (unless it saps his blind faith and his faith in Biblical Inerrancy). He is not simply the 104th person on the "Indian Telephone" of Christianity on MySpace or in Christian communities. When you spend a few weeks debating literalist Christians on MySpace, you soon realize that none of their arguments are fresh, intelligent or in fact of their own creation. One might go so far as to claim that they all come from the very same origin. Is there a page online which teaches these individuals to evangelise? Could this explain why they all sound alike and why they all commit the same mistakes? Needless to say that it was a breath of fresh air to listen to someone who had a brain of his own and who raised some very valid points."

Read the full review

I'm sure that I'm not alone in looking forward to a future meeting between Dr Caner and the RRS. Way to go guys! That was a job truly well done!

~Nils

1. The Linnean system of taxonomical classification has no special provision to "note" transitional fossils. This creates the unfortunate illusion that no transitional forms exist.

2. The Cambrian Explosion actually represents the evolution of fossilizable body parts. It was not until shells, teeth and bones developed that fossilization could readily occur. If you're trying to suggest that the Cambrian Explosion actually represents Creation Week as depicted in Genesis, then you must explain why Cambrian rock strata contain neither reptiles nor mammals. This absence discounts the idea that God simultaneously created all lifeforms.

3. Archaeopteryx had teeth and scales. These are not common avian characteristics.

 David Mills

Yes, ad hocism is the driving force of his apologetics. He doesn't seem willing to openly consider that the 'pure truth' that he derives from the bible comes from him simply reinterpreting a problematic passage into something else.

If we applied such ad hoc methodology to anything else, we could find the same 'truth'.

2+2=5  - wrong?

No. Not for very high values of 2.

2+2=27 - wrong?

No, cleary the writer knows that 2+2=4, ergo this is a joke.

and so on... we can even make a game of it. 

We listened to Dr. Caner.... his first presumption was always that the bible is true.

As for the tough questions: he ran from them or tried to reintepret them.

He was pleasant to us, and he gave a good deal of lip service to critical thinking, but when pressed, he turned to ad hoc reinterpretations, or simply evasions.

Actually, you have it backwards. The discussion is what led to my conclusion. 

The macro/micro evolutionary distinction is mainly a creationist bugaboo.... this is already a tip off that you're not approaching the subject as an evolutionary scientist would...

Science never proves anything. Science is inductive and works through falsification (modus tollens). Science supports.

Basic errors abound here.

From: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Macroevolution_has_never_been_observed 

Generally, creationists do not define macroevolution in the same precise way that biologists do, allowing them to continually shift the goalposts as to what qualifies as macroevolution. Biologists generally define the boundary as change above the level of species, and there have been directly observed instances of speciation as well as many examples of recent speciation in the wild.

• The honeysuckle maggot fly has recently been found to have directly arisen from a hybridization between the snowberry maggot fly and the blueberry maggot fly.
• In 1905, in his patch of Oenothera lamarckiana, Hugo de Vries discovered an unusual specimen, and found that he was unable crossbreed it with its parent-plants. He later named it O. gigas, and found that it had 2N=28, while its parent had 2N=14.

 More on speciation can be found here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

You state this authoritatively, without any source.

If you really know much of anything about evolution, can you tell me why I can refute each of your claims by simply posting from Talkorigins? Each of your claims indicates that you haven't even bothered to simply go to a library and read what evolutionists actually say!

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

1. The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000). (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000). There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Fossil microorganisms have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004).
   
   
2. There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms (Conway Morris 1998).
   
   
3. Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999).
   
   Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record.
   
   And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.
   
   
4. The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.

This is simply false.  

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201_1.html

Claim CC201.1:

Source:

Response:

1. The theory of punctuated equilibrium is based on positive evidence, including extensive studies of living and extinct species groups (Eldredge and Gould 1972).
   
   
2. The idea of phyletic gradualism, which is invoked to justify a lack of gaps, fails to fit the evidence of population biology.
   
   
3. There is nothing wrong with proposing theories to fit the data.

Links:

Only within the strawman version of it, in your head. 

You've already been refuted. This happens whenver you try to argue a point over which you are fundamentally ignorant.

Should have stopped this post here since it encompasses the thread topic. Instead you go on a tangent(do they teach trig at Liberty?)

Your idea of 'tough questions' and their 'answers' is lacking in my opinion. The theory of evolution is not plural. You are confusing belief with science here. Evolution isn't a doctrine at all.

I would prefer a school that stops right there in it's title. Rather than forcing education, would it not be better to teach people the processes involved in discovering the answers for themselves? You are given 'doctrine' to choose between. It is educating an ideology instead of merely educating.

Why mention theism first? This, to me, speaks directly to the point that you wish to use anything connected with science to try and prove your theism instead of approaching the scientific method as it should be with no preconceived notions.

Bonus points if you can point out who first made this distinction in your understanding of evolution. They aren't separate. If one is proven then.....

Gaps should not be filled with gods that require more explanation than the gap itself needs.

You leave off very important words such as 'yet'. Natural selection does not work that way, friend.

Natural selection is not 'change' it is the survivability of changes. Your profession of 'long periods of slight change' is incorrect and bespeaks volumes of the education provided by your 'university'. Changes occur and the best changes survive while species that were at the 'top' of their food chain and adaptability continue to exist. The weaker species unable to survive die out.

If you think for one minute that the rise of species follows some linear well-ordered chain of adaptations then you have succumbed to doctrine and shunned science. I pity you for the universe you ignore.

Semantics. 'would he be able to' is never the same as 'he did'. It is that 'leap of faith' that Caner is aiding his students in accepting just as any preacher does.

I have absolutely no problem reading the bible. I have problems with believing something because it says that it is true.

Hypothetical questions allow for hypothetical answers. Here's one or two: Are you positive that YOU are reading the bible correctly? Has your god answered your prayers with 'special' insight that allows you to be ensured of your interpretation?

Natural selection by no means equates with 'be fruitful and multiply'. Natural selection is the survival of the fittest. 'be fruitful and multiply' is allegory for spreading one faith throughout the world.

Then why proceed with an off-topic post?

It seems that you have your mind made up anyway. It would be nothing more than attending church. I would come to Liberty. However, it is much more productive to maintain this type of communication than a face-to-face sermon would be.

'Time constraints'??? This site isn't going anywhere. There is nothing wrong with being in the open on cyber-space. Just be honest about your answers and either agree to disagree or admit proven points also it is okay to ask for us to admit when you might have made a point that hasn't been sufficiently responded to in the forums. Just don't troll. Try to stick to the forum topic and try to find threads where your questions or answrs are relevant.

Again. There is no problem with continuing discussions on the boards. I use e-mail for communication with so many other theists that you might get lost in the mix.

Writing is very important to science because it is needed to effectively communicate ideas to others.