In this clip I don't hear Keller say there is or isn't a God. I don't hear him say that evolution is bunk or not. I hear him saying that Dawkins argument is spurious for several reasons.

As I understand it, the scientific method requires that something must be falsifiable; evolution is not. I'm not saying evolution doesn't happen, just that you can't apply the scientific method to it. Also, the scientific method is always in the hands of humans. That is the fly in the ointment. Humans are hugely fallible. The method may be perfect, but the handlers aren't.

I think it would be beneficial to watch the entire talk so that Keller isn't being made the problem for pointing out the problem. There is a problem and it isn't Keller or me. It isn't you either. It's the fallibility of humans not being taken into account in this equation.

>> ^PalmliX:

Who cares if he quotes two "respectable secular sources"? Just because someone is "respected" and "secular" doesn't mean that what they have to say on any given subject will be truthful or even meaningful.
Even if the most respected scientist in the world came out and said that God was absolutely real it still wouldn't matter. They wouldn't be able to provide any evidence for their claim and at the end of the day the opinion of one, or even several scientists isn't all that important. It's the facts that matter, things that we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true.
As far as I can tell, Tim Keller's basic point is that a belief in evolution is the same as a belief in a god because if evolution is correct and our beliefs are formed purely for survival reasons and don't necessarily tell us what is true, than how can judge the objective truth of our various beliefs?
Well I know of one particularly effective way of judging our beliefs. It's called the scientific method and it works because it only deals with facts, only with things that can be proven true. Anything else is useless.
I'm glad that you found Plantiga's observation fascinating as well as humorous, and Lewis' comments on transparency germane to the conversation, but so what? So what if his audience is UC Berkly and they laughed at his jokes? This doesn't change the facts of our universe. Now maybe as you said, Keller's point has been lost in translation and I'm just not 'getting it', so please help me to understand.
>> ^silvercord:
Why is it that he is quoting two respectable SECULAR sources for the refutation of Dawkins', et al, conclusions and is first being accused of arguing against evolution (he isn't doing this) and then being accused as the one who didn't think the refutation through. Hmmmm.
I find Plantiga's observation fascinating as well as humorous, btw, and Lewis' comments on transparency germane to the conversation. It seems his audience (UC Berkeley) is tracking. Maybe it's being lost in translation here.
>> ^PalmliX:
Why explain or attempt to know anything then? I just don't get the point this guy is trying to make. Are there not facts that exist in this universe? When I leave the apartment every morning I take the elevator I don't jump out of my 10th floor window. Is my "belief" in gravity the same as someone else's "belief" in god?
I seriously think this guy doesn't actually understand the scientific process. Science ONLY deals with facts. It ONLY deals with things we can know FOR SURE. Now if provable facts aren't enough for this guy then nothing ever will be.

Who cares if he quotes two "respectable secular sources"? Just because someone is "respected" and "secular" doesn't mean that what they have to say on any given subject will be truthful or even meaningful.

Even if the most respected scientist in the world came out and said that God was absolutely real it still wouldn't matter. They wouldn't be able to provide any evidence for their claim and at the end of the day the opinion of one, or even several scientists isn't all that important. It's the facts that matter, things that we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true.

As far as I can tell, Tim Keller's basic point is that a belief in evolution is the same as a belief in a god because if evolution is correct and our beliefs are formed purely for survival reasons and don't necessarily tell us what is true, than how can judge the objective truth of our various beliefs?

Well I know of one particularly effective way of judging our beliefs. It's called the scientific method and it works because it only deals with facts, only with things that can be proven true. Anything else is useless.

I'm glad that you found Plantiga's observation fascinating as well as humorous, and Lewis' comments on transparency germane to the conversation, but so what? So what if his audience is UC Berkly and they laughed at his jokes? This doesn't change the facts of our universe. Now maybe as you said, Keller's point has been lost in translation and I'm just not 'getting it', so please help me to understand.
>> ^silvercord:

Why is it that he is quoting two respectable SECULAR sources for the refutation of Dawkins', et al, conclusions and is first being accused of arguing against evolution (he isn't doing this) and then being accused as the one who didn't think the refutation through. Hmmmm.
I find Plantiga's observation fascinating as well as humorous, btw, and Lewis' comments on transparency germane to the conversation. It seems his audience (UC Berkeley) is tracking. Maybe it's being lost in translation here.
>> ^PalmliX:
Why explain or attempt to know anything then? I just don't get the point this guy is trying to make. Are there not facts that exist in this universe? When I leave the apartment every morning I take the elevator I don't jump out of my 10th floor window. Is my "belief" in gravity the same as someone else's "belief" in god?
I seriously think this guy doesn't actually understand the scientific process. Science ONLY deals with facts. It ONLY deals with things we can know FOR SURE. Now if provable facts aren't enough for this guy then nothing ever will be.

It also wasn't made by NASA, but rather by English artists Ruth Jarman and Joe Gerhardt for BBC Channel 4. The interviews were shot at the Space Sciences Lab, UC Berkly, but the film and animation are by the artists.

http://www.semiconductorfilms.com/root/Magnetic_Movie/Magnetic.htm

http://cse.ssl.berkeley.edu/