Evolution and some geologic history explained while she counters silly creationism / intelligent design arguments from Doug Wilson and the Answers in Genesis / Ken Ham people.
An important point she makes is that Doug Wilson and his followers not only hold these unscientific beliefs, but that they are actively engaged in building up networks of schools that will indoctrinate children with these beliefs instead of real science.
After covering state/church news, we report on the “war-mongering” Christian nationalist rhetoric at Charlie Kirk’s memorial.
Then, we hear distinguished attorney Richard Katskee speaking at the Scopes Trial Centennial conference about his role in the 2005 lawsuit in Dover, Pa., defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools.
The Genesis Paradise Lost movie from Eric Hovind's Creation Today remains popular and influential around the world. The movie proudly declares a message of young earth creationism, using stunning visual effects and interviews with the likes of Bodie Hodge, Chad Hovind, Charles Jackson, Danny Faulkner, David Menton, Georgia Purdom, Jeremy Lyon, John Baumgardner, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, Terry Mortenson, Tommy Mitchell, and Voddie Baucham.
As the movie is packed with scientific claims, but not enough screen time to go in-depth, this documentary will endeavor to go slowly through each claim and take a careful look at each and how it contributes to our view of God. Interview:
Brad speaks with scholar Mark Fugitt whose recent work explores the various sources and factors in evangelical opposition to the COVID vaccine. He provides the historical context for this movement, showing that it is half a century in formation.
He explains to Brad how everything from creationism, to Christian wellness, to anti-abortion sentiment, and the apocalypse play into fear-mongering around the COVID vaccine.
In this episode, Dan takes on the “design argument” that the purpose of human sex is procreation.
Here’s how the argument goes: If God created human beings, and therefore human sexuality, this means that the purpose of sex is procreation, because this is God’s intended purpose.
But does the argument work?
Dan argues that even if we presuppose human beings and their sexuality as a direct creation of God, the idea that the purpose of sex is procreation is STILL not compelling.
Human sexuality is so ineffective at bringing about procreation that it is implausible to suggest that this is its “design.” Check out this week’s episode to hear more!
How does a naturalistic, evolutionary understanding of human sex undermine the claim that the purpose of sex is procreation? How does it challenge claims about the meaning of sex based in creationist or natural law thinking? What fallacies are involved in the claim that the “purpose” of sex is procreation? Dan tackles these issues in this week’s episode.