RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (459) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 1267
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2014,12:19   

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 20 2014,15:03)
Timaeus laments that Karl Gibberson is fighting against straw men:    
But let’s face it; Giberson, Falk, etc. had their formative years in the 60s and 70s. They grew up as fundies and the great spiritual and intellectual crisis in their lives was their rebellion against their fellow-fundies Gish, Morris, etc. They are still reacting to that early crisis in their lives. They are still reliving those battles, in fact, have dedicated their lives to refighting those battles, reslaying those dragons, trying to justify over and over again, to themselves as much as to others, the decisions they made back then.

ID folks, by contrast, have mostly moved on. They aren’t talking about defending a literal Genesis, they aren’t contesting the age of the earth, etc. They are talking about information theory, about engineering and computer science conceptions of systems and design, about the physics of molecular structures and Platonic forms of protein folds etc. — all stuff which should interest any serious student of nature, but which Giberson etc. don’t care about. Giberson and his friends are intellectually frozen in a past era of religion/science controversy. And because they still think in outdated terms, they force ID into the old “creation versus evolution” mold, and then write ID off as “creationism.” Meanwhile, much smarter people by far, people like Nagel and Plantinga and Monton and Flew and others, are telling the world that ID isn’t creationism and that the world should give it a serious hearing. Giberson, Falk, etc. are simply going to be left behind.

The forum where Timaeus wrote this is crawling with YECs. I eagerly await their reaction.

They won't react, Big Tent and all.

By the way, the post immediately above the one you linked to is interesting:  
He is a well-known writer — though mainly in the evangelical world — on “science and theology,” but has no training in theology to speak of. His Ph.D. was in physics, and while he taught a course on theology and science for years at his little Nazarene College, he never had any notable academic achievement in theology and science, never had any published articles in any serious academic journals in that field. (He may have published one or two pieces in journals like Zygon, but to my knowledge you won’t find him in Isis, Review of Metaphysics, Journal of the History of Ideas, Scottish Journal of Theology, etc.)

He did publish several *books* on theology and science, but these books are all of a popular rather than an academic character,  and slanted toward evangelicals struggling with evolution and with science generally. They therefore aren’t used in graduate or even undergraduate courses in serious universities, but only in little Christian colleges and seminaries. (Serious universities aren’t concerned with the angst of evangelicals who fear science.)

Now who does that remind me of?  :p

Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  13747 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (459) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]