The Dawning of a New Day

Bookmark and Share

December 31, 2010 Tags: Christian Unity

Today's entry was written by Darrel Falk. You can read more about what we believe here.

The Dawning of a New Day

BioLogos and its impact on the evangelical scene was one of the top ten stories of 2010 as judged by both Christianity Today and The Gospel Coalition. This is good, I suppose. However, we have barely begun to deal with the issues in a substantive manner. The reason BioLogos made the “big ten” was because of the hype associated with personal interest stories. Bruce Waltke, the 80 year old much-loved biblical scholar chose to resign from his seminary position over the commotion created by a statement he made about evolution. Albert Mohler, among the most important evangelicals in the world, noticed us—then, like a giant annoyed by a buzzing little fly, attempted to squish us, not with a swat, but with a few delicately placed strokes on his keyboard.

BioLogos is not a little fly, however, and it is not going to go away. Dr. Mohler, giant as he is in fundamentalist/evangelical circles, represents a view that takes on the entire scientific enterprise. To this day, I have not been able to identify a single person who holds a science faculty position in any Biology, Geology or Physics Department at any secular research university in the world who would agree with Dr. Mohler’s view of creation. Not one, out of what I imagine are tens of thousands, including many who are strongly committed to living the Christian life in the context of fully orthodox Christian theology. If there is any such person, I urge them to contact us at info@biologos.org. I don’t want to overstate my case.

We live in a scientific age and that is not going to change. For hundreds of years now science has been successfully informing us about the natural world. The Church need not take the entire world of science on, and it must not allow itself to be led by those with enormous rhetorical skill and the keenest of intellects, even though they are sincere and love the Lord with all their hearts, souls and minds. These people, gifted as they are, are taking the Church down a dead end road. Scientific knowledge is not deeply flawed and we cannot allow ourselves to be led down this pathway any longer.

So can we in the BioLogos community pat ourselves on the back because evangelical Christianity may finally be starting to think about evolutionary creation? Absolutely not! The issues are enormous and the real task has barely begun.

Why is the task so difficult? What have I learned this past year in my leadership role at BioLogos that I may not have fully appreciated one year ago?

1. The “scientific enterprise” to which the Church seems to pay attention is a formidable force

Scientific issues are normally worked out among people who are highly specialized. All interpretations of data are subject to extensive peer review by experts who have spent thousands of hours reading countless sophisticated journal articles. This is a process thoroughly honed over the centuries and it has been extremely successful in revealing amazingly intricate detail about the tapestry of the natural world.

This “science enterprise” to which the Church is paying attention, however, is different. A tiny group of people work out their ideas in think tanks which have a particular agenda from the beginning. There is tremendous pressure to substantiate a pre-conceived idea. Furthermore, the ideas, pre-conceived as they are, are not further honed among competing labs each with their own highly specialized crew of experts. Rather they are quickly taken to the public sphere. The next thing that happens is that people with almost no background in the subject matter have become the “crew of experts” and they are doing so anonymously on the internet with little accountability. How could the Church have ever bought into a science done in this manner? How could the scientists, sincere people that they are, with very high levels of integrity subscribe to this way of doing things?

Let me give one example of the dire consequences of this sort of approach for doing the Church’s “science.” William Dembski is, of course, one of the three or four most important figures in the Intelligent Design movement. He has laid out several foundational principles of Intelligent Design theory. In 2007, an amazing thing happened. Dr. Joe Felsenstein who is likely one of the top mathematical biologists in the world took the time to look carefully at Dembski’s ideas. This was a very big deal because it is hard to get busy scientists to take the time to pay attention to people whose ideas seem to them like the annoying little flies I spoke of earlier. But Felsenstein did this and his article can be found here. Felsenstein, in essence, showed that two of Dembski’s most important ideas were wrong at their very core. However, to our knowledge Dembski has never replied and his public still buys into his ideas even though he has, to our knowledge never addressed the issue of their defeat by perhaps the best expert in the world.

In the real world of science the norm is to have ideas critiqued in this manner. If they don’t pass muster they are discarded and there is great pressure to move on from antiquated ideas. This alternative world of doing science in small closed groups, then bringing the findings to the public, and then effectively ignoring what the best minds have to say about the work is a most unusual situation. It is very hard to dispel false notions when science is done this way.

My point here is not to expose that this happens in this world of science into which the Church seems to have bought. My point, rather, is to use this to illustrate the huge challenge ahead of us. It is very difficult to defeat scientific myths if those who propagate them to huge audiences of non-experts won’t admit that they are wrong. Normal science has checks and balances in place in a world overseen by a community of experts with significant incentives to show when ideas are wrong. This other “scientific enterprise” represents a whole different way of doing science, and it presents a whole different set of challenges in getting rid of antiquated ideas. I can express a concern about this to my heart’s content (or discontent I guess), but this is a situation that is unlikely to change quickly. There is far too much at stake—politically, financially and ideologically. It is one of the three enormous challenges we face. But we must face it and there are enough of us that care now, that eventually, I believe, the Church will cease its association with this unusual way of doing science.

2. Finding the correct path when “his banner over us is love” presents unique challenges

At the beginning of this past year, I had not yet fully appreciated the importance of the delicate task of building Christian unity while at the same time holding each other accountable for scientific and theological integrity. Dembski’s public silence on the above issue (so far as I know) is a very significant concern to me as a fellow believer. However as a fellow-believer, I have certain constraints. Bill and I, (or Fuz and I, or Hugh and I, for that matter) are, first and foremost, Christian brothers who operate on the basis of love being by far the most important criteria by which we interact with one another. Paul said, “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” These are beautiful words and they must be foundational in how I interact with others who think differently. I have sat around a dinner table with all three of the above individuals at various times. Similarly, I have appreciated such times with a number of other leaders of groups who think differently. Although I didn’t know him personally, Henry Morris lived within a few blocks of me and I attended his funeral a few years ago. I was deeply moved by the sincere Christ-centered quality of this man’s life. How do we hold each of these people accountable, when it seems they are so wrong, but we are called to be people who are known for our love? How do we do hold them accountable when we feel they do much harm and we are sometimes extremely disappointed in their tactics? (I assume the same is true of them as it relates to us, as well.) This is the second enormous challenge then. We are all human. Our ego can easily get sucked into this discussion. Can we stay Christians even when we disagree so sharply about all sorts of things? There is no choice, for if love is ever superseded by the desire for correct knowledge, our work and our lives cease to be Christian. With that, all that we are working towards becomes nothing more than a puff of hot air—here today and gone tomorrow.

3. For some, the theological challenges are enormous

The third enormous challenge relates to the fact that the theological issues associated with evolutionary creation seem so huge to so many evangelicals. Will we ever be able to show the followers of Albert Mohler, John MacArthur and others that Christian theology doesn’t stand or fall on how we understand Genesis 1 or the question of whether Adam and Eve were the sole genetic progenitors of the human race? These are extremely critical issues to many and the task of showing in a convincing manner that evangelical theology doesn’t depend on the age of the earth, and it doesn’t depend upon whether Adam was made directly from dust will likely take decades before it will be convincing to all. The Church did eventually accept heliocentricity, but the theological issues (at least to many individuals), seem so much greater this time. The task will not be easy.

I am convinced, however, that God was at work in our midst in the year of our Lord, 2010. I sensed God’s Spirit all the time, and I’ll bet members of the other groups did too—even those who, so far as I see it, clearly have it wrong. It is true there are enormous challenges, but perhaps they seem greater than they really are. Perhaps, they almost seem overwhelming at times because we tend to look into the future through our own all-too-human lenses. If God really has created through an evolutionary mechanism and if God chooses to use BioLogos and other groups to help the Church come to grips with this issue, then these three huge challenges will begin to melt away as God’s Spirit enables us to look to him and not to ourselves. To the extent that we can do that, and to the extent that we can really forgive each other for our trespasses, then truly the Kingdom will be his Kingdom and not ours. With that our kingdoms will begin to melt away in the very face of the glory of God. May that be so, and may the year, 2011, truly be the year of our Lord.


Darrel Falk is former president of The BioLogos Foundation. He transitioned into Christian higher education 25 years ago and has given numerous talks about the relationship between science and faith at many universities and seminaries. He is the author of Coming to Peace with Science.


Share your thoughts

Have a comment or question for the author? We'd love to hear from you.

View the archived discussion of this post

This article is now closed for new comments. The archived comments are shown below.

Loading...
Page 2 of 4   « 1 2 3 4 »
sy - #45683

January 2nd 2011

@John

I cross posted with you, and I just want to say that I agree with your comment entirely.


sy - #45685

January 2nd 2011

I would like to try to clarify a bit about what I meant in my comment (#45629) regarding the essentiality of non contradiction between scripture and science. I meant this as an ideal, a goal to reach for. The fact is that even scripture can be self contradicting, as of course is science, let alone the two with each other. All this means is that we haven’t gotten it right yet. Part of my own faith is the belief that God’s truth is the only truth, and that we can grow in understanding of that truth through scientific and theological work. But at some point (I have no idea when) it will become clear that all roads lead to one truth. At the moment we are still a lot like Mike’s 7 year old, puzzling and thinking, but not yet getting it.

We might need some new tools to get there. We can certainly see this when our subject for study is the essence of man, God’s greatest creation. I don’t know what those tools will be, but my guess is that natural philosophy (the original term for what we now call science) might be a better way to look at some of these “hard” problems, than the scientific method as we know it.


merv - #45699

January 2nd 2011

John - #45680

In the spirit of Dr. Falk’s excellent essay above, please use care in how you dispense unnecessary adjectives like ‘horrible book’.  While I am not [yet] convinced by Meyers or Dembski’s arguments, I wouldn’t heap abuse on them—especially as Christian brothers; and nor did I fail to glean good (and I think very true!) insights from books written by both.  I know it’s hard to resist juicy and deep bites against those with whom we may passionately disagree, but a great part of working towards the last two goals Dr. Falk outlines is for all of us to restrain our ‘blogging tongues’ from ridicule or sweeping judgments.  It may involve sharing for the thousandth time with a newcomer why you hold a certain view—but that newcomer is just as much in need of your patience as the first one that asked the same things when they were fresh for you.  All of us have been the ‘newcomer’ before.

—Merv


beaglelady - #45708

January 2nd 2011

merv,

John called the book itself horrible, not the author.


eddy - #45729

January 3rd 2011

Dr. Falk, I read all your blogs and you appear to me as a very likeable man but, out of love, let me tell you one caveat:

“The scientific method (applied to thousands of data sets) points clearly to the fact that life has diversified through an evolutionary process over a long period of time.”

Dr. Falk, if your outreach towards evangelicals are predestined to succeed (I mean, if you aspire one day to see fundamentalist biblicists/evangelicals embrace the evolutionary theory) you mighty want to refrain to posit your views in cock-rhetoric as somebody who is absolutely certain of the knowledge about how life diversified and that you have it figured out. Especially, if your absolute certainty has the effect of changing the conception of what is (out of the lack of a correct term) supremely dear/fundamental/important/vital to a life of an evangelical.

You seem to derive your confidence since you are backed by this entire legion of powerful people in the science of the moderns but why do you think should evangelicals trust you have it right but the bible have it wrong? Or that the bible doesn’t mean what it say?

And Dr. Falk, on the follow up of my comment that you may need to revise your strategies if you aspire your agenda succeed. On your disappointment with the evangelical church and the ID community, you say this:

“It is very difficult to defeat scientific myths if those who propagate them to huge audiences of non-experts won’t admit that they are wrong.”

So do you want evangelicals take the main claim of ID theorists that it is possible to scientifically detect things or objects in nature which are “designed” wrong? And a myth?

The point is this: ID have the gut and audacity to tread were moderns fear to tread—they dare to say in public that design that suggest some sort of intelligence is detectable in nature. You don’t see ID as science but who told you that you only have a special right to define what is science to us and what is not? And what is science, by the way, if science does not bring us closer to the truth? You (Dr. Falk) and I believe that God is a designer. That much we agree. Where do we part ways, then, for you to suggest that detection of design in nature is myth, Dr. Falk? If you don’t have the gut to say it in public why not take a wise option leave ID theorists alone?


Doug Hanson - #45760

January 3rd 2011

Why would anyone think that science and faith could reconcile? After all, it is clearly a matter of faith to believe in angels and devils and such. It is faith to believe that angels can be these ghostly beings who pass through solid objects. The devil, ah yes, the devil….that invisible predator who consumes those who get to close to him, ha, ha ha, who could possibly believe in the devil? Speaking of belief, how great does your faith have to be to in order to believe in a God that can be in many places at once? It’s ridiculous of course. Science is based on facts, unlike faith. For example, look at neutrinos. Neutrinos are a perfect example of science. Hmm, well maybe not the best example since neutrinos pass through solid objects just like an angel.  Black holes are probably a better example of what I mean. They are totally scientific through and through. Although invisible, like the devil, they consume everything that comes to close for eternity. Ok, wait a second I know I can find something here. I’ve got it!  What about electrons and quantum mechanics? Q.M. teaches that an electron can be in many different places at once, so no that one is a scratch. I’ll be back later, I know there’s got to be something!


Martin Rizley - #45764

January 3rd 2011

Darrell,
You say that the perspective of Dr. Mohler is “taking on” the entire scientific enterprise by claiming that “scientific knowledge is deeply flawed.”  If by scientific knowledge, however, you mean simply the observations, measurements, and mathematical calculations that are being made scientists, neither Dr. Mohler nor any other biblical inerrantist is challenging the accuracy of the calculations they are making on the basis of their assumptions.  Dr. Mohler admits that the universe does appear to be very old, if one interprets the data on uniformitarian assumptions.  In fact, the title of a talk he gave recently at a Christian conference was,  “Why Does the Universe Look So Old?”  So let’s be very clear about this—Dr. Mohler is not challenging the sincerity or scientific competence of these men who are doing science; he is not ‘taking on’ the scientific enterprise in that sense, which would be absurd, since he has no scientific training.  What he is challenging is the philosophical underpinnings of their dogmatism about what is TRUE. 

In other words, he is challenging the philosophical assumption they are making that appearance always equals reality, and that if it did not, God would be a deceiver.  Dr. Mohler is saying it is this underlying PHILOSOPHY that is deeply flawed; and it is certainly the task of a theologian to question the validity of human philosophies.  That is in fact one of the main functions of theology—to challenge “every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God.”  Now, Jesus tells us plainly in Scripture that there is no more reliable source of knowledge about God or the world itself than the written Word of God.  He chided his disciples for not believing EVERYTHING the prophets had written.  He didn’t accuse them of not believing ANYTHING in the Old Testament, but of not believing EVERYTHING.  In modern terminology, he was affirming the inerrancy (unvarying truthfulness) of Scripture’s teaching.  So it is not so much that Dr. Mohler is “taking on” the scientific community, as that scientists are “taking on” the Bible when they use science to deny clear biblical teachings such as the beginning of the human race from one couple, or the special creation of Eve from the body of Adam.

When science tries to “take on” the Bible in this way, it can do so only by adopting a certain philosophy that says appearance ALWAYS equal reality, and if that is did not, then God would be a deceiver.  It is this human philosophy underlying the “modern scientific enterprise” that Dr. Mohler and others are challenging—so the divide is a philosophical/religious one.  The fact that a whole scientific culture has developed which holds to this philosophy does not prove its truth.  Throughout history, cultures have developed and persisted for generations, even centuries,upon an entirely false foundation,  captivating all levels of society, including the intellectual elite. Just look at the cultures which have flourished on the essentially false foundation of Islam, producing an incredible wealth of poetic writings, architectural marvels, etc.  The fact that Islam has given birth to such a rich cultural legacy does not make it true.  So when it comes to the truth or falsehood of any belief system, numbers prove nothing.  If the belief system contradicts the teaching of Scripture, then no matter how many ‘but into’ it,  our attitude must be,  “Let God be true and EVERY MAN a liar.”


John - #45768

January 3rd 2011

merv:
“In the spirit of Dr. Falk’s excellent essay above, please use care in how you dispense unnecessary adjectives like ‘horrible book’.”

I am being charitable in calling it “horrible,” merv.

“While I am not [yet] convinced by Meyers or Dembski’s arguments, I wouldn’t heap abuse on them—especially as Christian brothers; and nor did I fail to glean good (and I think very true!) insights from books written by both.”

But you’re desperately trying to pretend that these books are just about arguments, when in fact they misrepresent fundamental facts.

“...It may involve sharing for the thousandth time with a newcomer why you hold a certain view—but that newcomer is just as much in need of your patience as the first one that asked the same things when they were fresh for you.  All of us have been the ‘newcomer’ before.”

The problem with Meyer is that he is a newcomer but he is pretending that he is a scientist.


John - #45769

January 3rd 2011

Martin Rizley:
“You say that the perspective of Dr. Mohler is “taking on” the entire scientific enterprise by claiming that “scientific knowledge is deeply flawed.”  If by scientific knowledge, however, you mean simply the observations, measurements, and mathematical calculations that are being made scientists, neither Dr. Mohler nor any other biblical inerrantist is challenging the accuracy of the calculations they are making on the basis of their assumptions.”

In fact, Martin, virtually all of them are doing exactly that. They practice cargo cult science.

Here’s an example from Stephen Meyer relevant to Merv’s comment:
“A protein within the ribosome known as a peptidyl transferase then catalyzes a polymerization (linking) reaction involving the two (tRNA-borne) amino acids.”

There is nothing philosophical about this claim. It is about direct observations, and it is insanely false. It is an essential part of Meyer’s attempt to tear down the RNA World hypothesis because it grossly misrepresents the single most important piece of evidence supporting the hypothesis. It also goes hand-in-hand with his misrepresentation of the hypothesis itself.


AHH - #45779

January 3rd 2011

A good step for BioLogos in 2010 was bringing Peter Enns on board.

Many of the issues to be dealt with here involve Biblical interpretation, and for a bunch of scientists to opine on that topic won’t carry much weight (I thought that aspect was pretty weak in Francis Collins’ book, for example).
But an Evangelical Biblical scholar of Enns’ magnitude adds a lot more substance to that aspect of the conversation.
I hope BioLogos will continue to work on showing how Christians can be faithful to Scripture without denying or obscuring the things science shows us about God’s creation.


Peter Hickman - #45782

January 3rd 2011

Martin Rizley:

Have you considered whether God might be effectively working out His purposes for humankind in the context of a flawed , i.e. errant, Bible? Or is that simply not possible?


Martin Rizley - #45789

January 3rd 2011

Peter Hickman,
Let me turn that question around and ask you, “What else could Jesus have meant when he rebuked His disciples for being “foolish ones” and “slow of heart” to believe in “all” that the prophets have spoken, if He did not intend for them to regard the teachings of Scripture as invariably true and essentially clear in meaning?  What is “impossible” for me is that Jesus—the Most High God in human flesh—could have been mistaken in His view of the Scriptures.


John - #45791

January 3rd 2011

Martin,

Matthew 13:10-17:
The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” He replied, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.”

Are you suggesting that parables were not used in the OT?


Jon Garvey - #45792

January 3rd 2011

@Peter Hickman - #45782

My physics teacher tried to teach me optics using explanations that, I realised later, were actually inaccurate. Neverthless, they did get me started on the subject, but only because I took them seriously. Indeed, they were probably better entry-level explanations than the more rigorous ones I worked out for myself later. My problem was understanding the subject as well as he did - I’d have done even worse if in my teenage vanity I’d been winking at the guy on the next lab stool saying, “Old Des doesn’t really teach physics properly, you know.”

Which, being interpreted, means that sometimes people seem more ready to point out supposed errors in Scripture than to grapple with what God’s actually trying to correct or instruct for them through the words. For every fault I find in it it seems to find half a dozen in me.

That said, Martin’s claims about it seem wider than its own. It is not a treatise on agriculture (as a Baptist market gardener I knew believed). It never helped my therapeutics much (though it did my counselling). It has little to say about painting or plumbing. These are mere earthly matters - as are planetary physics and biology.


Jon Garvey - #45795

January 3rd 2011

@Martin Rizley - #45789

“What else could Jesus have meant when he rebuked His disciples for being “foolish ones” and “slow of heart” to believe in “all” that the prophets have spoken, if He did not intend for them to regard the teachings of Scripture as invariably true and essentially clear in meaning? 

Read John Owen in “The Death of Death” on the meaning of “all” in Scripture. Different context, but a good reminder that you *need* a context to ascertain the meaning.. “All” that the prophets spoke was about Jesus - therefore the “all” that they were slow to believe was what the prophets said about him.

“All” in Scripture virtually never means “all, without exception or remainder.” Which is not to say that parts of SCripture are untrue, but that Jesus was not advocating a global belief in his words.


Martin Rizley - #45798

January 3rd 2011

John,  You ask, “Are you suggesting there were no parables in the Old Testament?”  No; there are parables in the Old Testament.  Nathan’s parable to David in 2 Samuel 12 is a good example; but notice—the context makes very clear that we are dealing with a parable.  When Nathan says to David, “You are the man!”  It is very clear that Nathan’s words about the “little ewe lamb” were intended symbolically as a metaphor for Uriah’s wife.  On the other hand, the structure of Genesis, in which genealogies tie the flow of the narrative together from Adam through the patriarchs, as well as the perspective of the New Testament writers on Genesis, make it very clear that Adam and Eve are to be regarded as the literal progenitors of all those made in the ‘image of God’—since Adam was the first creature made in God’s image.    “From one blood” God made every nation of men to dwell on the face of the earth (Acts 17: 26), Paul said, and he clearly meant his words to be understood literally.  So context must determine what is to be understood literally, and what is to be understood as a parable or metaphor.


Martin Rizley - #45800

January 3rd 2011

Jon Garvey,    You say, “The ‘all’ they were slow to believe was what the prophets said about him. . .Jesus was not advocating a global belief in his words.”  It is true that the immediate context of Jesus’ discussion with the disciples concerns the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy, but that is not to say that Jesus regarded only the Messianic prophecies of Scripture to be invariably true and reliable.  The reliability of the prophets’ words is not based on the particular subject they are addressing, but on the divine origin of their speech.  For Jesus, whatever is “written” is reliable,  because whatever the prophets were moved to write down had its origin, not in the mind and will of man, but in the mind and will of God.  As Peter says, “Prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit,”  (2 Peter 1:21).  His point is that it is that the divine origin of Scripture guarantees its unvarying truthfulness.  As Hendriksen puts it, “the composition of prophecy by the will of man NEVER happened.”


merv - #45801

January 3rd 2011

John wrote (quoting Meyers):

Here’s an example from Stephen Meyer relevant to Merv’s comment:
“A protein within the ribosome known as a peptidyl transferase then catalyzes a polymerization (linking) reaction involving the two (tRNA-borne) amino acids.”

John—this is good—as were other parts of your original post (that provide much more useful information than any inflammatory opinions give—which are worse than useless.)

I don’t have the biological expertise to evaluate the statement above to recognize whether you or Meyers are correct.  But at least I could (if I had the time or inclination) research it to find out.  Meanwhile, short of that, it leaves me in the same position that 90+% of the public is in:  evaluating not so much what the actual facts are but instead deciding who to trust regarding what those facts are.  And you would be surprised how much credibility an authority can throw away by flinging in the juicy put-downs against the other side.  It makes it look like the mud-slinger isn’t confident that his facts can stand by themselves.  I’m not saying this applies to you—just that I like to read the details of where you think Meyers is wrong & why.

—Merv


John - #45802

January 3rd 2011

Merv:
“I don’t have the biological expertise to evaluate the statement above to recognize whether you or Meyers are correct.”

Please, Merv, that’s just pathetic.

You don’t need any biological expertise to figure out whether Meyer’s statement is true. Just Google “peptidyl transferase” AND “ribosome” to see just how incredibly false it is. THE FIRST THREE results, even discounting the “scholarly articles” listed at the top, show this.

“But at least I could (if I had the time or inclination) research it to find out.”

Baloney. You could have done that in far less time than it took to write your comment. So we’re left with inclination, which you clearly don’t have, which I hypothesize is because you don’t have any real faith in Meyer’s veracity.


John - #45803

January 3rd 2011

Merv:
“Meanwhile, short of that, it leaves me in the same position that 90+% of the public is in:  evaluating not so much what the actual facts are but instead deciding who to trust regarding what those facts are.”

But 90+% of the public is intellectually lazy. Are you? What does the Bible say about using hearsay instead of evidence to judge? What’s the whole point of science anyway?

“It makes it look like the mud-slinger isn’t confident that his facts can stand by themselves.”

Yet you don’t apply that to all the mud that Meyer, a non-scientist, slings at real working scientists. How confident are you in the veracity of Meyer’s claim? Shall we bet $10,000?

“I’m not saying this applies to you—just that I like to read the details of where you think Meyers is wrong & why.”

You can read it without any help from me, so your posturing is rhetorical. My point is that you are desperately afraid of the details, so you are demanding that I supply them so that (I hypothesize) you can more easily discount them using the genetic fallacy. You want Meyer to be right, but in your soul you’re virtually certain that he isn’t.


Page 2 of 4   « 1 2 3 4 »