I’ve been acquainted with Troy since back in early Religion Forum days. He’s had a web presence for some time, but now he has finally created a blog, Playing Chess with Pigeons (don’t ask me). Welcome to the blogosphere, Troy!
I suspect he’ll talk about antievolution stuff quite a bit, which will be good. He already has a good post on transitional fossils.
HT: Dispatches, where Ed Brayton was also part of the RF crowd in the good old days.
In How has Literal Interpretation Changed, Erik at Fundamentally Changed discusses the ways in which we must reinterpret literal interpretation. I don’t generally like the very idea that interpretation should be literal, but Erik makes some excellent suggestions. One of the questions I ask in When People Speak for God is just how Abraham knew…
On a previous post Ray commented: A religion or naturalism arrived at as a result of following the evidence where it leads, is quite acceptable, and even to be expected in most cases for it is a conclusion arrive at after an objective analysis of the evidence. It is therefore a reasonable conclusion. Naturalism or…
We’ve all heard the traditional excuse for missing homework: The dog ate it. Well, intelligent design creationists (IDCs) now have a better one. The dog did their homework. Well, it’s analogous to that in any case. Thanks to Pim van Meurs of The Panda’s Thumb in his entry Eugenie Scott: The Big Tent and the…
One of the key issues in the creation-evolution controversy is the extent to which Genesis 1-2 should be understood as narrative history, and whether its statements with regard to the physical world should be taken as scientific statements, or at least as statements that carry some scientific content. I was just reminded of the importance…
Andrew Lamb has commented on a post I wrote back in July. I have responded to most of the comment there, but he references an article of his own, Immeasurable Age, and it employs an approach that, while I do not think it has merit, is so common in both public discourse and apologetics, that…
According to the Bradenton Herald, Paul Gross used the word “dishonest” in reference to the compromise language. Personally I prefer “silly” or “inane.” The changes didn’t change the meaning.
Comments are closed.
Thanks Henry, I hope I can live up to expectations.