Author: Jay W. Richards
Media Bias Trickle Down at the Seattle Times
In the New York Times, Mark Oppenheimer reports on the case of astronomer Martin Gaskell, who is suing the University of Kentucky for (alleged) religious discrimination. The article is fair, objective, and descriptively accurate. Perhaps the most interesting detail Oppenheimer reports concerns the “smoking gun” in Gaskell’s case: the text of a 2007 email from UK staffer Sally Shafer to two colleagues: “Clearly this man is complex and likely fascinating to talk with,” Ms. Shafer wrote, “but potentially evangelical. If we hire him, we should expect similar content to be posted on or directly linked from the department Web site.” To this gem, Gaskell’s attorney, Francis J. Manion, said: “I couldn’t have made up a better quote. ‘We like this Read More ›
Randy Isaac on the “Two Book” Model
In two previous posts, I have discussed Randy Isaac’s essay, “Science and the Question of God,” published at the BioLogos Foundation website. The final section of Isaac’s essay is called “The Two Book Model.” This phrase normally refers to the traditional Christian view that God reveals himself in history and Scripture, which is his “special” revelation, as well as in the created order, which is “general” revelation. So we have two complementary books of revelation: the book of Scripture and the book of nature. Though we can’t learn everything about God from general revelation that we learn from God’s special revelation, we can learn something.
Randy Isaac on “Creationism” and “Intelligent Design”
“Creationism” In my previous post, I discussed Randy Isaac’s distinction of “evolutionism” and “evolution” in his essay “Science and the Question of God,” published at the BioLogos Foundation website. After proffering a distinction between “evolution” and “evolutionism,” Isaac talks about (young earth) creationism. I have some quibbles with what he says on the subject, especially with respect to biblical authority; however, I do share his concern that many young earth creationists appeal to the “tu quoque” argument. That is, many argue (in effect) that since everyone holds arbitrary presuppositions, it’s no problem for Christians to do so. But saying that everybody begs the question is hardly a reasonable rebuttal to the charge that I’m begging the question. This strategy makes Read More ›
Randy Isaac on “Evolutionism”
The BioLogos Foundation recently published a scholarly essay (with several accompanying blog posts) titled “Science and the Question of God” by Randy Isaac. Isaac is a physicist and executive director of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA)–a scholarly society of Christian natural scientists. In his essay, Isaac examines, as he puts it, “three schools of thought regarding the possibility of detecting God’s existence through science: Evolutionism, Creationism, and Intelligent Design.” In this and two follow-up posts, I’ll respond to some of the themes of Isaac’s essay. When I began to read “Science and the Question of God,” I worried that Isaac would define ID as an explicit attempt to prove the existence of God. But, happily, Isaac doesn’t make that mistake, Read More ›
Would St. Thomas Have Been an Evolutionary Psychologist?
Over at the Huffington Post, that organ of sophisticated theological analysis, Matt Rossano argues: If he were alive today would Aquinas be an evolutionist? His writings suggest a mind already resonating with many evolutionary concepts. My sense is that Aquinas, like Aristotle and Albert before him, was just too curious and too smart not be at the intellectual vanguard wrestling with exciting new knowledge. Limping weakly behind with whiny unimaginative creationists would have been far too boring for a mind such as his. In fact, Rossano actually tries to marshal St. Thomas for the least plausible part of the Darwinian program–evolutionay psychology. Rossano finds some simlarities between Thomas’ thought and the ideas of evolutionary psychology. But any two schools of Read More ›