This is true, and it is the answer I expected. While it is fine and good
for Phil Johnson and Jim Bell (in his "modest tome") to provide a
counterpoint to Sagan and Dawkins, my question was specifically for those
Chuck Warman and myself, who, like most of us probably have a limited
influence regarding the popular press, but who may have an opportunity to
make a local impact. If Chuck is interested in Truth as opposed to
Theological Correctness, why complain on this reflector ONLY about the
"failure" of TE's to take Sagan and Dawkins to task? But perhaps my point
is naive, perhaps Chuck and others stand up in church and point out that a
10,000 year old earth and a flood origin of the Grand Canyon are no more
factual than fish developing lungs and legs.
I would like to suggest another acronymic category for the group to use:
TC, for theologically correct. These would be defined as those who
steadfastly rail against the Secular University, Methodological Naturalism,
while conveniently ignoring the philosophical limitations of their own
epistemology.
Shalom,
Steve
__________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53792
"To disdain philosophy is really to be a philosopher." Blaise Pascal, Pensees
__________________________________________________________________________