Monthly Archives: January 2019
A thread at Peaceful Science tosses around the usual argument-suspects about Intelligent Design. It was set up in an unhelpful way by the common ID argument contrasting Mount Rushmore (a large statue in America, m’Lud, in the form of a carved mountain) with Mount Everest, a “natural” mountain.
Francis Bacon produced what I suppose one would call a “Utopian Novelette,” unfinished at about 22 pages, just three years before he died. It seems to have been intended as a kind of manifesto for the new scientific project he had, to a great extent, initiated, and so it is worth looking at retrospectively in the light of that project’s enormous success. The Kindle edition is also free, which is another incentive.
If you’ve spent any time with a Genesis commentary, you’ll know that the book is divided up by statements which have come to be called “toledot” statements. The majority opinion is that these link the compositional sections by introducing the next one with the name of a person from the last, using the formula, “These are the generations of…”
Early last year I suggested that it was helpful to regard the Bible, narratively speaking, as being constructed like a folk tale in three movements, and moreover that this bears a classic resemblance to the “literary rule of three” in a host of folk stories, and even higher literature.
Well, I’m told that the author-copies of the new book are winging their way across the Atlantic from the publisher to me, which means that it should be published within the next few weeks. Thanks for being so patient.
Every now and again I like to regale you with some esoteric musical item, firstly in case you like the music, and secondly because there are all kinds of truths in music.After all, it’s my blog! For example here I discussed the phenomenon of “swing” to show that human reality can’t be entirely captured by science.
One reason I post decreasingly often at BioLogos (and also at Uncommon Descent) is that it seems that all origins sites (except this one, so far) eventually become populated by a bevy of science-orientated positivists. These post on every vaguely physically-orientated subject, quite often picking on every sentence of a post and making criticisms grounded on the standard materialist line. They usually support each other whether claiming to be atheists or Christians (or ex-Christians – though seldom ex-atheists), and their main aim seems to be to drive home the message that “Science disproves that God acts in nature.” The net result is that anybody with the temerity to explore how … Continue reading