tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post8343918862538681910..comments2024-03-26T11:33:59.219-06:00Comments on Religion in American History: All the World in One Cartoon: Or, A Picture Contradicts a Thousand WordsPaul Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13881964303772343114noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-29798554402079883712011-10-09T12:31:06.254-06:002011-10-09T12:31:06.254-06:00Re the snoot and snark, is this part accurate
As ...Re the snoot and snark, is this part accurate<br /><br /><i>As the authors frequently singled out the AiG president for criticism, they demean him with terms like a “pied piper” (p. 45) of the seemingly uneducated masses of Christians. His views, the book argues, have “transported [him] into a scientific Land of Oz” (p. 59). Ken is said to have a “pandering anti-intellectual presentation style in his talks and writings” (p. 45). Furthermore, the authors bizarrely contend that the last time Ken “brushed up against science” was during the Cold War (p. 58).</i><br /><br />Sounds good and snarky to me. Funny as hell, too.<br /><br /><i>...including the claim that the late Dr. Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the founder of the modern creationist movement, supposedly drew significant inspiration from a “mentor,” George McCready Price (p. 23). This is simply incorrect and was most likely regurgitated from the book The Creationists by historian Dr. Ronald Numbers. </i><br /><br />Well, at least y'all are on the same page re Dr. Numbers: the mileage varies, is all.<br /><br /><i>We must point out that six of the full-time Answers in Genesis faculty members have doctorate degrees in their fields, including genetics, astrophysics, geology, biology, the history of science, and medicine. This fact is conveniently omitted in a book that pretends to question the scholarship of our staff.</i><br /><br />I thought this one scored on a formal level, if they're accurate here: that information is key. Not that it helps their case any--that they're credentialed and still hold to creationism is even more bizarre than if they were merely pseudo-scholars.<br /><br />As for Dr. James Dobson, his credentials look OK. PhD USC in psychology, 14 years on faculty. The mileage on "soft" science varies greatly, and it seems to me Dobson has the right to be as wrong as Freud and Dr. Spock were.<br /><br />http://www.icr.org/article/baby-doctor-benjamin-spock-darwin-morality/<br /><br />I continue to monitor this whole affair with interest. Thx. <br /><br /><i>And apparently for the authors, Ken Ham’s 35-plus years of research, writing, and speaking on apologetics don’t quite measure up to the knowledge level of a student leaving a university with a PhD in science.</i><br /><br />Heh heh. No, they don't.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-42855720587714105052011-10-09T07:45:09.466-06:002011-10-09T07:45:09.466-06:00They are esp angry because they think we sound &qu...They are esp angry because they think we sound "mean" or "snooty." I'm not sure what to make of that. We de-snooted the entire MS. Thin skin I guess. (Can't imagine how they react to Jerry Coyne or Richard Dawkin's criticism.) I did notice that they seem irked that all sorts of people think they are better than them. There's a serious beleaguered tone in the piece. Reminds me of what Rick Perlstein has written about that chip-on-the-shoulder populism or the right. Their hackles are up. <br /><br />Here's a good example of how they twisted things in that "review". <br /><br />They write: Stephens and Giberson "mistakenly claimed that Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, is a young-earth creationist (p. 19)"<br /><br />In fact, on page 19 we make the factual claim:<br /><br />"Dobson enthusiastically promotes Barton's Christian history and Ham's young earth creationism." Is that the same as saying that he *is* a young earth creationist? His Focus on the Family book store carried and still carries Ken Ham books and videos. I saw those on the shelves in the Colorado Springs store. http://family.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/easy_find?Ntt=ken+ham&N=0&Ntk=keywords&action=Search&Ne=0&event=ESRCN&nav_search=1&cms=1&search=<br /><br />Barton was a regular guest on Focus.<br /><br />There's also the bit about "the late Dr. Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the founder of the modern creationist movement, supposedly drew significant inspiration from a “mentor,” George McCready Price (p. 23)."<br /><br />Ronald Numbers at U Wisc and people who actually study and know something about this are deeply aware of the close connection between Price's ideas and Morris's.Randallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16755286304057000048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-60097870525455471232011-10-09T03:08:15.905-06:002011-10-09T03:08:15.905-06:00The rebuttal
http://www.answersingenesis.org/art...The rebuttal <br /><br />http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/10/04/exposing-the-anointed<br /><br />was of interest, on the formal and epistemological level per the scholarly rigor of the book in question: errors, omissions, elisions, and the apparent free use of polemical language.<br /><br /><i>Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?</i> Should we consider the tome as serious scholarship or just another volley in the culture wars?<br /><br />[The cartoon rebuttal of the rebuttal holds, of course. It does not close the book on this, however: there are many other points of contention, and winning a single battle does not win a war. As a non-litigant with no sympathy for either "side" of this, I want to hear more. Rock on, Randall. I'm intrigued. And entertained.]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com