Faith, Form & Time

[TankGirl]

Anyone read this book?
http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Form-Ti...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207071842&sr=8-1http://www.amazon.co.uk/Faith-Form-...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207071702&sr=8-1

I highly recommend it...

 

[busterdog]

Anyone read this book?
http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Form-Ti...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207071842&sr=8-1

I highly recommend it...

Even the evolutionists respect Kurt Wise.

 

[TankGirl]

Even the evolutionists respect Kurt Wise.

Even the atheists respect Kurt Wise! Richard Dawkins has even been known to give the man grudging respect... I saw 10 hours of his lectures as part pf a study on Genesis, and thought he was brilliant. Discovered the above book, and ordered it for myself. It's fantastic - highly recommended. Intelligently, humbly & honestly written...very eye-opening...

 

[Mallon]

What's the main premise of his book, TankGirl?

I have a hard time knowing what to think about Wise. He fully admits that the preponderance of evidence is in favour of evolution, yet his commitment to scientific concordance prevents him from accepting it.

 

[TankGirl]

What's the main premise of his book, TankGirl?

I have a hard time knowing what to think about Wise. He fully admits that the preponderance of evidence is in favour of evolution, yet his commitment to scientific concordance prevents him from accepting it.

The bi-line of the book is this - "What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms About Creation and the Age of the Universe", and that pretty well sums it up.

Actually, I have heard him say words to the effect that evolution is a well reasoned theory, and not to dismiss it as ridiculous. He also says that there are far fewer resources in Creation science, and that it is such a new science (having been accepted as simple fact for most of man's existence, and only having to provide justification very recently).

The book outlines all current (at the time of publication) evidence, interpretation & theory in Creationism...I particularly love the flood theory - SO much bigger & more destructive than most people imagine...

An excellently written & thought provoking book - give it a try...

 

[Assyrian]

He also says that there are far fewer resources in Creation science, and that it is such a new science (having been accepted as simple fact for most of man's existence, and only having to provide justification very recently).

Doesn't the search for flood geology go back to the early geologists?

 

[busterdog]

What's the main premise of his book, TankGirl?

I have a hard time knowing what to think about Wise. He fully admits that the preponderance of evidence is in favour of evolution, yet his commitment to scientific concordance prevents him from accepting it.

What is scientific concordance?

I don't know that I would even argue with "preponderance of the evidence". That is just somewhat more likely than not.

 

[Mallon]

The bi-line of the book is this - "What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms About Creation and the Age of the Universe", and that pretty well sums it up.

Thanks for the summary. Is his book just a current state-of-affairs with regards to neocreationism, then? Or does he offer anything new in the way of insight?

 

[Mallon]

What is scientific concordance?

It's the fundamental dividing line between anti-evolutionary creationists and evolutionary creationists.
Scientific concordance says that science must accord with the Bible in order for either to have any merit. This is the position that anti-evolutionary creationists take.
The opposite is accomodationism -- the understanding that the Sciptures were accomodated to the conceptual level of the ancient Hebrews, as embodied by Christ and his ministry. This is the position that the evolutionary creationists take.

 

[busterdog]

It's the fundamental dividing line between anti-evolutionary creationists and evolutionary creationists.
Scientific concordance says that science must accord with the Bible in order for either to have any merit. This is the position that anti-evolutionary creationists take.
The opposite is accomodationism -- the understanding that the Sciptures were accomodated to the conceptual level of the ancient Hebrews, as embodied by Christ and his ministry. This is the position that the evolutionary creationists take.

Thank you.

I was hoping it had more to do with internal consistency within science.

 

[juvenissun]

It's the fundamental dividing line between anti-evolutionary creationists and evolutionary creationists.
Scientific concordance says that science must accord with the Bible in order for either to have any merit. This is the position that anti-evolutionary creationists take.
The opposite is accomodationism -- the understanding that the Sciptures were accomodated to the conceptual level of the ancient Hebrews, as embodied by Christ and his ministry. This is the position that the evolutionary creationists take.

So, are you an "evolutionary creationist"?

Funny name.

Oh. I remember it now. It is the new name for TE. Got you. But, I still like the old name better, unless you really want to emphasize the creation part.