Whew

Well, I’ve sent out a final draft of all of my candidacy statements, and the conference call with my Session looks like it will be workable. So, for better or worse, my progress slowly continues.

Knowing how contentious our little fish-pond is right now, I go into this with more than a little trepidation. To be very honest for a moment, though, I think an organization that cannot tolerate genuinely held minority views is dead already. It’ll be incredibly painful if this process doesn’t work out for some reason, but I’m trying to be at peace with letting the process be what it is. I’ll come through to the other side, or I won’t. And that will be that.

With suprise I’ve realized that I have some time to do some reading for enjoyment. First and foremost, I have completed Maus Part I (and am saving up for part II) and the Annotated Hobbit. Along with reading for my internship, I went to the library and saw an anthology of essays entitled Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism, which so far is just crunchy enough to enjoy without making smoke come out my ears.

If those of you who disagree with me on the whole evolution thing would like to recommend a solid pro-creationism/intelligent design book, I’ll at least see if the local libraries have it, and if they do, I’ll read it too.

10 thoughts on “Whew

  1. Doug, Michael Behe’s, “Darwin’s Black Box” got the ball rolling with the whole ID movement. He’s not a creationist- ie 6 days, etc… but his arguments can’t be lightly dismissed.may you know the Lord’s mercy,dm

    Like

  2. DM:I actually read and enjoyed Behe’s book when it first came out, I think in the neighborhood of 1997. I’ve also read rebuttals, and this is a situation where I am out of my depth in terms of being able to make an intelligent decision.There’s definitely a wide distance between “there is evidence of some organizing intelligence behind the emergence of life” and “the God of Genesis created the world just as described in that book”. What I liked about Behe, however, is that he was working from the material evidence only, and putting forth an idea that accounted for it in what he thinks is the best way.What I should do is see if Behe has written a more recent book dealing with the various rebuttals and problems with his ideas as put forth (by, for example, Kenneth Miller in Finding Darwin’s God).With Google, that was easy, so now I have to decide whether I want to read articles from the scientific journal Protein Science. We’ll see.But thanks for the comment and recommendation!

    Like

  3. From a Biblical Studies point of view two commentaries might help.Genesis 1-15: Wenham, Word.Genesis: A literary approach (?): Waltke & ? (can’t remember, she was a classmate of mine– totally spacing on her name now). Zondervan? not sure on the publisher. These have helped me separate out the questions of how and when, that modernity wants answered, to deal with the actual concerns of the text- Who and Why.

    Like

  4. Ideally, for myself, I’d like a synthesis of How, When, Who and Why, but then again I like synthesizing and maybe sometimes you just can’t with the information and skills available.I think that religion is weak on the How and When because it isn’t a primary concern. The Bible is so clearly not a scientific treatise – they had those at the time in Hellenistic culture (Archimedes anyone?) and the Bible is nothing like one. Treating it like one is absurd.On questions of Who and Why (especially Why), which are questions of meaning, religion is quite strong and science is much weaker – again, because science isn’t concerned in they Why of meaning, only the Why of material process (and rightly so).I don’t want to say there’s a hard and fast distinction, but each method (material and existential I might call them) has its strengths, and should only try to cross over with caution and, dare we say, humility?

    Like

  5. Dear Doug,You’re in my prayers as you approach candidacy. I believe God enjoys diversity, and God knows the Church needs a good dose of it right now.In Christ,Mark

    Like

  6. I just have to say I love the imagery you come up with! Describing a book as just crunchy enough, but avoiding the smoke-out-the-ears effect <>perfectly<> elicited the sensation in me of reading the type of book you described. It’s part of why you’re such a great GM, you come up with ways to describe situations that give a visceral reaction.*smile*

    Like

  7. Thanks John. I’m definitely the kind of person who’s nervous about most things until I do them. I’m hoping this whole candidacy process will be similar – once I’m ‘in it’ I’ll be fine and everything will go well.And thanks Stacia. I actually think that in games I sometimes over-describe, especially when I’m improvising something that I think is important. Saying that, I often go for a visceral reaction and I’m glad I get it consistently 🙂

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s