Rob Sheldon’s book is The Long Ascent: Genesis 1–11 in Science & Myth, Volume 1 (Wipf & Stock).
The book tries to probe the minds of early biblical characters struggling to understand nature in the absence of any formal body of science knowledge. Order here.
As “Part I” suggests, he is working on another installment in the series.
The cover picture repels me. Is it supposed to be a wolverine and an otter boxing? Or blood gushing from a fish after a shark tears it to pieces?
Those are the “Pillars of Creation” from the Eagle Nebula.
The cover is beautiful, it’s the contents that repels me.
One question; will this be used by IDists in the future as an example of literature that supports ID?
To probe the minds of Biblical characters such as Moses, Joshua, Noah, Jonah, Abraham, isan interesting thought experiment. That is all that it is, a thought experiment.
If you would like to read a hilarious, and utterly convincing effort at ‘probing’ the mind of an Old Testament character, I can strongly suggest, “God Knows”, by Joseph Heller, he of “Catch 22” fame.
Sit with Moses on his death bed, as he refuses to talk to God anymore, until God gives him a decent reason, as to why God killed the bastard child of Moses and Bathsheba.
Laugh until you fall!:)
Sorry, I have Moses on the brain.
Sit with, David on his death bed.
David is the character lampooned in ‘God Knows’, along with God of course, and David is the character who had the illicit affair with Bathsheba, God knows why I wrote Moses. Heller is nothing if not an equal opportunity lampooner.
Heh:)
rvb8,
Did you miss the comments addressed to you here?
https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/john-sanford-darwin-a-figurehead-not-a-scientist/#comment-635277
RVB8, kindly, get down from the corner soap-box and lay aside the tendency to erect loaded strawman caricatures of the design inference and design theory. If you do not know the distinction between that inference and the wider theory and Biblical studies/theology or creationism or philosophically driven discussion of origins by now, that is a sign of needing to also take off ideological blinkers. Also, people can and do wish to look at origins issues from various perspectives they find interesting and have the epistemic right to point to support for a worldview from whatever domain of studies it comes. Yes, crude caricatures may be useful in agit prop — an observation made long ago by Hitler — but we must never consider that such is intellectually serious. Actually, that’s one reason why ideological manipulation so predictably ends in marches of ruinous folly. And, frankly, one of the worst of these in our day is that utterly self-refuting, patently amoral and often nihilistic scheme of thought that we may describe as evolutionary materialistic scientism. Never mind the theatrical trick of dressing up in lab coats (as in the days of Plato, such liked to dress up in philosophical robes), evo mat scientism is intellectually and morally bankrupt. KF
PS: As you evidently have too much pent-up hostility to fairly hear Moshe’s counsels, perhaps you may listen to Plato:
Ponder, what it means for us to be responsibly and rationally free, morally governed contingent beings capable of reasoning logically and needing the guidelines of an inner deep urge towards truth and right in that process. Ponder the implications of reducing that voice of conscience to Ruse and Wilson’s illusion that allegedly enhances reproductive success. Ponder the degradation of reason into cynical manipulation that follows from dulling that voice of conscience and what it means for how we should view the words and arguments of such intellectually debased reprobates bereft of conscience or warping conscience utterly by taking up a crooked yardstick as standard (which will automatically lock out consideration of what is genuinely true and right). Ponder how this sets grand delusion loose in mindedness ending in the chaos of a bull in a china shop. Then, ponder why it is that ever so many will look at the mess and conclude: evolutionary materialistic scientism/philosophy and linked atheistical ideologies are self-falsifying and — on some sobering history since 400+ BC — an outright menace to sound civilisation.
F/N — footnote — there’s much more but let’s start with this. We are dealing with those who have a problem reading more than about a tweet. KF
PS: For those wanting to deal with the trashing of Christendom (joined to such one sided history etc that they don’t know that they are sawing off the branch on which we all sit) this may be a helpful read. My own view is rhetoric and polarisation tactics serve only to distract from core worldview considerations, which are where our worldview and cultural agenda disputes SHOULD be resolved. But then, I am someone who finds discussion of S5 and the question of the principle of explosion to be highly relevant issues. I guess that means we should look at Plato’s parable of the ship of state and that dismissed good for nothing “impractical” stargazer.
KF @ 6: “RVB8, kindly, get down from the corner soap-box and lay aside the tendency to erect loaded strawman caricatures of the design inference and design theory.”
I admire your spirit, KF. You provide a good example of how to interact with a/mats…with love and kindness. God knows I need that example.
Dio, move on please. Restate your argument in a new thread and move on; your argument hasn’t changed I assume; God, miracles, unprovable assertions?
Kairos,
I’m recommending a book, a thoght experiment, a piece of fiction by the great Joseph Heller; nothing more.
rvb8:
@57:
https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/john-sanford-darwin-a-figurehead-not-a-scientist/#comment-635277
rvb8:
@40:
https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/john-sanford-darwin-a-figurehead-not-a-scientist/#comment-635225
@42:
https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/john-sanford-darwin-a-figurehead-not-a-scientist/#comment-635227
Dio,
another source please.
Confirmation bias is an ID standard I know, but you can’t keep linking to the same source again and again, people will think you have no other second hand evidence.
rvb8:
You may want to get serious and wake up from your wastefully senseless daydreaming.
Every new discovery in biology research confirms that you’re on the losing side of this debate.
It doesn’t matter what you say or do.
Your embarrassing failure to answer the simple questions linked @5, @11 & @12 above shows your true motives in this website. You and your party comrades always quit the discussions as soon as you realize your trolling hits the wall.
The quiet visitors can see this.
However, you’re free to keep being a clown bringing additional traffic to this blog. Maybe that’s why they let you troll here.
🙂
Truth Will Set You Free @9:
Yes, KF definitely knows how to handle those folks.
I lack those skills.
🙂
RVB8, scrolling up will reveal much more than a mere book suggestion, e.g. your insinuation in the teeth of recently having been corrected on your assertions that no ID-supportive peer reviewed literature exists. I suggest again, it is time to get down from the corner soap-box.And BTW, we do have Moshe’s last discourse, Deuteronomy; your man made up a loaded caricature out of whole cloth. KF
PS: Plato on the Ship of State, is also instructive:
rvb8:
I find Dionisio’s (in)famous #1090 to be a pretty spot-on, concise description of what evolution needs to be. It is, in essence, the primary functional requirement of Charlie’s vaporware.
The proposed product, anyway; the proposal itself has far exceeded its goals of fame, influence, wealth, and legacy.