AiG Dumps on Biologos

On a meta level, this 10 minute podcast discusses the “Truth Sandwich” approach, and the importance of not letting the other team frame the discussion. Politics is the example discussed, but that’s not why I this it is relevant here.

My take on this is that the field of Apologetics enforces very little (and arguably no) discipline on its membership’s factual accuracy and logical rigor. This means that any discipline must come from the apologist’s (continued) involvement in, and thus reputation-to-protect in, other fields. In such cases we would have a higher (if not perfect) probability of a better quality argument.

To take the blog post that he cite as an example, it is blindingly obvious that, in addition to not being a scientist, Calvin is also not a historian. This is not to say that an apologist who is also a qualified historian would not try to make a similar argument. Richard Weikart is living proof of that. But Weikart’s effort, although widely criticised, is not nearly as sloppy or poorly substantiated as Calvin’s.

2 Likes

Let’s look on the bright side. He’s not a Holocaust denier (and there are more than a few of them floating around 75+ years after the event).

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.