Poor Bill Dembski, his life has been one crapfest after another. This time, it's a
book he wrote last year tackling theodicy. It wasn't his goofball hypothesis (the effects of The Fall radiated both directions in time, so Evil preceded and was caused by The Fall) that got him into trouble. No, what lifted eyebrows was this:
Noah’s flood, though presented as a global event, is probably best understood as historically rooted in a local event.
...which prompted this:
Patterson said that when Dembski’s questionable statements came to light, he convened a meeting with Dembski and several high-ranking administrators at the seminary. At that meeting, Dembski was quick to admit that he was wrong about the flood, Patterson said.
“Had I had any inkling that Dr. Dembski was actually denying the absolute trustworthiness of the Bible, then that would have, of course, ended his relationship with the school,” he said.
...which begat this:
...The book’s main focus is Genesis 1–3, and my argument for "the retroactive effects of the Fall" does not require going beyond these first three chapters. Yet, in a brief section on Genesis 4–11, I weigh in on the Flood, raising questions about its universality, without adequate study or reflection on my part. Before I write on this topic again, I have much exegetical, historical, and theological work to do. In any case, not only Genesis 6–9 but also Jesus in Matthew 24 and Peter in Second Peter seem clearly to teach that the Flood was universal. As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality...
Oh, sweet sizzling irony. Dembski's favorite complaint, of course, is that he can't get published or employed anywhere that matters
because academic research is warped by ideology.
http://www.gofbw.com/news.asp?ID=12220&fp=Y
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
