http://robinphillips.blogspot....

What issues in the OT give you pause?

Um, should I be drawing any kind of inference from the fact that Richard Dawkins name is about ten time the size of God's on the book cover?

Over-compensation? ("I am Richard Dawkins! Hear me and tremble!!")

The issues of the God of the OT are exactly those that I'm dealing with over at my blog. I agree that they need to be dealt with, especially since many people let these hang ups keep them from really engaging the story of the Bible. But the problem I have with answering people like Dawkins is that the question is already framed antagonistically. You are not talking to someone who wants to hear the story as it was meant to be heard - you're talking to someone for whom no stick is too dirty to beat it with. For instance, they take things in the Bible that are common to the ancient world, and act as if they are particular to the Bible.

Not that I don't think he should be responded to - I just don't personally understand how to get past first base with those type of critics.

No, I don't agree with everything written in the reviews, but gave them as samples of what the various reviews said. In the case of the eugenics quote, however, I agree with it to the degree that I think eugenics was a science, not that it still is.

I wouldn't hold up a hypocritical judge who attends a Christian church on Sunday and then says the Bible isn't true religion (as he did in a graduation speech) and exemplified judicial incompetence and bias from the bench as something to brag about. Not to mention he made erroneous statements of fact from his ruling and accepted improper testimony and misrepresentations from Ken Miller under oath. His ruling is emblematic of how Dawkins and friend continue to promote Darwinism in the guise of science. ID is winning in the court of public opinion and getting a fair hearing among the scientists of tomorrow.

In any case, back to the original topic, unlike most of Dawkins reviewers, I think he makes a case against the Christian faith which Christians would do well to address. I would have a difficult time myself addressing those issues, and hence, one rarely sees me discuss those topics as I don't think I have yet a good enough answers.

In contrast, I think he is very unconvincing in his science. Even in a recent class in biology in Cornell by Allen MacNeill, I was surprised that even pro-evolutionist were disappointed in his book, Blind Watchmaker. He continues to fail to make a convincing case for his "science".

If he took on the design theorists in this realm he'll be cut to shreds.

See Dover for relevent examples of what happens when 'design theorists' take on proper scientists in the realm of 'arguments for Darwinian evolution'.

you posted this quote up - so do I take it that you agree with this statement?

But eugenics is science as surely as totemism is religion.

What are his weakest arguments are his arguments for Darwinian evolution, his explanation for universal fine tuning, and his arguments by definition of science vs. design. If he took on the design theorists in this realm he'll be cut to shreds.

I might gladly debate some like him on science, but I would be reluctant to debate him on theology. I think the issues he raises about the Old Testament, I would have to concede are troubling even to many Christians, more challenging than even the thought of Adam and Eve and special creation.

Sal