> When it comes to books, it is very important for the publisher to look
> at what will sell. Their job is to make money.
Many (most?) publishers are concerned about their image. They will
not carry titles/authors whose work is perceived as a threat to that
image. This is where the "establishment" concept comes into play.
[snip]
> As to the usefulness of challenging, I still challenge the validity of
> all other apologetical paradigms(they all are falsified by observational
> data), and if I can think of a better paradigm than the one I now
> advocate, I will challenge mine also. Christians have got to realize
> that challenges to a paradigm are good.
The principle of exposing ones ideas to challenges has got to be
right. A challenge can stimulate clearer thought and can lead to
progress in understanding. There are probably some other less
beneficial possible outcomes (misunderstandings, seemingly
endless controversy, personal animosity, party spirit, the
development of "establishment" positions, etc).
Just as Christians should see challenges to their paradigm as
potentially good, so also should others. The challenges may be at
the metaphysical level (Christianity, naturalism, post-modernism,
etc) and also at higher levels (Darwinism, protein-first abiogenesis,
etc). "Establishment" positions can operate at these levels as well.
How have neo-Darwinists reacted to the not inconsiderable challenge
to their position? Do we really see a welcome to stimulating debate?
I hasten to add that some do. William Provine has, in the past,
involved Phillip Johnson in his undergraduate classes: he welcomed
the challenge and thought it would do his students a lot of good.
> Unfortunately, we all act as if
> a rejection of the paradigm each of us personally holds means a
> rejection of the Bible itself. It is this attititude, (that ones own
> interpretation is the only divinely inspired interpretation ) that
> causes so many problems among Christians. And it is for this reason that
> I believe that the title of this thread should be changed to the one
> above.
There's a lot of common ground here. I think Phil Johnson's approach
is one we can all learn from: he does not set out to "win" an
argument, but to open people to alternative ways of addressing issues
and stimulating a broader spirit of enquiry. Let's have more of this
- and then maybe we'll have fewer crusading apologists coming at us
with flawed arguments.
Best regards,
David J. Tyler.