Kinder, gentler article wishlist


(Christy Hemphill) #1

Continuing the discussion from Honoring our brothers and sisters:

@jammycakes James brings up the point that sometimes there is good information you would like to share, but you know the tone of its presentation would be a turn-off to the audience you would like to read it, so you don’t share it.

I thought it might be helpful to compile a list of topics readers wish they had an even-handed presentation for. (You can include links to the articles you wish you could share, but aren’t “seeker friendly” enough if you like.)

Then maybe if other people know of a more irenic article, they can point us in that direction. Or Brad and company can get some ideas for potential blog topics.


(Brad Kramer) #2

…I’m also open to feedback on specific BioLogos articles that, in your opinion, do not reflect gracious tone.


(Jim Lock) #3

@Christy @BradKramer This isn’t a science topic. But I would like to see something on the earliest Genesis manuscripts. When they were written, how they differ, criticism, and how all of that fits into modern hermeneutics.

Jim


(Phil) #4

topics that I would find easier to share on facebook are probably those that relate more to theology and biblical interpretation, and link that to how it integrates with scientific issues. The one just posted is a good example of that, though I would have probably titled it something like "How do we understand Adam and Eve?"rather than “Were Adam and Eve Historical Figures” though that was not bad. Sort of need to get people reading before bringing in the controversy.


(James McKay) #5

I’ve been meaning to post this for a few days, but not got round to it yet.

The article I had in mind was one on the Age of Rocks blog titled “Can Young-Earth Creationists Find Oil?” The premise of this article is incredibly useful because it illustrates the point that long ages are motivated at least in part by real-world, practical applications where geologists are under strong financial incentives to produce results that are correct, not results that are convenient. As such, it is a powerful rebuttal to the oft-heard YEC claim that old-earth results are motivated by atheistic presuppositions.

It also illustrates how the assumptions of historical science can be verified, by using them to make testable predictions, and it also provides a rebuttal to Andrew Snelling’s claim that the age of oil deposits is irrelevant.

The problem is that it takes far too long to get to the point, and before you actually get to it, you have to wade through some very confrontational language that isn’t actually all that relevant. Any YEC reading it would read the subtitle, “Active vs. Passive Strategies for Combatting YEC” and possibly the first paragraph, and dismiss it as being ideologically motivated without reading any further. It also doesn’t do justice to the point about the motivation behind long ages being practical rather than ideological.

What I’d like to see is a rewrite of this article, preferably by a petroleum geologist, that addresses these issues, and possibly even goes into a bit more detail. In particular, if they could give some kind of indication about the financial and political implications of drilling in the wrong place, or finding that the oil deposits are too young or too old, that would also be useful.


(Christy Hemphill) #6

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.