Simplicity Book FINISHED!

[melanie]

Are you re-writing Jac's book?

Now, now, nothing is stopping you from writing your own K

[Kurieuo]

Mel, am I that obvious?

No, it's just my own way of supporting Jac's work.

[melanie]

Yeah I know
Just being a twit

[Jac3510]

I've adopted your language, K. If nothing else, it leaves less room for someone to feel misrepresented, and that strikes me as terribly important. Thanks for the help.

And a public thanks to FL who has been PMing me typos as he's found them. I suspect he's gotten most of them. Has saved me tons of time in proofing. I'll be doing that anyway, but it definitely makes me more confident about the quality of the product available right now.

I do expect that over the next year there will be some additions to the book. I have two appendices I want to write, one to expand on the brief discussion of have on the Incarnation, and one to offer a discussion on some nuances to the doctrine unique to Eastern Orthodoxy. But that stuff, while important, didn't feel important enough to me to delay making available what is a substantially complete argument as it stands. Thanks to everyone for all the encouragement both in this thread and in general over the past year.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

For example, you might find someone arguing that evolution is scientifically impossible. They may argue that even on the most charitable assumptions that the probabilities just don't add up, that even given the four billion years scientists say evolution had, that there simply was not enough time for chance, mutation, and natural selection to generate the level of biological complexity and diversity in the world today. Or within the Intelligent Design movement, some attempt to identify complex biological systems on the cellular level that cannot be explained through gradual evolutionary steps (for example, Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity"). These types of arguments are often used by creationists who hope to show that the world as we see it demands a Creator. After all, if evolution is not how we got here, then the only other options are that we have always been here or else we were created. But if we were created, then there must be a Creator, which is to say, God exists.

If you are going to go with K's piece above, you'll have to re-write it in your own style, Jac. After reading 120+ pages of Jac, I can assure you that K doesn't sound like you.

FL

[Jac3510]

I did, FL.

[Kurieuo]

Hmph. Not sure whether to feel insulted or take that as a compliment. (I'll take the former)
If you actually read Jac's original statement, not much was actually changed.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Hmph. Not sure whether to feel insulted or take that as a compliment. (I'll take the former)
If you actually read Jac's original statement, not much was actually changed.

Jac has a more congenial style in Making Divine Simplicity Simple which makes the book easy to read, and enjoyable. Your paragraph had words with too many syllables...

FL

[Kurieuo]

Give me a good hard science, theology or philosophy book any day.
I prefer accuracy and substance, even if there are more syllables...

People should learn to rise to such levels, rather than expect a dumbed down version.
I might just have greater confidence in the ability of people to understand.

(although I do enjoy Jac's book to whet an appetite for DS)

[Jac3510]

Perhaps, K, but my rephrasing was still for the reason that FL suggested. If you want to know, this is how I restated it:

• For example, you might find someone arguing that evolution is scientifically impossible. They may argue that even on the most charitable assumptions that the probabilities just don't add up, that even four billion years—which is how long scientists say evolution had—isn’t enough time for chance, mutation, and natural selection to generate the level of biological complexity and diversity in our world. For instance, some within what is called the Intelligent Design movement look at life at the cellular level and point to very complex biological systems that they argue evolution by itself could never produce (for one example of this approach, see Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity"). These types of arguments are often used by creationists who hope to show that the world as we see it demands a Creator. After all, if we didn’t get here by evolution, then we’ve either always been here or else we were created. But if we were created, then there must be a Creator, which is to say, God exists.

I'm still not happy with the phrase "at the cellular level," but it's acceptable. And the passage as a whole is tighter than my original offering. But, regardless, my audience is, as I said before, a non-technical one. Maybe people should be willing to work harder, but there's a chasm of difference between what people ought to do and what they will do. And if I can take something this difficult and do some extra work to put it more congenially, then why not? I do think one mark of a good writer is that they don't make their readers work harder than they have to. Obviously, a book like this, written on this level, will necessarily be introductory. But given how little most people, and most evangelicals in particular, know about it (in fact, how most would reject it these days), I think that's probably okay . . .

[Kurieuo]

I too thought on that one -- "at the cellular level".
But, that is really the crux of "irreducible complexity".
It's hard to think of a more dumbed down term to use.

And then mentioned Michael Behe rather than just IC (if people wish to explore the idea further)...

You could probably just get away removing specific mention of IC, and just say:

• "They may argue using intelligent design arguments that biological information and systems in life could never be produced by evolution."

That's a broadstroke... but FL is right despite my defensiveness that my words are more of a mouthful.

I don't want to detract from your paper which is the more important thing.
Wishing I just remained silent now. *sigh*

I'll just keep quite now.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I'm curious; has anyone else finished reading Jac's book? I'm reading it for a second time now.

FL

[jlay]

Chris,
Let me know when it's OK to share this. I'm part of CAA (christian apologetics alliance), a private forum on Facebook.
I'd like to share this with your blessing.
How is Arkansas?
Joel

[1over137]

I'm curious; has anyone else finished reading Jac's book? I'm reading it for a second time now.

FL

Why are you curious FL?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Why are you curious FL?

Because Jac's work is important reading for any layman curious about the nature of God. Frankly, I don't think many Christians are that interested. A lot just want Healing! and Financial Blessing! and to Rebuke Satan!. That type of showmanship is always popular but for those who like to think but do not have training in philosophy, Jac has made things easy for us. Anyway, don't take my word for it, look what jlay wants to do:

Chris, Let me know when it's OK to share this. I'm part of CAA (christian apologetics alliance), a private forum on Facebook.I'd like to share this with your blessing.

By the way, I don't think atheists will be able to read through the book as they'll probably get indigestion sometime past Chapter 4. When a child is used to drinking Tang, real orange juice seems unpalatable...

FL