Evidence for God from Science

This essay was recently posted on Roger E. Olson's (Theology Professor at Baylor University). It's written by Michael Clawson, a colleague of Roger's also from Baylor.

It does a reasonably good job, I think of explaining what he sees as an emerging movement which he calls Neo-Fundamentalism and it focuses particularly on the influence of John Piper, Albert Mohler and Mark Driscoll. Others refer to it as Neo-Calvinism.

I think it's an interesting read and it highlights some of what is arising within evangelicalism and reformed communities.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolso ... thy-essay/

Interesting article. Guess you could say I'm a fan of Piper.

The author here clarified his use of the term "neo-fundamentalism" several times, but I can't imagine many at all accepting the term. "Neo" may only literally mean "new", but I don't see many actually describing themselves as "neo-this or that". And Fundamentalism, we know the modern definition of that term. So anyone who sees the term "neo-fundamentalism", there's no way that the vast majority of people aren't going to come in with a huge number of preconceived negative ideas about what it must be.

Now postmodernity, I kind of think that's by and large a red herring that isn't going to have a lasting impact in serious discussions. I'm with William Lane Craig on his explanation of it here- http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=6479

I think lip-service is given to post-modernity and relativism as a kind of easy way to satisfy people of different religions and try to find some sort of unity on divisive issues so that we can come to a sort of all-inclusive theory of everything. But people still by and large believe that 2+2=4, that there are objective morals and duties, etc. Postmodern issues can still be addressed for individuals/the masses, but on an intellectual level those who hold to verificationism/scientism are the ones who seem to be the internet atheists and most hostile critics of Christianity.