"If God is sovereign, then his lordship must extend over all of life, and it cannot be restricted to the walls of the church or within the Christian orbit." Abraham Kuyper Common Grace 1.1.
Here is my review from Science and Christian Belief 19 (1) (2007) pp 93-94 of Roy's excellent Myth book:
Reviews can also be found here:
by Kenn Hermann (from Christian Scholar's Review) also here
In my judgment, this edition will stand as the best, most complete, introduction to Herman Dooyeweerd’s thought in the English language for many years to come.by James Skillen All theory is grounded
There is also a review by Michael De Moor in Religious Studies Review 33 (1) (Jan 2007) 50–51
Here's a comparison of the table of contents of the first and second edition.
Reviews of the first edition:
by Peter Bryne Religious Studies 31 (1) (March 1995) 142
This book argues for the conclusion that explaining and understanding the world is inevitably determined by our fundamental religious commitments. There is no religion-neutral way of understanding reality. Christian thinkers should return to what is claimed to be the Biblical view that religious belief should underlie and direct all knowledge and they should thus produce theories of reality, society and so on that reflect the underlying faith commitment that all things are created by God.
PETER BYRNE King's College London
by Montague Brown The Review of Metaphysics 46 (2) (Dec 1992)
Clouser claims that every theory is based on a religious presupposition, that is, on an idea of what is self-existent (divine). Since all such ultimate presuppositions are unjustifiable in principle, those who presuppose the biblical faith in God as creator are equally respectable intellectually as are those who presuppose any other theory of reality. In fact, the presupposition of a creating God results in superior interpretations of reality in all its many facets. This thesis is laid out in four parts: (1) "Religion," (2) "Theories," (3) "A Casebook," and (4) "Radically Biblical Theories."The book is very well written. It is clear and informative. There is excellent work on recognizing deficient theories in terms of logical inconsistency, self-referential incoherence, self-assumptive incoherence, and self-performative incoherence (pp. 68-73). His case studies point out clearly the unproven presuppositions behind many so-called "rationalist" theories about various aspects of reality. In addition, the "law framework theory" is impressive in its complexity and subtlety and well worth serious study.
--Montague Brown, Saint Anselm College, Manchester, N.H.
What does it mean to be a Christian in the world today? In Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview, now in its second edition, Albert Wolters addresses this question through an exposition of a framework for understanding and living obediently to scripture. Along with others in the Reformed tradition, he calls this framework a 'worldview' (from the German Weltanschauung), meaning a structure of beliefs which act as a guide to life. Wolters sets forth what he sees as the elements of such a worldview informed by the Protestant Reformation and shaped by the Bible.
In the bulk of the book, the author expounds a framework for understanding the teaching of scripture through three key concepts: creation, fall, and redemption. He stresses the goodness of God's creation, the thoroughness of humanity's fall (which impinges on all of creation), and the equally thorough scope of redemption through Christ, which restores creation. Wolters emphasizes this last point, insisting that God's grace is not supra-creational or anti-creational, but restorative of the original goodness and intention of creation. Because of the expansive scope of God's redeeming work, Christians are called to participate in this work in all parts of the world (not merely the 'religious'). In this way, Wolters stresses that redemption is about all of life, and not merely the afterlife.
To expand his account, Wolters introduces two terms to explain the relationship of the three concepts of creation, fall, and redemption: structure and direction. Structure, he states, 'refers to the order of creation', the unchangeable and basic reality created by God, akin to the philosophical notions of 'substance' or 'nature' (p. 59). Direction, on the other hand, deals with the evil in the world (the fall) and its cure (redemption). Structure and direction together make up 'worldview', which differs from philosophy and theology by being pre-theoretical (p. 10). These two terms allow him to talk about how something might be given in the order of creation (structure), and then used for or against the reign of God (direction).
There is much here that is good, but the book left me with serious questions. Wolters spends a fair bit of time unpacking the idea of creation, which he specifies as 'the correlation of the sovereign activity of the Creator and the created order' (p. 14). He then explores the notion of God's acts constituting and upholding creation, searching for a term to designate these acts, eventually arriving at 'law'. 'Law' not only stands 'for the totality of God's ordaining acts toward the cosmos' (p. 15), but also focuses 'attention on God as sovereign, as absolute Lord and King' (ibid. italics original). For two reasons, though, I wonder if 'law' is really the best term he might have used. First, people's experience of 'law' is generally something faceless and impersonal, whether it is natural or statutory law, or the sorts of norms Wolters envisions as present in social reality. Laws in nature generally tend to involve brute, blind force; laws in society may protect the strong or promote injustice, rather than protecting the weak and promoting justice; norms in society are notoriously labile. Given that Wolters earlier quibbles with using the term 'creation' itself to designate God's acts toward the cosmos because of the drawbacks associated with its usage, I wonder why he did not similarly reject 'law' in favor of another less problematic term? Second, I wonder why Wolters here wishes to focus attention only on God as 'absolute Lord and King'. The narrative arc of the Christian story – particularly in Jesus Christ – reveals a much richer notion of who this God is than only 'Lord and King', full stop. Does not the love, service, and self-sacrifice seen in Jesus Christ elaborate on such sovereignty in crucial ways? How might a richer, more Trinitarian notion of God have led to a different account of God's relation to creation, not denying but importantly expanding on God as 'Lord and King'? It seems that this would substantially recast later sections of the book.
Also, Wolters wants to get beyond a certain kind of dualism which divides the world into 'religious' and 'secular' realms, and which relegates scripture and faith to 'private' concerns, away from 'public' affairs such as art, politics, science, or scholarship (p. 8). This is an admirable goal, but one which the author executes unevenly, and even undermines at points.
For example, Wolters focuses on the cognitive aspect of humanity as the means by which we come to live faithfully, hence the focus on 'worldview'. The implication seems to be that if we can rearrange or replace our mental furniture to more faithfully embody scripture, then our lives will reflect our minds and be renewed. Thus is revealed a one-way subordinate relationship between beliefs and practices, in which practices always follow on from beliefs. In this, a dualism lurks: a dualism of inner (beliefs) and outer (practices).
This becomes even clearer in his discussion of consecration versus sanctification (pp. 89–95). Here, he stresses the importance of renewal from the inside out (which he terms sanctification), instead of external, 'superficial' renewal (consecration). So on Wolters's account, we are first properly renewed within, including but not limited to working through the basic structures of our beliefs (worldview). What results from this internal work is a reorientation of our lives and practices in the world, including our reforming work in the various pursuits – labor, teaching, science, and so forth – which make up our lives. The problem is that this seems far too neat, and neglects how practices form people as much as beliefs form people. Moreover, as many of those versed in virtue ethics would point out, such 'external' formation can be genuine and legitimate, leading to a good life. It might be observed that people become who they are as much from the outside in as the inside out, and to neglect or deny these external factors and the roles they might play risks yielding a truncated or artificial account. Although Wolters attempts to get beyond a private–public dichotomy, by limiting renewal to an inner aspect of human life – and resisting any concept of external renewal which might be prior to or simultaneous with that inner renewal – he undermines his attempt finally to get beyond this binary distinction.
But alongside these concerns, there is much to appreciate here, as Wolters expounds what a Reformed Christian worldview looks like. Among his most helpful points must be noted his clear sense that a biblical worldview does not provide answers, especially of the ready-made variety, but rather provides a framework by which we might shape our questions.
This book was originally intended to serve as an introduction to a biblical, Reformed worldview, used for a particular class that Wolters taught at the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto. More specifically, Wolters meant for it to be an introduction to the Reformed philosophy of D. H. T. Vollenhoven and Herman Dooyeweerd (although as the present work stands, there is little explicit exposition of the work of these thinkers – indeed, there are few footnotes or [extra-biblical] references of any kind). In this new edition, along with a slight revision of the text itself, Mike Goheen, a former colleague of Wolters, coauthors a postscript which relates narrative and mission to worldview and draws on the work of Lesslie Newbigin, N. T. Wright, and others.
Creation Regained is an introductory-level work. It makes some demands of its readers, but resists highly technical discussions and thus remains generally accessible. The author seems to envision an audience of introductory-level undergraduates, particularly of evangelical and Reformed sympathies (for example, his discussion of the permissibility of dance, while not without merit, will be a nonstarter for many Christians of different stripes). Nevertheless, most general, nonspecialist readers might make good use of the work. Although those outside of evangelical or Reformed circles might not find the specific points set forth here to be entirely convincing, Wolters challenges his readers to consider what difference being a Christian makes to living in the world today: a laudable and worthwhile project.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Once upon a time there was a book. We do not know where she came from, or how she grew to be what she was; one doesn’t know about books, only that, well, there they are—or at least, that we ourselves confronted in what we feel to be a bookish way when we are in their presence. And the sense of being so confronted is so strong in this case that we will skip Stanley Fish and say, again but with more conviction, once upon a time there was a book.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Powered by ScribeFire.
I managed to get a cheap copy of this book, I am really enjoying reading it. It it first came to my attention through the blogging of John La Grou at Microeclesia who has just finished a lengthy 10-part review of it...the architecture of Protestant church building points all of its arrows in the direction of the person who delivers the sermon. The building is suited for a pulpit domination. And it equally puts constraints on the functioning of the congregation.The result is the body becomes all mouth and ears, it encourages a split between clergy and laity.
This arrangement makes it nearly impossible for one worshipper to look into the face of another. Instead, it creates a sit-and-soak form of worship that turns functioning Christians into ‘pew potatoes!’ To state it differently, the very architecture prevents fellowship except betwee God and his people via the pastor! And yet despite these facts, we Christians still believe the building is sacred. (p 134).
Leonard Sweet (The Church in Emerging culture: Five Perspectives, Zondervan, 2003) devised a matrix (above) to show ‘four general conditions in which Christian faith may be lived and practiced’ (p 19). Viola obviously belongs in section 1 – he wants no change in method and no change in message. We do however, need to be open to Holy Spirit change!Powered by ScribeFire.
Perseverance of the saints
Authority of scripture
Noetic effects of the fall
Salvation in Jesus Christ
Yes to God’s grace
Powered by ScribeFire.
Powered by ScribeFire.
The modern concept of work has little in common with that of Genesis. In contemporary society our whole identity is too often tied up with "what we do", our employment. The fruit of this identification of work with employment and identity is that we have marginalised the unemployed. They are the outcasts.
The biblical story of creation. fall and redemption provides a useful framework in which to look at work.
The creation narrative is highly subversive(Hasel 1974; Walsh 1992; Wenham 1987). It undermined ancient near Eastern worldviews and continues to subvert contemporary ideas about work:
Creation
The first thing to note is that work is not a product of the fall. It is a part of the creation order. This undermines any notion that work is a necessary evil. God works and expects his creatures to work as well. Melakah, the ordinary word for human work (Wenham 1987: 35), is used to describe the activity of God: God works. This is in refreshing contrast to Greek gods who spent their time eating and drinking.
For the Greeks and Romans work was "unleisure" (Vanderkloet 1980: 21). From a biblical perspective work is positive not negative. It is part of what it means to be image bearers of God. Imaging God involves work. Thus, work can, in and of itself, bring fulfilment, it is not a means to the end of pleasure. To be human is to work (Dow 1987:13). This is in stark contrast to the Babylonian creation stories.
In the sixth tablet of the Enuma Elish humans are created so that gods do not have to work (Walton 1989 :22)
Blood will I compose, bring a skeleton into being,
Produce a lowly, primitive creature, "Man" shall be his name: I will create lullu-amelu - an earthly, "puppet"-man.
To him be charged the service that the gods may then have rest...
(Enuma Elish VI.5 in Winton Thomas (1958:12))
In Atrahasis some deities become tired of their work and rebel: "The gods' solution is to create [humans] to do the work" (Walton 1989: 21). Work is seen as a punishment; in the biblical narratives work is a privilege and a divine commission.
For the Greeks to be a manual labourer was to be considered part slave; freedom to pursue leisure was the only worthwhile life. In Gen 2: we have God creating humans out of the earth presumably as a potter with his hands! Here God vindicates manual labour.
What is often supposed to be the so-called second creation story places the creation of humanity in the context of work. There was no-one to work the ground, so God created humanity (2:5-7). Work (abad) in this context takes on a stewardship function. Work is important so that the garden can be cultivated. This echoes the supposed Priestly creation story where part of the human task of imaging God is to subdue the earth and rule over the living creatures(Cf Hall 1986;1990)
Work is integral to the human task of stewardship, hence work is not merely for humans to eat and feed others (pace Houston1980:162), or to earn a wage. It is part and parcel of developing and continuing the task of creation began by God.
We can concur with William Tyndale:
There is no work better than another to please God: to pour water, to wash dishes, to be a souter (cobbler) or an apostle, all is one; to wash dishes, and to preach is all one, as touching the deed, to please God.
Fall
Work is deformed by the fall. Its direction has been changed. Instead of meaningful work we can expect toil. The boa constrictor of toil has swallowed the warthog of work. Abad becomes itstsabon.
Itstsabon used only 3 times in the scriptures: twice in Gen 3 the other in Gen 5:29. It has been translated as sorrow, pain and toil. As a result of the fall, childbearing and work become a painful toil.
The work in developing the garden and producing food to eat is hampered by thistles and thorns. The mandate to fill the earth and subdue it is not rescinded it just becomes that much harder.
Redemption
Genesis 1-4 can only hint at the redemption of work: the warthog of work can now swallow the boa constrictor of toil - thanks only to the redemptive power of the cross and resurrection. Work and rest go hand in hand. It is this aspect that can help redeem work. Work without rest results in workaholism; rest without work results in laziness. The jubilee legislation and the decalogue are rooted in these creational aspects of work and then rest and are designed to bring a measure of redemption to work.
The punishments that come as the result of human sin i.e. infertile ground, that leads to toil, and banishment are standard curses, the remedy for which is obedience (cf Lev 26; Deut 28).
Many jobs are boring, repetitive and tedious, these jobs - if technology for instance were done responsibly before God - could be transformed. It is an obedient use of appropriate and responsible technology (Monsma 1986) that could relieve the frustration and tedium from jobs. If businesses and factories were run in obedience to biblical norms then jobs could be redeemed. Unfortunately for many employment is little short of slavery.
We can catch glimpses of redeemed jobs this side of the eschaton. We can, however, look forward to the toil that resulted from the fall being undone at the consummation. The thorns and thistles will be no more: there will be a whole transformation of the creation(Gowan 1986: ch 4).
There will be work in the new earth, it will however be work that is meaningful and not frustrating or tedious.
References
Graham Dow "What place does work have in God's purpose" Holy Trinity Papers (1987)
Donald E. Gowan Eschatology in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986)
Douglas J Hall Imaging God: Dominion as Stewardship (Friendship/ Eerdmans, 1986)
Douglas J Hall The Steward: A Biblical Symbol Come of Age (Friendship/ Eerdmans, 1990)
Gerhard Hasel "The polemic nature of the Genesis cosmology" Evangelical Quarterly vol 46 (1974) pp 81-102
James M. Houston I Believe in the Creator (Eerdmans, 1980)
Stephen Monsma (Editor) Responsible Technology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986)
D. Winton Thomas (ed.) Documents from Old Testament Times (London: Nelson, 1958)
Edward Vanderkloet "Why work anyway?" in Labour of Love: Essays on Work (Wedge, 1980)
Brian J. Walsh Subversive Christianity: Imaging God in a Dangerous Time (Regius, 1992)
John H Walton Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context (Regency/ Zondervan, 1989)
Gordon J. Wenham Genesis 1-15 (WBC) (Word, 1987)
Viola spends a few chapters showing 2nd-5th century Greek and Roman influence on Xn gathering, preaching, and hierarchy formation - and shows just how far we’ve drifted from the simplicity of “being” church - gathering together in Acts-like communities.
The notion of “going to church” / “church building” / paid clergy giving a “sermon in church” (etc.) would have been unknown to early Christ followers. The concept of church with “paid experts up front dispensing religious information” appears to be a third-century confluence of Greek sophistry and Roman judicial hierarchy.
Viola shows how Protestantism simply rearranged the ecclesial deck chairs of middle-ages Catholicism, including the elevation of religious experts (pastors, etc.) that effectively “run the show.” Says Viola, “…after the smoke cleared from the Reformation, we ended up with the same thing that the Catholics gave us – a selective priesthood!”
“The modern pastor is the most unquestioned element in modern Christianity. Yet he does not have a strand of scripture to support his existence… Rather, the modern pastor was born out of the single-bishop-rule first spawned by Ignatius and Cyprian. The bishop evolved into the local presbyter. In the Middle Ages, the presbyter grew into the Catholic priest. During the Reformation, he was transformed into the preacher, the minister, and finally the pastor – the man upon whom all of Protestantism hangs. To juice it down to one sentence: The Protestant pastor is little more than a slightly reformed Catholic priest.”
If I had to distill Pagan Christianity into one sentence, it would be this: We have institutionalized, centralized, formalized, stratified, professionalized, academized, and mega-fied something that was intended to remain organic, holistic, distributed, participative, fluid, and deeply communal.
Viola concludes, “Herein lies the root and stem of Christian education. It is built on the Platonic idea that knowledge and spirituality are the same… (ital mine) Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle (both students of Socrates) are the fathers of modern Christian education. To use a biblical metaphor, modern Christian education, whether it be seminarian or Bible college, is serving food from the wrong tree: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil rather than the tree of life…”
Powered by ScribeFire.
The only Christian work is good work done well. Let the Church see to it that the workers are Christian people and do their work well, as to God: then all the work will be Christian work, whether it is Church embroidery, or sewage-farming. As Jacques Maritain says: 'If you want to produce Christian work, be a Christian, and try to make a work of beauty into which you have put your heart; do not adopt a Christian pose.' He is right. And let the Chruch remember that the beauty of the work will be judged by its own, and not by ecclesiastical standards. Let me give you an illustration of what I mean. When my play The Zeal of Thy House was produced in London, a dear old pious lady was much struck by the beauty of the four great archangels who stood throughout the play in their heavy, gold robes, eleven feet high from wing-tip to sandal-tip. She asked with great innocence 'whether I selected the actors who played the angels for the excellence of their moral character?' I replied that the angels were selected, to begin with, not by me but by the producer, who had the technical qualifications for selecting suitable actors - for that was part of his vocation. And that he selected, in the first place, young men who were six feet tall, so that they would match properly together. Secondly, angels had to be of good physique, so as to be able to stand stiff on the stage for two and a half hours, carrying the weight of their wings and costumes, without wobbling, or fidgeting, or fainting. Thirdly, they must be able speak verse well, in an agreeable voice and audibly. Fourthly, they must be reasonably good actors. When all these technical conditions were fulfilled, we might come to the moral qualities, of which the first would be the ability to arrive on the stage punctually and in a sober condition, since the curtain must go up on time, and a drunken angel would indecorous. After that, and only after that, one might take character into consideration, but that - provided his behaviour was not so scandalous as to cause dissension among the company - the right kind of actor with no morals would give a far more reverent and seemly performance than a saintly actor with the wrong technical qualifications. The worst religious films I ever saw were produced by a company which chose its staff exclusively for their piety. Bad photography, bad acting, and bad dialogue produced a result so grotesquely irreverent that the pictures could not have been shown in churches without bringing Christianity into contempt. God is not served by technical incompetence; and incompetence and untruth always result when the secular vocation is treated as a thing alien to religion.
Powered by ScribeFire.
It is not known who made the first English translation, as distributed by the ICS mimeo. I have made some spelling corrections and grammatical changes. The original underlining in the typewritten translation has been replaced by italics, as in the original. The propositions marked with an asterisk [*] include both the original Dutch and the English text. For those propositions, this is a new translation. More importantly, I have used W.J. Ouweneel’s book De leer van de mens (Amsterdam: Buijten & Schipperheijn, 1986) in order to include extra material that Dooyeweerd added to these propositions. Ouweneel found this extra material in Dooyeweerd’s unfinished manuscript De mens: Inleiding tot de anthropologie van de Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee (typescript volume II, pages 753-898, Dooyeweerd Archives, Amsterdam, dated approximately 1942). I follow Ouweneel’s practice of inserting this extra material for these propositions between the markers <>. This unfinished manuscript was to be volume III of Dooyeweerd’s Reformation and Scholasticism, but he did not complete it. In his 1964 lecture, Dooyeweerd indicated that he still did want to finish it, although he said that Volume 2 of that planned trilogy, which was supposed to be a polemic directed against Roman Catholicism, had lost its point. This is because recent developments in Catholic theology (la nouvelle théologie) had resulted in that book having lost its point. He says that Roman Catholic theology is now moving in a direction opposed to scholasticism; it has now raised the following ideas: (1) it speaks about man’s radical corruption (2) it opposes any split between a domain of philosophy belonging to natural light of reason and a domain of theology belonging to the divine light of revelation (3) it denies the autonomy of thought (4) it affirms the religious center of man.
Powered by ScribeFire.
There are no crosses in Makoto Fujimura's paintings. No images of Jesus gazing into the distance, or serene scenes of churches in a snow-cloaked wood.
Fujimura's abstract works speak to his evangelical Christian faith. But to find it takes some digging.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Powered by ScribeFire.
A few words of explanation ...in general terms?
Well, erm, it’s about right and wrong in ... general terms...It’s a technical paper in mathematical logic. but it’s also about the difficulty of telling wrong from wrong. You see people think, that well, most most people think that in mathematics we always know what is right and wrong, not so, not anymore. It’s a problem that has occupied mathematicians for forty or fifty years.
How do you tell wright from wrong?
Bertrand Russell has written a book on it his Principia Mathematica – his idea was to break down all mathematical concepts and arguments into little pieces and then show they can be derived from pure logic. Well it didn’t quite work out that way and after many years of intensive work all he was able to show was that it was terribly difficult to do anything of the kind; but it was an important book. Important and influential it influenced both David Hilbert and and Kurt Godel. It’s rather like what physicsts call splitting the atom. As analysing the physical atom has led to a new kind of physics so the attempt to analyse these mathematical atoms has led to a new kind of mathematics.
David Hilbert took the whole thing a stage further. I don’t suppose his name means much if anything to you? Wel there you are you see, it’s the way of the world people never really seem to hear about the really great mathematicians. But Hilbert looked at the problem from a completely different angle He said that if we are to have any fundamental system for mathematics, like the one Russell was trying to work out
It must satisfy three basic requiremts: consistency, compelteness and decidability.
Now consistency means you won’t ever get a contradiction in your own system, in other words you will never be able to follow the rules of your and end up with showing 2 + 2 = 5.
Completeness means that if any statement is true there must be some way of proving it by using the rules of your system
and decidability means, well decidability means that there must exist some method, some definite procedure or test which can be applied to any given mathematical assertion and which will decide whether or not that assertion is provable.
Now Hilbert thought this was a perfectly reasonable set of requiremtns to impose.
But within a few years Kurt Godel showed that no system for mathematics could be both consistent and compete and he did this by constructing a mathematical assertion, which said in effect: This assertion cannot be proved.
Classic paradox! This assertion cannot be proved. Well, either it can or can’t
If it can be proved we have a contradiction and the system is inconsistent
If it cannot be proved then the assertion is true. But it can’t be proved, which means the system is incomplete.
Thus mathematics is either inconstent or incomplete. It’s a beautiful theorm. It’s quite beautiful. I think Godel’s theorem is the most beautiful thing I know.
The question of decidabilty was still unsettled. Hilbert thought there should be one single clearly defined method of proving whether mathematical assertions were provable. The decision problem he called it the entscheidungsproblem. In my book on computable numbers I wanted to show that no one method can work for all questions, solving mathematical problems requires an infinite supply of new ideas. It is one thing to make this claim it is a monumental task to prove it. I needed to examine the provability of mathematical assertions past present and future. How on earth was it it be done?
Eventually one word gave me a clue – people had been talking a bout a mechanical process and process that could be applied mechanically to mathematical problems, a process without requiring any human invention or ingenuity – machine; that was the crucial word. I conceived the idea of a machine. A Turing machine which would be able to scan mathematical symbols, it read them if you like it would read a mathematical assertion and then arrive at a verdict whether that assertion was provable. I was able to show that Hilbert was wrong. My idea worked.
How could you," began [George] Mackey, "how could you, a mathematician, a man devoted to reason and logical proof ... how could you believe that extraterrestials are sending you messages? How could you believe that you are being recruited by aliens from outer space to save the world? How could you ...?"
Nash looked up at last and fixed Mackey with an unblinking stare as cool and as dispassionate as that of any bird or snake."Because," Nash said slowly in his soft, reasonable drawl, as if talking to himself, "the ideas I had about supernatural beings came to me the same way that my mathematical ideas did. So I took them seriously."
I now regard Richard Dawkins as a dangerous enemy of truth, not the 'advocate for disinterested truth' he likes to style himself. As for my humble biology teacher, he is to be pitied for uncritically believing and teaching what he saw in the textbooks. It's the Dawkinses of this world who are the real culprits in this deception. For a number of years I quietly contemplated 'doing something about it' but my annoyance at Dawkins never went any further - that is, until September 2006, when his book The God Delusion came out. After carefully reading through it I concluded there was a need for a comprehensive website exposing Darwin's Rottweiler Charles Simonyi calls him. You're on that site now.
