RE: An interesting atheist book

From: Hofmann, Jim (
Date: Sun Jun 01 2003 - 20:53:12 EDT

  • Next message: Debbie Mann: "RE: The forgotten verses"

    As an historian of 19th century electrodynamics, perhaps I can contribute a bit to this discussion. I don't want to make any claims about the specifics of the present disagreement since I am not sufficiently familiar with the relevant literature. Rather, I just want to make a comment based upon my own experience with both published and manuscript material.
    There is much more to historical research than simply finding quotations, placing them in categories, and counting up one's findings. Some publications are far more influential and representative than others. An historian has to take into consideration the distribution and impact of a publication, as well as its intended audience. Also, authors often change their position in the course of a career or lifetime. A position advocated early in a career may be withdrawn or rejected later. (I don't need to point this out to Glenn of course.)
    So in response to Glenn's challenge, I don't think we should too quickly accept the parallel he offers. Careful historical research can be a very tedious and drawn out affair.
    Jim Hofmann
    Cal State Fullerton

            -----Original Message-----
            From: []
            Sent: Sun 6/1/2003 11:07 AM
            Subject: Re: An interesting atheist book

            As I have thought about things, I have one more question. Given that
            I have found many more YECs and anti-geologists in 2.5 years of
            searching than have been found by others in 25 years, What is the
            1) in approach by 19th century historians, who everytime a 19th
            century person is quoted as saying that there is a battle between
            science and religion going on, denies vigorously the validity of that
            statment and any implication flowing from that statment
            2) the young-earth creationist, who everytime a scientific experiment
            or data point contradicts their view of earth history, denies
            vigorously the validity of that data point and any implication
            flowing from that data point?
            Seems to me to be a very similar methodology.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jun 01 2003 - 20:53:31 EDT