New Republic picks up Adam and Eve piece

Well, it’s a surprise to me, but a pleasant one: The New Republic published a slightly modified version of my Adam and Eve vs. Science post from yesterday. And yes, I get a modest stipendiary emolument for the NR version, so I’m not a write-for-free dupe like those who enrich HuffPo.  The New Republic’s online version is here, and there’s a nice header:

Picture 1

What surprised me is that a piece that is so strongly anti-theology, and doesn’t mince words about it, would be acceptable to a mainstream venue. It’s a nice palliative to the accommodationist blatherings of BioLogos.

Don’t bother to read this one if you read yesterday’s; there’s only a slight difference in the text. (On the other hand, as some readers pointed out, going over there gives them hits that might help get more such articles published, and you also get the chance to comment in a place with a larger readership than this one.)

16 Comments

  1. Sastra
    Posted November 27, 2013 at 9:04 am | Permalink

    I wonder how you’ll fare in the comments, which is likely to include a lot of people who really, really want to see this article as attacking “literalism” and won’t quite know what to do with a devastating critique of the desperate move to save one’s faith with metaphors. My guess is that there will be some of the usual huffing and puffing about how POWERFUL metaphors can point to ACTUAL truths and the consequent blurring of the line between fact and meaning. “Coyne laughably fails to understand blah blah blah…”

    The ecumenical position — that the specific details of individual religions don’t matter (that is, are a matter of taste and culture) because what really counts is the vague and blurry area of supernatural spirituality they share in common — is supposed to be the intellectually approved stance of tolerance and insight. The fact that you reject even this will make them want to brand you their version of a heretic — a ‘fundamentalist.’ After all, you’re saying you’re right and other people are wrong. That’s fundamentalism. In their world.

    Spirituality is supposed to be where everyone gets to be right because only the individual knows what ‘works’ for them. As I said, a confusion of fact and meaning.

    • Posted November 27, 2013 at 10:11 am | Permalink

      I wonder how you’ll fare in the comments

      As of now, it’s 100% supportive with a strongly blasphemous streak.

      Of course, I might have had something to do with that….

      b&

      • Vaal
        Posted November 27, 2013 at 10:29 am | Permalink

        Loved your comment there Ben.

        Vaal

        • Posted November 27, 2013 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

          Tanks!

          You know, you can join the chorus, too….

          b&

          • Paul S.
            Posted November 27, 2013 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

            Piled on.

    • Larry Gay
      Posted November 27, 2013 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

      Sastra, you nailed it. The first (very self-confident) comment is: atheist = fundamentalist.

  2. gbjames
    Posted November 27, 2013 at 9:06 am | Permalink

    sub

  3. Posted November 27, 2013 at 10:06 am | Permalink

    Don’t bother to read this one if you read yesterday’s; there’s only a slight difference in the text.

    Oh, no — quite the contrary! The more people who at least click through, and especially the more people who comment, the more likely they’ll be to buy more of your essays in the future.

    I did so for the purely selfish reason that the more money that goes in your pocket the more of it you’ll pass on to Doctors Without Borders.

    Cheers,

    b&

    • Posted November 27, 2013 at 10:09 am | Permalink

      Also, you’re on the front page of their site! Second row, fist column — with all three of the articles in the first row being holiday feel-good fluff pieces.

      In other words, you’re headlining their serious stories!

      b&

  4. Posted November 27, 2013 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    They link to the wrong original article at the bottom.

  5. Robert Byers
    Posted November 27, 2013 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

    The bigger point in all this is that it hAS to be said Adam and eve were not true.
    This in a popular, I think, magazine with claims to being about serious issues.
    Surely this is a sign of the times.
    Creationism is so popular and such a rising movement in ideas about the planets past that the establishment needs affirmation Genesis is not true still!!
    Articles like these are not documenting adam and Eve never existed as MUCH as they are documenting this needs to be said.
    If its a must to read then surely it will be allowed by a YEC creationist to have rebuttal.
    Thats what serious publicans are expected to do if they want to be seen as serious.
    Contact AIG or ICR or your local friendly neighbourhood creationist.

  6. Posted November 28, 2013 at 9:33 am | Permalink

    I could not find where the comments for the New Republic article are.

    • gbjames
      Posted November 28, 2013 at 9:46 am | Permalink

      At the bottom. You have to click for them.

      • Posted November 28, 2013 at 10:21 am | Permalink

        Thanks. I actually did find them off to the side, not at the bottom. The quirks of various operating systems (I use Ubuntu) are nearly as mysterious as the variety of sky faries.

  7. Marcel Volker
    Posted November 28, 2013 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    NR seem to like you, which is nice.

    They seem to attract a fair amount of people that have contrarian views to yours/ours – let’s just call them antiscientific, so either they are bringing you in for balance/education, or as clickbait (I’m hoping the former).

    Regardless, keep it up, great job!


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 28,798 other followers

%d bloggers like this: