Max, I don't want to lay this on too thick, and thereby, lose all credibility. However, that was one of the finest and very best columns that I've read since the Internet came into existence thanks to Al Gore. Perhaps, I should not have made that last jocular comment, since I am dead serious about my reaction to this Masterpiece.
I've read three of your novels, and you are a very good novelist, no question. Today's effort is something else entirely. I have read it twice, and I hesitate to illuminate any of the individual parts because each one is complex. Yet, in a way that I've never experienced before, you wove several separate threads, all of which are still subject to hot debate, into a powerful literary tapestry. I'm in awe.
I wrote a novel, Archangel of Sedona (published by Warriors Publishing Group). In an exchange among a lawyer, his wife, a young Irish priest, and an all-but defrocked Anglican cleric, they discuss the subject of the creation of the universe. I was proud of this part of my novel, and received a lot of compliments (especially from a couple of book clubs in England).
However, compared to your column, my effort was superficial. As I suggested above, the way you wove Hollywood history, Biblical interpretations, Mathematics, DNA science and other features was incredibly compelling.
Steve, you deserve the Pulitizer Prize just for drafting Max into your fabulous new effort. Steve, you are already eclipsing older blog sites that are running out of intellectual fuel. Max adds a dimension that makes the final product that you publish, so much greater than the sum of your admittedly impressive parts.
My good friend Tonyp173 has expressed my thoughts on this essay better than I could. I consider myself pretty well read, yet Max has brought us eye-opening background to the Scopes trial: (1) the plot to create a sensational trial; and (2) the nature of the text used by Scopes.
I am so pleased to see that Max—whom I also consider a good friend—has found this wonderful outlet for his deep and wide-ranging thoughts. I look forward to many more essays.
"In his book George Hunter endorsed Charles Darwin’s original teaching that Europeans were farther along in their evolution than the “savage” Africans. He categorized humans in five groups—Ethiopian (Black), Malay (Brown), American Indian (Red), Mongolian (Yellow), and Caucasian (White), and claimed that the “Caucasian” race is the "highest type of all," represented by the "civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America." In his hierarchy he ranked “Ethiopians” at the lowest level."
Thing is Eugenic was VERY popular in certain circles, from the late 19th century. Starting in May of 1945 those alive and institutions endorsed it, spent a great deal of time sweeping this inconvenient fact under the rug (nothing to see here..move along).
The same silly Evil idea is alive and well today in DEI, just reversed who is superior.
excellent work Max. Being a simple man myself whenever I encounter the Something from Nothing zealots I point to the Big Bang Theory and ask, who lit the fuse? They never are able to answer.
My old philosophy professor, Dr. Richard Wood (RIP) frequently asked that final question, "why is there something rather than nothing?" Nice to see it reprised here, Max. Great column and thank you. . . .
I read the first paragraph and immediately thought of the dark movie, "American Beauty." Life is a single data point in the universe, which even scientists should accept as the best evidence of God. Our fevered imaginations create aliens, ghosts, UFOs; all are a desperate attempt to explain the unexplainable mystery of Creation. Despite space telescopes and advanced telemetry, all we hear is cosmic silence and all we see are more stars. I say all this as a life-long principled agnostic.
From Darwin on down, there have been plenty of fudged or missing data and wishful interpretations to fit theory. When it gets too obviously wrong, the theory is tweaked as minimally as possible. This all led us willy-nilly to today's woke imitations of scholarship.
FYI, this has a good recent Bible translation to start from:
I watched the film a few years back and was turned off by the cheesy, one-sided moralism described by this author. I couldn't get past that aspect of it to enjoy the performances and whatnot. And I say this as an atheist. This is why the second part of this essay about biblical exegesis and a weak attempt to discredit basic evolutionary theory with the old distraction about statistical improbability are so unpersuasive. Just because evolution can't explain everything from day one doesn't mean we should resort to that old-time religion. Also, the author's dismissal of eugenics is at best outdated and at worst preposterous. Just like with immigration policy, no eugenics policy is a policy. Just because sanger-style "family planning" was immoral doesn't discredit eugenics as such. Thanks for the film review. Hate that movie 😂.
Max, I don't want to lay this on too thick, and thereby, lose all credibility. However, that was one of the finest and very best columns that I've read since the Internet came into existence thanks to Al Gore. Perhaps, I should not have made that last jocular comment, since I am dead serious about my reaction to this Masterpiece.
I've read three of your novels, and you are a very good novelist, no question. Today's effort is something else entirely. I have read it twice, and I hesitate to illuminate any of the individual parts because each one is complex. Yet, in a way that I've never experienced before, you wove several separate threads, all of which are still subject to hot debate, into a powerful literary tapestry. I'm in awe.
I wrote a novel, Archangel of Sedona (published by Warriors Publishing Group). In an exchange among a lawyer, his wife, a young Irish priest, and an all-but defrocked Anglican cleric, they discuss the subject of the creation of the universe. I was proud of this part of my novel, and received a lot of compliments (especially from a couple of book clubs in England).
However, compared to your column, my effort was superficial. As I suggested above, the way you wove Hollywood history, Biblical interpretations, Mathematics, DNA science and other features was incredibly compelling.
Steve, you deserve the Pulitizer Prize just for drafting Max into your fabulous new effort. Steve, you are already eclipsing older blog sites that are running out of intellectual fuel. Max adds a dimension that makes the final product that you publish, so much greater than the sum of your admittedly impressive parts.
My good friend Tonyp173 has expressed my thoughts on this essay better than I could. I consider myself pretty well read, yet Max has brought us eye-opening background to the Scopes trial: (1) the plot to create a sensational trial; and (2) the nature of the text used by Scopes.
I am so pleased to see that Max—whom I also consider a good friend—has found this wonderful outlet for his deep and wide-ranging thoughts. I look forward to many more essays.
"In his book George Hunter endorsed Charles Darwin’s original teaching that Europeans were farther along in their evolution than the “savage” Africans. He categorized humans in five groups—Ethiopian (Black), Malay (Brown), American Indian (Red), Mongolian (Yellow), and Caucasian (White), and claimed that the “Caucasian” race is the "highest type of all," represented by the "civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America." In his hierarchy he ranked “Ethiopians” at the lowest level."
Thing is Eugenic was VERY popular in certain circles, from the late 19th century. Starting in May of 1945 those alive and institutions endorsed it, spent a great deal of time sweeping this inconvenient fact under the rug (nothing to see here..move along).
The same silly Evil idea is alive and well today in DEI, just reversed who is superior.
True.
Wonderful, wonderful essay. Thank you so much.
excellent work Max. Being a simple man myself whenever I encounter the Something from Nothing zealots I point to the Big Bang Theory and ask, who lit the fuse? They never are able to answer.
You know how sexually repressed all those religious fanatics are
That's why they keep having all those kids.
Amazing column. I will need to reread it several times to digest it all - I’m blown away.
My old philosophy professor, Dr. Richard Wood (RIP) frequently asked that final question, "why is there something rather than nothing?" Nice to see it reprised here, Max. Great column and thank you. . . .
Excellent post, Max.
As usual, I have a small nit to pick, as follows:
"Of course, Christians follow the Jewish view that all human beings are made in the image of God."
It isn't just the Jewish view; it is more broadly the Israelite view, including the northern tribes.
I read the first paragraph and immediately thought of the dark movie, "American Beauty." Life is a single data point in the universe, which even scientists should accept as the best evidence of God. Our fevered imaginations create aliens, ghosts, UFOs; all are a desperate attempt to explain the unexplainable mystery of Creation. Despite space telescopes and advanced telemetry, all we hear is cosmic silence and all we see are more stars. I say all this as a life-long principled agnostic.
From Darwin on down, there have been plenty of fudged or missing data and wishful interpretations to fit theory. When it gets too obviously wrong, the theory is tweaked as minimally as possible. This all led us willy-nilly to today's woke imitations of scholarship.
FYI, this has a good recent Bible translation to start from:
https://www.amazon.com/Tanakh-Maalot-Magerman-Standard-English/dp/9657766400
This translates and further explains Rashi's commentary on Genesis:
https://www.amazon.com/Sapirstein-Rashi-Commentary-Translated-Elucidated/dp/0899060269
Thanks, RAM--in fact, that is the Rashi I have.
I watched the film a few years back and was turned off by the cheesy, one-sided moralism described by this author. I couldn't get past that aspect of it to enjoy the performances and whatnot. And I say this as an atheist. This is why the second part of this essay about biblical exegesis and a weak attempt to discredit basic evolutionary theory with the old distraction about statistical improbability are so unpersuasive. Just because evolution can't explain everything from day one doesn't mean we should resort to that old-time religion. Also, the author's dismissal of eugenics is at best outdated and at worst preposterous. Just like with immigration policy, no eugenics policy is a policy. Just because sanger-style "family planning" was immoral doesn't discredit eugenics as such. Thanks for the film review. Hate that movie 😂.
Thanks for your opinion, with which I obviously disagree.