What that effectively did, according to Gordin, was decimate foreign language learning in the US. This results in a generation of future scientists who come of age in the s with limited exposure to foreign languages.
- Quantum Entanglements: Selected Papers;
- Studies in Penology dedicated to the memory of Sir Lionel Fox, C.B., M.C. / Etudes Penologiques dédiées `la mémoire de Sir Lionel Fox, C.B., M.C..
- Pilgrimages/Peregrinajes: Theorizing Coalition Against Multiple Oppressions.
- Advances in Chemical Physics, Volume 120: Computational Methods for Protein Folding?
- The Nature of Work: An introduction to debates on the labour process!
- Her Scandalous Intentions!
- Functional Programming.
That was also the moment, according to Gordin, when the American scientific establishment started to take over dominance in the world. So you end up with a very American-centric, and therefore very English-centric community of science after World War II. You can see evidence of this world history embedded into scientific terms themselves, Gordin said. In their scientific experiments, they needed a new term for a new notion of an element they were constructing. Now terms like online, transistor, microchip, that stuff is just brought over in English as a whole.
English is the Language of Science – and that’s OK - GlobalEnglish
Listen navigate down. News Programs navigate down. Podcasts navigate down. Features navigate down. Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Sep 29, Chad Warner rated it it was ok Shelves: christian , non-fiction , science. An engaging but theologically unfulfilling attempt to convince Christians to adopt theistic evolution. The authors accept as fact essentially all current theories of biological and cosmological origins, and interpret the Bible as non-literally as necessary to fit.
They seem more concerned with interpreting the Bible in as broad and symbolic a way as necessary for their purposes than with studying creation-related topics in a biblically sound and theologically consistent way. The book discusses th An engaging but theologically unfulfilling attempt to convince Christians to adopt theistic evolution.
The authors, members of BioLogos, are respectful of other views, but make it clear that they believe theistic evolution is the only true view. Much of the book tells the history of Christian opinion about evolutionary theory. I found this somewhat interesting, but largely irrelevant to the discussion.
Below are my notes from the book, without any commentary from me. Below that are some of my comments, and questions this book raised for me. While God is certainly capable of creating the appearance of age, we suggest this does not align with his character or a clear reading of Genesis.
The Language of Science
Most yield ages for Earth around 5 billion years. There is no evidence that radioactive decay rates were faster in the past ,and radioactive decay has been observed to be basically impervious to change, even at extreme pressures and temperatures. Humans do evil with their freedom, and nature creates unpleasant things with its evolutionary freedom.
Commentary The authors claim that the lifespans of many patriarchs are symbolic, not historical. See, for just one example, how the number 40 is used throughout the Bible see also The Significance of Numbers in Scripture. There is no process by which Jesus could have been conceived or resurrected, yet Christians believe that it occurred. The same goes for the many other miracles recorded in the Bible, yet the Christian faith requires that we believe them anyway. Questions These are questions I thought of while reading, with links to possible explanations from young earth creationists.
I don't claim that young earth creationists have all the answers and neither do they , but of the alternative views, I find their explanations to be the most theologically tenable yet scientifically plausible. Q: What are the theological implications of origins theories? Q: Did any creatures die before the Fall? Q: Does Genesis present two different creation stories?
Q: What about the age indicated by distant starlight? Q: What about the age indicated by ice cores? Q: What about the age indicated by Milankovitch cycles? View 1 comment. Aug 11, Jared Totten rated it liked it. It picked up steam, it grew, and it is now an avalanche fast approaching both the scientific and Christian landscape.
From the book grew the BioLogos Foundation. At the risk of being too simplisti In , Francis Collins rolled a snowball called The Language of God and tossed it down a hill. At the risk of being too simplistic, Francis Collins and BioLogos represent the most visible apologists of theistic evolution. While The Language of God was their defense to the naturalistic and atheistic camps, The Language of Science and Faith is their entreaty to the Christian and theistic circles.
- Reclaiming the City: Mixed use development (Texts in Statistical Science).
- European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2012?
- Why Is English the Language of Science? Scientific Translation.
- Outlaws in Medieval and Early Modern England.
I honestly don't know which is the more difficult task. There is much here that I applaud. I believe that all truth is God's truth, and science is one of the ways that we discover truth about our universe. Thus anything that science proves to be true, we should celebrate as part of God's good creation. The authors seem dismissive of Intelligent Design, brushing it off as a mere creationism in disguise. They state without citing sources that a majority of evangelicals still hold to young earth creationism and verge on condescension in the process.
They suggest that evolution offers a better explanation to the "evil" we see in nature wasps planting their eggs inside a live caterpillar which serves as food when the eggs hatch, etc. At times, they even seem to be committing a sort of "science of the gaps" error in suggesting future science is a better answer than considering the involvement of God. In the end, this is an important conversation for Christians to have, and Giberson and Collins have played a huge role in advancing that discussion. While this book will be controversial to most people at one point or another, they state their case clearly and compellingly.
Jul 18, Michelle rated it liked it. Sometimes the science explanations were over my head, but much of the time the authors took complex things and made them much clearer. They present many strong cases that challenge some of my own long-held beliefs. I appreciated the mental exercise and found their approach smart and respectful even if it didn't completely convince me to change my mind. A good book for skeptics to see faith and science as compatible, and a good choice for long time believers trying to reconcile conflicting ideas Sometimes the science explanations were over my head, but much of the time the authors took complex things and made them much clearer.
Jan 06, David rated it liked it Shelves: theology , apologetics , science. This book presents the position of what is commonly called theistic evolution. The authors attempt to both argue that Darwinian evolution correctly explains how modern species came to be and that this in no way negates the existence of God.
They cover a lot of ground, with each section beginning with a question thus it almost reads like a page FAQ. I enjoyed the book. They succeeded in strongly presenting the truth that Christians can believe in evolution.
About Language of Science
Further, they succeed in answerin This book presents the position of what is commonly called theistic evolution. Further, they succeed in answering a lot of questions more traditional questions will face in coming to terms with evolution. While on one hand accepting evolution does not negate God, a world in which God creates through evolution does lead to different philosophical and theological conclusions about who that God is, then one in which God creates in a literal seven days.
There are a few minor problems with the book. In the introduction they discuss Social Darwinism, the movement in the early s to take the science of evolution and turning it into a social mandate. Basically, if the fittest survive in nature, efforts should be made to only allow the fittest to survive, which led to the discrimination of weak members of society.
Social Darwinism is often trumped up by Christians as a reason to reject the science of evolution. Giberson and Collins correctly differentiate the two, concluding bad sociology does not nullify good science. But then they make a statement: "Evolution does not provide an argument for atheism, and it cannot be used to justify mistreatment of the weak.
My issue is that "cannot" appears to be a strong word. They just spent a few pages showing historically, some have made just that argument. They attack statements made about how many in the academic community question Darwinian evolution. Their argument is that most who sign these statements are not biologists, and most of the biologists who do sign them are retired and thus did most of their study before the strongest evidence in support of Darwinism came to light.
What they are saying is to beware of experts in one area acting like experts in another.