Voice of Reason wrote:
I wouldn't say being an Apologist is tantamount to being a Creationist. Christian Apologists do sometimes have legitimate degrees. William Lane Craig for example actually does have a PhD in Christian Theology... he is just horrible at putting forth defenses for the Christian Faith. His "Kalam Cosmological Argument" has no actual credibility.
Hi VoR, thanks. I didn’t mention Creationists, but on reflection I do think that being an apologist for the literal historical account of the Bible and for the orthodox theory of salvation is tantamount to being a creationist, in that both are equally delusional. The difference is that creationism is generally seen as a form of idiocy, whereas apologism continues to receive social respectability despite its incoherence. This respectability is achieved by the simple expedient of completely ignoring critics. We see in this thread the great difficulty believers have in engaging rationally on this topic.
The point at issue is how we interpret the evidence for the emergence of Christianity.
This has prompted me to start a new thread on Plausible Theory of Christian Origins
, where I would welcome further discussion.