(updated
01.13.10, 3:00 pm CST)
Spring 2010
Christian Faith and Science (SWBTS #PHILO
4483 – Spring 2010)
<> Syllabus.
Christian Faith and Apologetic Issues (SWBTS #PHILO 7514 – Spring
2010)
<> Syllabus.
Fall 2009
Christian Apologetics (SWBTS #PHILO 4373
– Fall 2009)
<> New as of 11.25.09! Crossing the finish line: Here’s what’s involved in
finishing out this course: (1) You need to hand in a hard-copy version of your
critical review on Monday, November 30, 2009 in class. (2) You need to email
the grader (Jack Greenoe -- JLGreenoe{AT}elearning.swbts.edu) your 3,000-word
web posts on hostile websites (including links to your posts) by Friday,
December 4, 2009 at 12:00 noon. (3) You need to take the comprehensive in-class
final on Monday, December 7, 2009 -- the
final is at the regular class time.
<> Extra-credit: Attend faith-science
conference taking place this week at Southwestern Seminary (for details go here)
and, while there, get signatures inside an intelligent design book (preferably
Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the
Cell) from at least three conference speakers. Also, provide a
one-paragraph review of the conference – which sessions you attended on
which days, which session made the biggest impact on you and why; also, list
the people who signed your intelligent design book. Hand in this review next
class period. Depending on how much of the conference you attend, this can
raise your grade by one-third of a letter (e.g., from a B to a B+). Extra-credit
here, however, will not raise your grade from an A- to an A or from an A to an
A+.
<> Midterm Exam (take-home):
click here for rtf version and click here for pdf version. Due
Wednesday 10.21.09 at 12:00 noon as Word document emailed to the grader Jack
Greenoe at JLGreenoe{AT}elearning.swbts.edu.
<> CRITICAL REVIEW: Your critical review is due in hardcopy form
in class on Monday of 11.30.09 -- this is the last day of class. Also, you need
to email it as a Word document no later than noon on that Monday to our grader
Jack Greenoe (both of us will be grading the reviews). His email address is
JLGreenoe{AT}elearning.swbts.edu. Please be sure to get confirmation that he
received your review. Your review will be of Martin Gardner’s The Flight of Peter Fromm. It is to be
2,000 to 2,500 words in length. The skill in writing these reviews is not to
summarize the whole book point for point, but rather to uncover its essence --
its main argument and animating principle -- and then to assess it critically.
Phillip Johnson is a master of such reviews: go here, here, here, and here. Alvin
Plantinga’s review of Dawkins’s The
God Delusion is also instructive: go here. For examples of critical reviews by William
Dembski, go here,
here,
and here.
You can also look at the reviews at First
Things and at Books &
Culture.
<> Dear Class, I want to
share with you a few things: (1) For extra credit I'd like you to go to SMU on
September 24th. On that day there are two back-to-back events at SMU
celebrating Darwin -- go to smu.edu/smunews/darwin/events.asp
and scroll down to September 24th. I don't want you going there merely as
spectators but will indicate in class how you might actively participate and
engage the Darwin-lovers you'll find there. (2) I keep trying to reach our
grader, but so far with no success. I'm not hearing back from him by email or
by phone, and his voicemail indicates he's going to be incommunicado till
September 21st. I don't know why this should be. In any case, please keep
working on the precis statements. They need to be turned in and you need to try
your best, but I will cut you all some slack on the grading until we get into a
regular routine. I'm sorry about this. (3) For me to email you all, I need to
go through Blackboard, which lists my SWBTS address as my return email address.
Please do NOT use this email address in contacting me. Instead, address ALL
email correspondence to my designinference.com email address given in class.
(4) Some people are emailing me précis statements. Please don't. Your
grade on these statements is based entirely on the hardcopy précis
statements that you hand in at the start of class. (5) Although I asked for you
to email me the executive summaries of yourselves, I also need hardcopy and
it's only by handing in the hardcopy that you will avoid losing points from
your grade. I continue to await a number of these. –WmAD
<> Regarding daily précis assignments,
here’s what they need to contain: (1) your name, date, and course number;
(2) a single summary sentence for each block of text in this week’s
reading, no block exceeding 10 pages (thus a reading of 100 pages will require
at least 10 précis sentences); (3) a burning/troubling/or otherwise
important question to you raised by this week’s reading; (4) a sentence
describing a key insight that you gained from this week’s reading; (5)
the number of hours and minutes of undivided attention that you spent on this
week’s reading along with your signature declaring that this number is
accurate.
<> Syllabus.
Intelligent Design or Unintelligent Evolution (SWBTS #PHILO 2483
– Fall 2009)
<> New as of 11.25.09! Crossing the finish line: Here’s what’s involved in
finishing out this course: (1) You need to hand in a hard-copy version of your
critical review on Monday, November 30, 2009 in class. (2) You need to email
the grader (Jack Greenoe -- JLGreenoe{AT}elearning.swbts.edu) your 3,000-word
web posts on hostile websites (including links to your posts) by Friday,
December 4, 2009 at 12:00 noon. (3) You need to take the comprehensive in-class
final on Monday, December 7, 2009 -- the
final is at the regular class time.
<> Extra-credit: Attend
faith-science conference taking place this week at Southwestern Seminary (for
details go here)
and, while there, get signatures inside an intelligent design book (preferably
Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the
Cell) from at least three conference speakers. Also, provide a
one-paragraph review of the conference – which sessions you attended on
which days, which session made the biggest impact on you and why; also, list
the people who signed your intelligent design book. Hand in this review next
class period. Depending on how much of the conference you attend, this can
raise your grade by one-third of a letter (e.g., from a B to a B+).
Extra-credit here, however, will not raise your grade from an A- to an A or
from an A to an A+.
<> Midterm Exam (take-home):
click here for rtf version and click here for pdf version. Due
Wednesday 10.21.09 at 12:00 noon as Word document emailed to the grader Jack
Greenoe at JLGreenoe{AT}elearning.swbts.edu.
<> CRITICAL REVIEW: Your critical review is due in hardcopy form
in class on Monday of 11.30.09 -- this is the last day of class. Also, you need
to email it as a Word document no later than noon on that Monday to our grader
Jack Greenoe (both of us will be grading the reviews). His email address is
JLGreenoe{AT}elearning.swbts.edu. Please be sure to get confirmation that he
received your review. Your review will be of Karl Giberson’s Saving Darwin. It is to be 2,000 to
2,500 words in length. The skill in writing these reviews is not to summarize
the whole book point for point, but rather to uncover its essence -- its main argument
and animating principle -- and then to assess it critically. Phillip Johnson is
a master of such reviews: go here,
here, here, and here. Alvin
Plantinga’s review of Dawkins’s The
God Delusion is also instructive: go here. For examples of critical reviews by William
Dembski, go here,
here,
and here.
You can also look at the reviews at First
Things and at Books &
Culture.
<> Dear Class, I want to share with you a few
things: (1) For extra credit I'd like you to go to SMU on September 24th. On
that day there are two back-to-back events at SMU celebrating Darwin -- go to smu.edu/smunews/darwin/events.asp
and scroll down to September 24th. I don't want you going there merely as
spectators but will indicate in class how you might actively participate and
engage the Darwin-lovers you'll find there. (2) I keep trying to reach our
grader, but so far with no success. I'm not hearing back from him by email or
by phone, and his voicemail indicates he's going to be incommunicado till
September 21st. I don't know why this should be. In any case, please keep
working on the precis statements. They need to be turned in and you need to try
your best, but I will cut you all some slack on the grading until we get into a
regular routine. I'm sorry about this. (3) For me to email you all, I need to
go through Blackboard, which lists my SWBTS address as my return email address.
Please do NOT use this email address in contacting me. Instead, address ALL
email correspondence to my designinference.com email address given in class.
(4) Some people are emailing me précis statements. Please don't. Your
grade on these statements is based entirely on the hardcopy précis
statements that you hand in at the start of class. (5) Although I asked for you
to email me the executive summaries of yourselves, I also need hardcopy and
it's only by handing in the hardcopy that you will avoid losing points from
your grade. I continue to await a number of these. –WmAD
<> Regarding daily précis assignments,
here’s what they need to contain: (1) your name, date, and course number;
(2) a single summary sentence for each block of text in this week’s
reading, no block exceeding 10 pages (thus a reading of 100 pages will require
at least 10 précis sentences); (3) a burning/troubling/or otherwise
important question to you raised by this week’s reading; (4) a sentence
describing a key insight that you gained from this week’s reading; (5)
the number of hours and minutes of undivided attention that you spent on this
week’s reading along with your signature declaring that this number is
accurate.
<> Syllabus.
Spring 2009
Intelligent Design (SOUTHERN EVANGELICAL SEMINARY #AP 410, 510, and
810; May 11 – 16, 2009)
<> NEW! The due date for all work in this course is
August 14, 2009. Here’s what you will need to do to wrap
things up:
AP410 This
is the undegrad course. You have three things to do: (1) take the final exam
(worth 40% of your grade); (2) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance
of intelligent design (worth 40% of your grade); (3) provide at least 10 posts
defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the
posts totalling 2,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post
(worth 20% of your grade).
AP510 This
is the masters course. You have four things to do: (1) take the final exam
(worth 30% of your grade); (2) write a 1,500- to 2,000-word critical review of
Francis Collins’s The Language of
God -- for instructions, see below (20% of your grade); (3) write a
3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth
30% of your grade); (4) provide at least 10 posts defending ID that
you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 3,000
words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your
grade).
AP810 This is the D.Min. course. You have four things to do: (1) take the final exam (worth 30% of your grade); (2) write a 1,500- to 2,000-word critical review of Francis Collins’s The Language of God -- for instructions, see below (20% of your grade); (3) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 30% of your grade); (4) develop a Sunday-school lesson plan based on the book Understanding Intelligent Design (worth 20% of your grade).
Note that the final exam is now available. Also, all materials for grading need to find their way into the hands of Prof. Jason L. Reed (email: jreed AT ses DOT edu).
<> Those taking AP 510 and AP 810 for credit will be writing a 1,500-
to 2,000-word critical review of Francis Collins’s The Language of God. Your reviews are due with the grader the last
day of the term (for details about when and how to submit these reviews, stay
tuned). The skill in writing these reviews is not to summarize the whole book
point by point but rather to uncover its essence -- its main argument and
animating principle -- and then to assess it critically. Phillip Johnson is a
master of such reviews: go here,
here, here, and here. Alvin
Plantinga’s review of Dawkins’s The
God Delusion is also instructive: go here. For examples of critical reviews by William
Dembski, go here,
here,
and here.
You can also look at the reviews at First
Things and at Books &
Culture.
<> William Dembski is visiting
Southern Evangelical Seminary (www.ses.edu)
to teach a 6-day intensive course on intelligent design from May 11th
to May 16th, 2009. The course is geared toward three student
audiences: college students (see syllabus
for AP 410), masters students (see syllabus
for AP 510), and D.Min. students (see syllabus
for AP 810).
Christian Apologetics (SWBTS #PHILO 4373
– Spring 2009)
<> HERE IS THE FINAL EXAM: click here for pdf
version, click here for rtf
version. Your completed exam is due with the grader at 12 noon tomorrow,
May 7th, 2009.
<> FINAL EXAM: The final will be a take-home exam. It will posted
online on this very page (i.e., www.designinference.com under
“teaching”) on May 6th at 12 noon and will be due with
Jack Greenoe (JLGreenoe{AT}elearning.swbts.edu) as a Word document sent via
email on May 7th at 12 noon. This 24-hour time period over which to
work on the exam covers the actual exam time, which is Wednesday, May 6th
from 1:00 to 2:50pm (see www.swbts.edu/finalexams).
The final will be open book and should not take more than 2 to 3 hours to
complete.
<> CRITICAL REVIEW: Your critical reviews are due in hardcopy form
in class Wednesday (04.29.09) – this is the last day of class. Also, you
need to email them as a Word document no later than noon on Wednesday to our
grader Jack Greenoe (both of us will be grading the papers). His email address
is JLGreenoe{AT}elearning.swbts.edu. Please be sure to get confirmation that he
received your review.
<> EXTRA CREDIT: For those who think they need mercy on missed or
poorly answered quizzes, please get Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and write a 750 to 1000 word reflection on
lessons to be drawn from that book for Christian apologetics. You need to have
spent at least 6 hours carefully reading the book and sign your name to that
effect (i.e., your paper must include something like “I have spent at
least six uninterrupted hours reading Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. –Jane Doe”). Alinsky’s book
can be purchased from Amazon.com (you may need to use expedited shipping; click
here for the Amazon.com listing). It should also be widely available in
local libraries. This extra credit work is due May 7th at noon and must be
emailed directly to me at my designinference.com address. Please make sure to
confirm that I received it. Just what I do to improve your grade as a
consequence of this exercise is at my discretion.
<> Critical review
assignment: Write a 2,000- to 2,500-word critical review of Martin
Gardner’s The Flight of Peter Fromm
-- due last class meeting before final exam. The skill in writing these reviews
is not to summarize the whole book point by point but rather to uncover its
essence -- its main argument and animating principle -- and then to assess it
critically. For models of such reviews, download the following sample
of critical reviews. For examples of
critical reviews by Dr. Dembski, go here,
here,
and here.
<> Midterm Study Topics: click here for pdf version.
<> Syllabus.
Fall 2008
Christian Faith and Science (SWBTS #PHILO
4483 – Fall 2008)
<> Final exam: pdf
version and rtf
version. The exam is due at 5:00pm on Wednesday, December 10, 2008, via an
email attachment to our grader, Jack Greenoe (JLGreenoe{AT}elearning.swbts.edu
– substitute @ for {AT}).
<> Critical review
assignment: Write a 2,000- to 2,500-word critical review of Francis
Collins’s The Language of God
-- due last day of class. The skill in writing these reviews is not to
summarize the whole book point by point but rather to uncover its essence --
its main argument and animating principle -- and then to assess it critically.
For models of such reviews, download the following sample
of critical reviews.
<> Syllabus.
Christian Faith, Knowledge, and Science (SWBTS #PHILO 7534 – Fall
2008)
<> Critical review
assignment: Write a 1,500- to 2,000-word critical review of the book or book
chapters about which you will be giving a class presentation (the word-count is
strict but excludes notes and bibliography, which you may not need). The skill
in these reviews is not to summarize the whole book point by point but rather
to uncover its essence -- its main argument and thrust -- and then to assess it
critically. For models of what such reviews, have a look at the following
reviews I’ve written here,
here,
and here
(in 1999 this last review won the Evangelical Press Association’s first
place award in the category of “Critical Reviews”). You can also
look at the reviews at First Things
and at Books & Culture.
As for references and other scholarly paraphernalia, keep a consistent style
that provides all necessary information (I’m not worried about you following
any particular style manual). Also, in an age of spelling and grammar checkers,
I will count off on such mistakes. The review is due the day of your
presentation.
<> Syllabus.
Spring 2008
Christian Apologetics (SWBTS #PHILO 4373)
<> Final Exam (take-home): click here for rtf version and click here for pdf version. Due
Wednesday, 05.07.08 at 5:00 pm.
<> Sample
Critical Reviews.
<> Midterm Study Questions: click here for rtf version and click here for pdf version.
<> Syllabus.
Intelligent
Design – Doctoral Seminar (SWBTS #PHILO 7544)
<> Syllabus.
Fall 2007
Intelligent Design (SWBTS #PHILO 5483)
<> TAKE-HOME FINAL: click here for rtf version and click here for pdf version. Due
Thursday, December 13th by 12 noon.
<> WRAPPING UP THE COURSE: There is no class meeting Monday, December
10th. The last two assignments -- the review and the final -- will need to be
sent to me by email. The review is supposed to be in at 11:59pm on Monday,
December 10th. The final will be placed online by 12noon on Tuesday, December
11th and needs to be emailed to me, completed, on Thursday, December 13th by 12
noon.
<> Midterm Study Guide.
<> Sample of critical reviews.
Download the zip file at this link to see what I’m looking for in a
critical review.
<> Syllabus
for this course.
<> Syllabi for the upcoming academic year.
Note that some courses here are new to Southwestern Seminary and thus have yet to
receive an official course number.
Spring 2007
Critical Thinking (SWBTS #PHREL 5373 A)
<> Part I of final exam (due
12 noon on Wednesday, May 9, 2007): pdf
version and rtf
version. Use the rtf version if you wish to intersperse your answers among
the questions.
<> FINAL EXAM: The final exam
consists in two parts, both of which are due 12:00 noon on May 9, 2007: Part I
– a comprehensive take-home test that needs to be emailed to my grader
Jack Greenoe at JLGreenoe AT elearning DOT swbts DOT edu. The take-home test
will be appear on this webpage by 12:00 noon on May 8, 2007. Part II – a
1,000 to 1,500 word critical review of “A War on Science”; the
review needs to be emailed to me at wdembski AT designinference DOT com.
<> Solutions
to exercises 11 to 12.
<> Sample
Critical Reviews.
<> Solutions
to exercises 9 to 10.
<> Solutions
to exercises 7 to 8.
<> The midterm will be a
take-home exam in which you write a 1500- to 2000-word critical review of
Richard Dawkins’s two-part video series against religion/ Christianity
(For examples of critical reviews of books, go here,
here,
and here.)
The word limit is absolute. Try to
focus especially on Dawkins’s rhetorical moves to influence his viewers
against religion. How skillful and effective is he? Where is his approach weak?
The exam is open-book in the sense that you can use any books in the course as
well as any other materials that you find useful. There is one exception,
however, which is that I don’t want you looking at other reviews of this
series (on the internet or elsewhere) or talking to fellow classmates about the
exam. You can spend as much time working on this review as you like. But it is
due in class as hardcopy on March 20, 2007.
<> Solutions
to exercises 4 to 6.
<> Solutions
to exercises 1 to 3.
<> Syllabus.
Fall 2006
Christian Apologetics (SWBTS #PHREL 4373)
<> Final take-home
exam (due 10:00am Wednesday, 12.13.06): pdf
version or rtf
version.
<> For the Richard Dawkins vs.
David Quinn debate, go here.
<> Several points of business:
(1) Quizzes from now on will be in-class (this provides a better gauge of
whether you are actually reading and understanding the material, and it allows
me in good conscience to give you a more general essay-type final exam). (2)
The critical review/term paper will be due last day of class (for examples of
critical reviews, go here,
here,
and here;
see also reviews in Books & Culture
and First Things). (3) The final exam
will be a two-hour in-class closed-book essay exam. There will be some general
concept questions at the start (e.g., what is the difference between
metaphysical and methodological naturalism) and some case-study questions at
the end (for examples of the this type of question, go here).
<> Quiz_10.10.06: There’s an extended
footnote at the bottom of pages 178 and 179 of The Flight of Peter Fromm. Toward the end of that footnote Martin
Gardner, in the person of Homer Wilson remarks, “But today’s
Christians seem to have little curiosity about the early sources of their
faith.” By early sources, here, Gardner is referring to the New Testament
Apocrypha. How would you respond to Gardner’s criticism of Christians who
dismiss the New Testament Apocrypha? Are we right to reject these writings as
spurious and focus instead on the New Testament Canon as found in our Bibles?
Please write a paragraph or two in response to this criticism by Gardner.
<> Quiz_10.03.06 will be
in-class.
<> Quiz_9.26.06 was in-class. We
discussed the answers after the quiz.
<> Quiz_9.21.06, due at the
beginning of class: Imagine that you are engaged in a public debate at a
secular university with Thomas Nagle. Imagine further that Nagle has just
uttered the quote at the top of p. 127 of Victor Reppert’s book. In a
page or less indicate how, as a Christian apologist publicly debating Nagle,
you would respond to his quote. Think especially of what you would want to say
for the benefit of non-Christians listening in on your debate.
<> Quiz_9.19.06 answers: Ques1
(the argument from reason) – the argument from reason attempts to
undercut naturalism by showing that naturalism does not properly allow for
reason and thus becomes self-refuting when one uses reason to argue for the
truth of naturalism (with this argument, the devil is in the details); Ques2 (fideism)
– fideism is the view that rational argumentation is irrelevant, if not
counterproductive, to genuine faith.
<> Quiz_9.14.06: pdf
version; rtf
version. Answer
key to this quiz.
<> Quiz_09.07.06 was in-class. Answer
key to this quiz.
<> Quiz_09.04.06: pdf
version; rtf
version. Answer
key to this quiz.
<> Quiz_08.31.06: pdf
version; rtf
version. Answer
key to this quiz.
<> Syllabus.
Christian Faith,
Knowledge, and Science (SWBTS #PHREL 7534)
<> Critical review
assignment: Write a 1,500- to 2,000-word critical review of the book or book
chapters about which you will be giving a class presentation (the word-count is
strict but excludes notes and bibliography, which you may not need). The skill
in these reviews is not to summarize the whole book point by point but rather
to uncover its essence -- its main argument and thrust -- and then to assess it
critically. For models of what such reviews, have a look at the following
reviews I’ve written here,
here,
and here
(in 1999 this last review won the Evangelical Press Association’s first
place award in the category of “Critical Reviews”). You can also
look at the reviews at First Things
and at Books & Culture.
As for references and other scholarly paraphernalia, keep a consistent style
that provides all necessary information (I’m not worried about you following
any particular style manual). Also, in an age of spelling and grammar checkers,
I will count off on such mistakes. The review is due the day of your
presentation.
<> Syllabus.
Spring 2006
Critical Thinking and the Art of
Argumentation (SBTS #28970)
<> Solutions
to exercises 11 to 12. Sorry it took so long to post these. Since exercises
13 to 14 were cancelled and since they won’t be figuring into the final
(at least not directly) and since I’m very short on time, I probably
won’t be posting these (as I had originally intended).
<> As indicated in class and in the previous note, the final is to be a
2000-word critical review of Richard Dawkins’s 2-part series “The
Root of All Evil?” (For examples of critical reviews see the previous
note below.) The word limit is absolute. The exam is open-book in the sense
that you can use any books in the course as well as any other materials that
you find useful. There is one exception, however, which is that I don’t
want you looking at other reviews of this series (on the internet or elsewhere)
or talking to fellow classmates about the exam. You can spend as much time
working on this review as you like. But it is due by midnight Eastern Standard
Time on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 as an email attachment sent to me at the following
email address: wdembski AT designinference DOT com (my SBTS email account has
in the past proven unreliable for such assignments). If you need to view the
series again and don’t have it readily available, Jiri Prochazka is on
campus and will be able to assist you (his email address is: chrochy AT hotmail
DOT com).
<> The final will be a take-home exam in which you will do a critical
review of Richard Dawkins’s two-part series against religion/Christianity
titled “The Root of All Evil?” (For examples of critical reviews of
books, go here,
here,
and here.)
We’ll view this series in class
on Monday, 4.24.06, at which time I’ll give you details about the exam. I
have yet to put up the remaining exercises to Murphy. I will do that as soon as
time allows, though it’s not so crucial given the focus of the final.
<> Solutions
to exercises 9 to 10.
<> Solutions
to exercises 7 to 8.
<> Midterm take-home exam (due at beginning of class Monday, 3.13.06): pdf
version or rtf
version.
<> Please print off my Primer
on Probability, read it, and bring it to class on Monday, 3.13.06.
<> The mid-term exam on will be posted on this page by 12:00 noon on
Friday, 3.10.06. I had intended to provide a study guide, but since this will
be a 1-hour open-book exam, I don’t see much need for this. Familiarity
with the readings and exercises, however, will be important because even though
it’s an open-book exam, unless you know what’s what and where,
you’ll be wasting an inordinate amount of time hunting for answers and
thus be unable to answer all the questions. Our main text is Nancey
Murphy’s book and you’ll want to know what’s there as well as
be able to do the exercises. The exam will only focus on chapters 1 to 6 of
that book. With regard to the Laws of Power, know Laws 1–18. With regard
to Corbett, focus on pages 1-141 but don’t worry about syllogisms (as I
indicated, these are best handled in a course on basic symbolic logic
[specifically, propositional and quantificational logic], e.g., Henry
Gensler’s Introduction
to Logic). Once the exam appears online, using the allotted space type
in your answers in the rtf version or else write in your answers in the pdf
version. Hand in your exams at class on Monday, 3.13.06.
<> Solutions
to exercises 5 to 6.
<> Solutions
to exercises 1 to 4.
<> Syllabus.
A Primer on
Intelligent Design (SBTS #28677)
<> Here is the final
for this course: pdf
document. It is due May 10, 2006 with Keith Goad (see first page of exam
for details).
<> The final will be an open-book take-home exam to be submitted
electronically to Keith Goad, my Garrett fellow (for the type of exam
you’re looking at, go here).
<> Study questions for midterm exam (closed book) that will be giving
Monday 3.27.06 at the beginning of class: pdf
document.
<> Paper assignment: Write a 2,000- to 2,500-word critical review
of Forrest and Gross’s Creationism’s
Trojan Horse (the word-count is strict but excludes notes and
bibliography). The skill in these reviews is not to summarize the whole book
point by point but rather to uncover its essence -- its main argument and
thrust -- and then to assess it critically. For models of what such reviews might
look like, have a look at the following reviews I’ve written here,
here,
and here
(in 1999 this last review won the Evangelical Press Association’s first
place award in the category of “Critical Reviews”). As for
references and other scholarly paraphernalia, keep a consistent style that
provides all necessary information (I’m not worried about you following
any particular style manual). Also, in an age of spelling and grammar checkers,
I will count off on such mistakes. This paper is due the last day of class:
April 24, 2006.
<> Syllabus.
Fall 2005
Christian
Doctrine and the Natural Sciences (SBTS #28960)
<> Final
Exam for Course #28960. This is an open-book take-home exam due midnight on
Friday, December 2, 2005.
<> Midterm
Exam Study Questions Fall 2005. Study questions for course #28960.
<> Syllabus.
Scientific
Approach: The World and Christian Faith (SBTS #85320)
<> Syllabus.