"How very strange it was to walk the halls where the founders of these academically understudied yet practically potent ideas once walked."
I wouldn't say that the work of the fundamentalists are necessarily understudied. George Marsden has written some of the best work on this. His _Fundamentalism and American Culture_ is a fairly extensive academic work on this. He also wrote a follow-up popular work _Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism_. His _ The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief_ is also a worthwhile treatment of the secularization of universities around the turn of the 20th century.
D.G. Hart's _Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestantism in Modern America_ is an excellent treatment as well. If you want to learn. more about the difference between fundamentalism and evangelicalism, you do worse than his _Deconstructing Evangelicalism_. His work on the history of Calvinism and the tension among conservative protestants as it relates to politics are great reads as well.
For a broader portrait, Bebbington's _Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s_.
Mark Roll is another historian who has addressed evangelicalism and the modernist controversies. His work on the Civil War as a theological crisis is brilliant.
If you want a more nuanced picture of the creationist movement, I would strongly recommend Edward Larson's _Summer of the gods_ (a treatment of the Scope's trial - if your understanding of this comes from commentary by Menken or from watching Inherit the wind, then this book is essential reading). Livingstone's _Darwin's forgotten defenders_ is a great treatment of how Darwin's ideas were treated by early fundamentalists - it is far more nuanced than most people realize. Ron Numbers has also written on the rise of the creationism movement - the conventional wisdom of how this movement came about contains a lot of myth.
Indeed. A lot of people don't know that the Scopes trial fundamentalists were actually old earth creationists because young earth creationism only really causght steam in the mid to late 20th century. It wasn't "everyone was a young earth creationist until Hutton and Darwin" like many people of both sides of the creation and evolution debate believe. Several early church fathers knew that Genesis wasn't literal before modern science knew how old the earth was.
Elements of fundamentalism are a benefit to society. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity share common roots and form positive belief systems around the world in most cases. The speech was historically informative, though a bit cynical and berating to us Neanderthals. There are extremes in all systems left and right -- Objectivists and fundamentalists but some good in all of it.
Wikipedia "backs him up"? Sorry, but that doesn't sound like a source to boast about, particularly if you look at the history of the article and find IP addresses for 192.231.177.0/24 which happen to be at the Seminary.
"How very strange it was to walk the halls where the founders of these academically understudied yet practically potent ideas once walked."
I wouldn't say that the work of the fundamentalists are necessarily understudied. George Marsden has written some of the best work on this. His _Fundamentalism and American Culture_ is a fairly extensive academic work on this. He also wrote a follow-up popular work _Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism_. His _ The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief_ is also a worthwhile treatment of the secularization of universities around the turn of the 20th century.
D.G. Hart's _Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestantism in Modern America_ is an excellent treatment as well. If you want to learn. more about the difference between fundamentalism and evangelicalism, you do worse than his _Deconstructing Evangelicalism_. His work on the history of Calvinism and the tension among conservative protestants as it relates to politics are great reads as well.
For a broader portrait, Bebbington's _Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s_.
Mark Roll is another historian who has addressed evangelicalism and the modernist controversies. His work on the Civil War as a theological crisis is brilliant.
If you want a more nuanced picture of the creationist movement, I would strongly recommend Edward Larson's _Summer of the gods_ (a treatment of the Scope's trial - if your understanding of this comes from commentary by Menken or from watching Inherit the wind, then this book is essential reading). Livingstone's _Darwin's forgotten defenders_ is a great treatment of how Darwin's ideas were treated by early fundamentalists - it is far more nuanced than most people realize. Ron Numbers has also written on the rise of the creationism movement - the conventional wisdom of how this movement came about contains a lot of myth.
Indeed. A lot of people don't know that the Scopes trial fundamentalists were actually old earth creationists because young earth creationism only really causght steam in the mid to late 20th century. It wasn't "everyone was a young earth creationist until Hutton and Darwin" like many people of both sides of the creation and evolution debate believe. Several early church fathers knew that Genesis wasn't literal before modern science knew how old the earth was.
What happened to Lecture II?
Can you get them transcribed?
Elements of fundamentalism are a benefit to society. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity share common roots and form positive belief systems around the world in most cases. The speech was historically informative, though a bit cynical and berating to us Neanderthals. There are extremes in all systems left and right -- Objectivists and fundamentalists but some good in all of it.
I looked, but cannot find a reference to when and where this lecture (Lecture I) was given. Anyone know?
Wikipedia "backs him up"? Sorry, but that doesn't sound like a source to boast about, particularly if you look at the history of the article and find IP addresses for 192.231.177.0/24 which happen to be at the Seminary.