Two items appear below:

1    Future Investigator articles
2    Bible Proof is Over The Top


(Investigator 108, 2006 July)

Let me share with readers how I prepare many of my articles.

I enjoy perusing recent magazines and books dealing with history and science, and also newspapers. While doing this I watch for information that bears on points in the Bible.

The information I find I collate under appropriate headings. When there’s enough under a heading for an article I may also consult the Internet or a library. Then I write it up.

This method works because the Bible is often thousands of years ahead of its time and therefore to prove it often requires recent scientific findings.

About 100 articles are in preparation. A few of them are:

Anonymous – SA



John H Williams

(Investigator 111, 2006 November)

Re Anonymous and his piece on Creationism (#108), we seem to be on amazingly similar ground!

He didn't refer to my article on Of Pandas and People (#106) and thus repeated what I'd given, plus some other useful material. It's a bit shocking and uncomfortable knowing that someone who speculates on Adam and Eve, mitochondrial 'Eve', Old Nick, genetic inheritance of 'sin', and the Tower of Babel is the same person who now debunks creationists and others whose beliefs, like his, are based on a literal reading of Genesis!

I'm struggling to make sense of this, but in his last section, The Bible And Science, it's the Mr A of old: all are wrong, including Science, even if temporarily, as it attempts to "catch up" with The Bible. His is an unyielding belief in its literal accuracy, a profound and deeply ingrained example of confirmation bias. For him it is still 100% inerrant, and will always be so.

His letter to the Editor (#108) shows that he remains prodigiously productive, with "a hundred articles in preparation", which seems just a little OTT [over the top]. Readers will be forced to endure, in virtually every edition, his tedious and annoying habit of telling us how he's 'proved', many times over, his obsessional belief in the Bible's accuracy.

I request that he desist: normally in any discourse one lets one's ideas speak for themselves, without constant reminders about their complete rightness. Some humility, a little less hubris, and a little more humour or wit would not go amiss, while 'self-proof' is a contradiction in terms.

I'm reminded of another prolific Investigator writer, Jerry Bergman's 'vestigial organ argument' in #65: having "demolished" it "he referred to a powerful authority, himself (1990)!" (From Bob Potter's Waiting For Godot / Bergman in #66, May 1999).

Without Anonymous, the Investigator's cupboard of ‘believers’ is almost bare, and all those hundred articles not eagerly awaited by me will be printed. I request the Editor excise those sections that are inappropriate and unnecessary, having found a place in scores of articles over the last 13 years or so, they can be 'taken as read'. And, I repeat, can someone else be found to tell us how right and 'well proven' are Anonymous' biblical beliefs, please?