My experience with Koukl has been that he is an oversimplifier. He tries to explain away certain aspects of science so simple people can feel like the findings of science don't have to contradict their religious beliefs. He goes for a
reductio ad absurdum but without really taking all aspects of the argument he is attempting to refute into consideration, so he doesn't employ it effectively in the least.
Take the article in this thread, he's basing his entire argument against the science off of what he read in
one newspaper article?
Wow, what a thorough debunking! They totally and accurately cover all aspects of the relevant science in newspaper articles! /extreme sarcasm
I read an article by him in which he argued against evolutionary psychology. In that argument, at least he was basing it off what he read in a book as opposed to a newspaper article, but even then, his entire argument was based off what he read in one book that wasn't even written by an evolutionary psychologist! Not very thorough!
But I guess some extremely simple people buy that crap. I don't know if Koukl himself is really that shallow or if he's actually bright and just writes for a shallow audience, but I never find his arguments the least bit convincing. I'm not sure if he's kooky or snotty or a bit of both, but his arguments seem to ooze with misunderstanding either way.
™ Version 4.2
