McCosh is part of an unprecedented surge in e-book sales that’s changing publishing and challenging traditional bookstores.
It’s reflected on USA TODAY’s Best-Selling Books list, which tracks combined sales of e-book and print editions. The latest list, based on sales data from Dec. 26 to Jan. 1, shows a remarkable burst of digital book sales after e-readers were unwrapped as gifts — for 42 of the top 50 titles, the e-book editions were the most popular format. The previous high, in July, was 25 of the top 50.
For e-books, “the two weeks after Christmas is what the two weeks before Halloween is to pumpkins,” says Michael Norris, an analyst with Simba Information, a market research firm. After the post-holiday surge, he predicts, e-books will increase in “short bursts and slow trickles” the rest of the year.
Norris estimates that one in five U.S. adults are reading e-books on a variety of devices, from dedicated e-readers to tablets (like the Kindle Fire) that can be used to download movies, music, video games and more.
Forrester Research estimates that Amazon has sold 5 million Kindle Fires, priced at $199 each, since the device was released Nov. 14. Archrival Barnes & Noble has sold an estimated 2 million Nook Tablets ($249), released Nov. 17.
Both devices are designed, in part, to compete with Apple’s iPad (the latest versions are priced from $500 to $830), which sold about 40 million units last year.
But even as the sales of e-books doubled from 10% of the overall market to 20% in 2011, print books still account for about 80% of the market.
Here comes the Borg — E-books
Church Attendance Rising (guess where)
In England:
ISLINGTON, LONDON, UK (ANS) – Church attendances in the United Kingdom, in freefall for so long, have started to rise again, particularly in Britain’s capital city.
Numbers on the electoral rolls are increasing by well over two per cent every year, while some churches have seen truly dramatic rises in numbers, according to Peter Oborne, writing for the Daily Telegraphnewspaper.
Oborne says change is afoot in Britain’s churches. He says that with the chill wind of austerity blowing through the country, religion’s warm embrace looks more and more inviting. Oborne welcomes the resurgence of a national pastime: churchgoing.
Oborne writes that for many years it was accepted that Christianity was all but dead, an anachronistic relic of the past whose foundations had been destroyed by modern science and rationalism, before being left behind by the cultural and sexual revolution of the ’60s.
Clutter or Create?
From Jeff Goins:
Before beginning her career as a successful author and speaker, Patsy Clairmont did something unexpected. She washed the dishes.
She wanted to take her message to the world, but as she was readying herself, she felt nudged to start in an unusual way. She got out of bed and cleaned her house.
In other words, Patsy got rid of the mess. And it put her in a position to start living more creatively. We must do the same.
Bringing your message to the world does not begin on the main stage. It starts at home. In the kitchen. At your desk. Or on your cluttered computer.
You need to clear your life of distractions — not perfectly, but enough so that there’s room for you to create.
The relationship between clutter and creativity is inverse. The more you have of the former, the less you have of the latter. Mess creates stress. Which is far from an ideal environment for being brilliant.
Pastors Unconvinced … Now What? (RJS)
The question of Adam and Eve has come up often in the discussion of the relationship between science and faith. While it has no impact for the unbeliever from the science side of the question, it is a serious issue from the Christian side of the question. We’ve discussed it at length through C. John Collins’s recent book, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care, and will return to the question once I get a copy of Pete Enns’s book, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins, published just this month.
On this general topic there is a recent poll by LifeWay Research, brought to my attention by a reader. (HT DA) It is worth some discussion here.
Poll: Pastors oppose evolution, split on earth’s age (and another version of the article here.)
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP) — Pastors overwhelmingly believe that God did not use evolution to create humans and think Adam and Eve were literal people, according to a survey by LifeWay Research.
The survey of 1,000 American Protestant pastors, released Jan. 9, also found that ministers are almost evenly split on whether the earth is thousands of years old.
…
“Recently discussions have pointed to doubts about a literal Adam and Eve, the age of the earth and other origin issues,” said Ed Stetzer, vice president of research and ministry development for LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention. “But Protestant pastors are overwhelmingly creationists and believe in a literal Adam and Eve.”
Most pastors both believe Adam and Eve were literal people and doubt that God used evolution to create people.
Do any of these findings surprise you?
Paul was not Post-Tithing (or for everyone)
Monday our post was called Paul was Post-Tithing, and I followed through on Rodney Reeves’ fine chapter by supporting it to see where it would take us — and I did so in the comments as well. His view was that the tithe was more or less transcended or outdone by the theme of what I called “pass the grace.” That is, grace given from God leads to God’s people becoming an abundantly gracious people, while the tithe set limits. It seems to me this is a very common view (though many churches advocate a tithe for pragmatic reasons).
But there’s another view, a view that is probably much more a minority view, a view that I had in my mind but thought it would clutter up our post Monday, but it makes sense to me. I toss it out today for your consideration.
Do you find this view more convincing or less convincing? Why or why not?
Here goes: If you accept that Jewish Christians (messianists) lived a Torah observant life and therefore paid a tithe as a matter of course, and if you accept that Gentiles observed the Torah only to the degree and in the details that were for them and that meant they did not pay the tithe tax, then we have another situation: [Read more...]
Science, Faith, Conflict and Concord
I am inclined to think those who already agree with Alvin Plantinga’s projects will think his new book, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, quite the landmark defense of a concordist approach to science and faith, while those who don’t already agree with Plantinga will remain unconvinced. I’m in the group who is mostly unconvinced. I am a theist; so I agree with many of Plantinga’s conclusions — I too believe God guided the evolutionary process. But for me an apologetic like this needs more than what we get in this book.
To be sure, Plantinga’s arguments are often a marvel of logical force and intricate care, other times his pages are filled with insights, and often they are enveloped in genuine wit, but the QED of this book is the one that nagged at me all the way through: how to prove that God exists when one is talking about science and faith. More often than not, I said to myself: “Good argument if one is a theist. Without that assumption there’s something missing.” Theism, in other words, can explain evolution as the way God works; naturalism contends there is no God and therefore evolution is unguided. I’m not a naturalist; but to get from the second group into the first group requires some argumentation.
The thesis of this book is that theism and evolution (guided to be sure) are in concord and compatible, but evolution and naturalism (unguided evolution) are in deep conflict. In other words, science and faith are compatible; science and naturalism are in conflict. The essence of the problem is that naturalism has no grounds for arguing that God doesn’t exist. Evolution doesn’t reveal — because it can’t — what makes evolution work as it does. It marks the path of evolution. Thus, Plantinga pushes hard the distinction between evolution and naturalism, or what some on this blog call scientism (the view that science, and science alone, can explain everything). Naturalism is what he calls an “add-on”: it adds “unguided” and “no God” to the evolutionary process and then explains evolution without recourse to God and, at times, by arguing it proves there is no God. Evolution can’t do that because it is designed merely to describe what is in the genetic codes of the universe. It should talk about what it can; when it goes beyond that it becomes no-longer-science. It becomes metaphysics. One must ask, however, if what we have at times in this book is simply my explanation vs. your explanation. [Read more...]




































Follow Patheos
Evangelical: