James vs. Daniken

I couldn't help but notice in reading the course material for Monday's class that there seems to be a conflict between Daniken's belief in himself and his peers being "less credulous than our forefathers" and James' assertion that old truth must be married to new truth in order to achieve a balanced perspective. James has a distinct respect and admiration for old truth, Daniken, along with many fellow modernists, seems to see old truth more as a product of ignorance, good for their time but now to be discarded into the dustbin of history. I find it interesting that here in 2010, it seems that James' view is circulating back into mainstream culture whereas modernism seems to be on its way out. As a person who regularly reads Protestant evangelical literature in order to see the how the opinions of the majority of America's population are shifting, I have noticed a renewed interest in subject matter such as the Early Church Fathers, the original interpretations of the Bible, and indeed new meaning rather than strict interpretations of the ancient Jewish stories in the Old Testament. I personally think it's been a long time coming and am glad to see the philosophy of James returning to the post-modern age and beyond. I honestly do not think that history will be very kind to modernist such as Daniken, Roddenberry, and a host of others. Any time that one avenue dominates your perspective you run the risk of missing all the other perspectives, even if that one avenue happens to be named Science and claims to have all the answers.