The "I'm comfy in my own chair, knock me out"- attitude neither befitting nor "upto standard", if you may allow me this "platitude" ;-), and I therefor urge you both to spend some time reading this site's reviews and articles--

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kor...

-- on a sidenote coincidentally written by a fellow dutchman. As a rare rare exception [he] is "trying" to bridge the "gap" and infuse some common and specialized sense- into the existing gridlock among both Creationists and IDs and "old school" evolutionists and paleontologists on the one side, and present day third generation evolutionists (neo's) as he names it to the other-- and tries to gain as much from the challenges and critique posed to one-another, instead of Knee-jerking. A relative breath of fresh air if you ask me. Seeker of knowledge.

A short (and by definition incomplete) appetizer:

Intro to Korthof's Review of 'Nature' Senior editor's Henry Gee's "In Search Of Deep Time" (2000)

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kor...

<Henry Gee is an editor for the weekly science magazine Nature and has been trained as a palaeontologist in the group of Colin Patterson at the Natural History Museum in London. According to Henry Gee a revolution has been going on in palaeontology. The above quotes are revolutionary statements indeed. Gee is a critic of old fashioned 'missing link' palaeontology: the well-known type of palaeontology that constructs trees of ancestors and descendants. Almost synonymous with 'the theory of evolution'. Palaeontologists produced narratives and scenarios how some dinosaurs got wings and became birds. How some fishes got legs and evolved into land animals. How some apes got brains and evolved into humans. (Mere the fact that the word 'story' is used in stead of 'theory' means a lot.) But fossils are isolated points in deep time says Gee, and can never be linked with certainty. The fossil evidence is unable to support evolutionary narratives. These scenario's can never be tested by experiment and so are unscientific! Traditional palaeontology is story telling.>

This is of course an arbitrary "starting point" in addressing some specific movements within Biology, Paleontology and Cladistics. So be it. This devoted Evolutionist goes out of his way to merge and confront all consenting and dissenting views, and goes about it in a rather remarkable way, gaining support from either side of the academic spectrum.

It must be stressed that <Korthof> is devoted full-time to read up on every relevant publication in order to take on the interesting challenges presented both by creationist/ID proponents as well as critical voices from within the lulled narrative addicted (dutch) and American evolution/creation community, and scrutinize those.

<<<

"To this, I was born, for came I into the world; that I <might> bare witness to the truth."

I see a couple of missing words in that second post. Do you?>

Do I have to say "theory of" every time I refer to evolution?

I have no idea what you're talking about. :-\

Have I misrepresented your view?

There. You. Go. And you and <whatthefat> spent how much time demeaning me over the very same thing.>

I still don't understand what you are confused about. I'll ask again:

If I don't say "theory of", does it create some confusion for you?

Also unanswered:

Have I misrepresented your view?

What is "playing gotcha"?

If I don't say "theory of", does it create some confusion for you?>

No. Did it cause confusion for you and <whatthefat> to the point my intelligence was repeatedly demeaned over the matter?

<Have I misrepresented your view? >

Asked, answered. Again, yes.

<What is "playing gotcha"? >

Plucking a post out of many and showing how some answer isn't exactly the same as in a different post, though it be in a different context. You demand I ahem, ask, before drawing conclusions, but you plucked at best a vague post I made and drew huge conclusions of it in the name of showing my inconsistency.

<Seriously, could you take a moment to explain your statements -- because I really don't know what you're having a problem with. >

and observed how the crowd put money into the treasury.

Many rich people put in large sums.

A poor widow also came and put in two small coins worth a few cents.

Calling his disciples to himself, he said to them,

“Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more

than all the other contributors to the treasury.

For they have all contributed from their surplus wealth,

but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had,

No. Did it cause confusion for you and <whatthefat> to the point my intelligence was repeatedly demeaned over the matter? >

So your answer is "no". This means that when I referred to "evolution" without saying "theory of evolution", it did not create any confusion for you. If that's the case, why the heck are you complaining that I said "evolution" without saying "theory of"?

As for your question, where do you think I demeaned your intelligence. I'll admit that I have been critical of your debating methods and your general misunderstanding of science terms. Is that what you take as being "demeaning"? If so, explain why I'm wrong. If not, please cite a specific instance.

<<Have I misrepresented your view? >

Asked, answered. Again, yes. >

Okay. I have no idea where I misrepresented you view.

When I accuse you if misrepresenting me, I explain where and why. Are you going to say where I did that to you, or do you just throw out accusations?

<<What is "playing gotcha"? >

Plucking a post out of many and showing how some answer isn't exactly the same as in a different post, though it be in a different context. You demand I ahem, ask, before drawing conclusions, but you plucked at best a vague post I made and drew huge conclusions of it in the name of showing my inconsistency.>

Again, please cite an example. I have no interest in misrepresenting your views or arguing against a position that you don't hold. However, if you think I've done this, it's up to you to show me where I've gone wrong.

<<Seriously, could you take a moment to explain your statements -- because I really don't know what you're having a problem with. >

I don't know, hiding your disdain for my intellect and morality behind the repeated "some people" affirmations that you and Obama use as strawmen so well.>

I don't suppose you see the irony accusing me using a strawman argument in the same sentence that you bring Obama into the debate.

I've accused you of using the strawman fallacy a number of times, and each time I've explained exactly why. So please state specifically in which post I referred to "some people" to "hide my distain for your intellect and morality".

and being a priest of God Most High,

he blessed Abram with these words:

"Blessed be Abram by God Most High,

the creator of heaven and earth;

and blessed be God Most High,

who delivered your foes into your hand."

<You Rang> Are you confusing integrity with stubbornness? "Scientists"--it is probably wrong to speak of them collectively--can be just as bullheaded about their theories as Christians are about their dogma. Sankar Chatterjee has been practically roasted for the crime of discovering Triassic bird fossils.

Surely you don't mean to suggest we should jettison our theology every time a new "scientific" theory comes out.

God created the heavens and the earth, and all things in them. That's all we know. We don't know how He did it. Genesis gives us the "day" (Hebrew "yom") as the time measurement--but we don't know what God can accomplish in a day, an hour, or a minute. The Bible is not Popular Mechanics!

I really don't know where you get your idea that "scientists" have more integrity and are generally nicer people than "Christians." I don't think a lot of integrity has been on display in, for instance, the Global Warming Hoax. And if you want to see something really dirty, dig into a Church Fight sometime.

I am prepared to listen to scientists and admire their work, even when I'm sure they're 100% wrong. I believe that science, in common with any other human activity, would be better off wedded to truly orthodox Christian faith. (In fact, if I didn't believe that, there wouldn't be much point in being a Christian, would there?)

Does that mean you can't explore "deep time," because somebody else says the whole concept is unbiblical? I don't think so. With a due respect for the sovereignty of God and a proper humility before Him, I think anybody can investigate anything. God meant for us to enjoy His creation, and to exercise the brains He gave us.

Of course. It is the nature of science to try to tear down the reigning theories and paradigms.

till I make your enemies your footstool."

The scepter of your power the LORD will stretch forth from Zion:

"Rule in the midst of your enemies."

"Yours is princely power in the day of your birth, in holy splendor;

before the daystar, like the dew, I have begotten you."

The LORD has sworn, and he will not repent:

"You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek."

<<You Rang> Are you confusing integrity with stubbornness? "Scientists"--it is probably wrong to speak of them collectively--can be just as bullheaded about their theories as Christians are about their dogma. Sankar Chatterjee has been practically roasted for the crime of discovering Triassic bird fossils. >

Well, I did mean "integrity", but I suppose "stubbornness" also applies. That is, I think stubbornness (i.e. unjustified clinging to one's view and attack of the opposing view) shows a lack of integrity.

I do think Christians tend to be more stubborn. As I mentioned some time ago, I believe that this is a result of the common Christian attitude that that doubt is a bad thing. Christians see doubt as a weakness, and so they express 100% confidence in their views and vilify any view to the contrary. Scientists, on the other hand, see doubt in a positive way because it leaves the door open to improvement and permits a dissenting opinion.

I'm not familiar with the case of Chatterjee. I'll have to read up on it when I get the time.

<Surely you don't mean to suggest we should jettison our theology every time a new "scientific" theory comes out.

God created the heavens and the earth, and all things in them. That's all we know. We don't know how He did it. Genesis gives us the "day" (Hebrew "yom") as the time measurement--but we don't know what God can accomplish in a day, an hour, or a minute. The Bible is not Popular Mechanics!>

I put these two comments of yours together because I think your second comment goes a long way toward addressing your first comment.

I am not saying that Christians should jettison their theology based on scientific theories. But what Christians should do is distinguish between the parts of their theology that they know from the parts that they don't know.

When it comes to creation, the Bible isn't that specific about how God did it (as you say). I've pointed out before that even some pre-Darwin theologians didn't demand a literal interpretation of the creation account. Why then do some Christians insist on going to battle with science about how it was done?

If Christians gamble away their credibility on things they don't know, why should anyone believe them regarding the theology that they do know?

<I really don't know where you get your idea that "scientists" have more integrity and are generally nicer people than "Christians." I don't think a lot of integrity has been on display in, for instance, the Global Warming Hoax. And if you want to see something really dirty, dig into a Church Fight sometime.>

Well, I think I've explained the bit about integrity. I don't recall saying "nicer", but then again I don't know of instances in history where scientists have tortured and killed theologians.

I'll remind you again -- and I think you might even agree with this -- that Christians should be held to a higher standard. They are, after all, claiming to be God's representatives here on earth. The Bible says the Christians should be known for their love. Christians should be salt and light. So all these attempts to show that Christians are no worse than scientists miss the point badly. When it comes to integrity and kindness, Christians should stand out.

<I am prepared to listen to scientists and admire their work, even when I'm sure they're 100% wrong. I believe that science, in common with any other human activity, would be better off wedded to truly orthodox Christian faith.>

Maybe that would be nice, but that's not the way it is. Instead it seems Christians are given an opportunity and obligation to demonstrate why the Christian faith is worth living by being different from the world. Unfortunately, some Christians have more of a repelling effect. Do you think anyone is attracted to Christianity as a result of attacks on science?

<But the exercise of rebellious minds will never lead to any good thing.>

Okay, but IMO, a comment like that is so subjective that it's almost meaningless. Who gets to decide what is "rebellious"? Who gets to decide what is "good"?

They replied, "Five loaves and two fish are all we have,

unless we ourselves go and buy food for all these people."

Now the men there numbered about five thousand.

Then he said to his disciples,

"Have them sit down in groups of about fifty."

They did so and made them all sit down.

Then taking the five loaves and the two fish,

and looking up to heaven,

he said the blessing over them, broke them,

and gave them to the disciples to set before the crowd.

They all ate and were satisfied.

And when the leftover fragments were picked up,