1 corintians 12:4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.

7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit;

9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,

10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.

Let me just confirm that I have gone to great lengths investigating and researching Evolutionary Theory over the past months and as a given there's too little time to read up on ALL relevant material and triple checking quotes and references, but I can assure you: what is called the "Extended (neo)Darwinist Synthesis" is widely disputed on a multitude of levels within Biology Proper and science, including Paleontology.

I won't offer a bibliography and relevant discusions following these publications, as it is not that hard to inform oneself on the current battle within evolutionary science, as well as from "outside" in the form of the ID/Creationist movement as promoted by eg the "Discovery Institute"... Modern day internet research options and possibilities are of course accessible at the touch of a key.

I DO - however, and quite rightly and necessarily - have held Christianity and the historical account of the New Testament, Old teatament, and the Canonicity under the same scrutinous objective glass. In my opinion, sofar researched, again, the Scriptures hold on even more convincingly than i presumed might be the case a say 6 weeks or so ago (as opposed to some 20+ years ago when I first went in deeply in SEARCH mode). VERY difficult though to distinguish and identify the misinformation - the quantitude and diversity are plain overwhelming - and the limits of my own research powers had to take a back-seat to a thorough evaluation of the various Bible criticasters claiming that Jesus didn't even exist and Paul used ancient and popular myths in an effort to "create" Christianity - on the one extreme side of the spectrum (cf. Ralph Ellis, Jordan Maxwell, the rascal ;)) - and the literal interpretists and YEC-ists on the other side of the spectrum.

For the moment I can only conclude that the Bible is much more resilient from a historical perspective than its most ardent detractors will ever wish and dare to acknowledge, but it must be mentioned that the climate in which the current debate is being pursued suffers from heavy pollution from cultural and political objectives that override objective quality assessment requirements, that thus aren't really met. Nevertheless I still do have several questions, and very cardinal ones, that need be answered, or shed light on, for me, to be able to fully re-engage as a defender and witness of Christ, and his Father, in the same spirit as Peter, and even more steadfast in my belief because of fulfilled prophecies in the past centuries, and recently in my few decades as an eye-witness on this stupifyingly beautiful and endangered planet we call:

EARTH

"The question of evolution is not fully explained by reductionist science. This book [ Evolution--The extended Synthesis ] has a lot of interesting new insights, but the basic framework is one of compromise. We need to move beyond Darwinism. Raising the issue of ID is beside the point. The whole basis of evolutionary theory is probable wrong, and the issue of teleology won't go away. ID is impossible to prove or refute, so why worry about it? Check out history-and-evolution.com for some insights on historical evolution. Consider the Axial Age data, never mentioned by scientists. There are large-scale historical-evolutionary forces at work beyond the ken of science."

The problems go on and on.
In general the failure of science to understand human nature, religion, and cultural evolution is drastic.

Yes, because to love the Lord thy God with all they mind demands it.

<For the moment I can only conclude that the Bible is much more resilient from a historical perspective than its most ardent detractors will ever wish and dare to acknowledge>

I think that's how it should be set forth.

<ID is impossible to prove or refute, so why worry about it?>

If historical truth is established, there's nothing to worry about.

<We need therefore a whole new <mindset> beyond science, that can admit that Darwinism cannot explain human ethical evolution, consciousness, or history.>

That can't be done without giving away their whole argument.

<We should thefore always be wary of theories and the pompous priesthood that manages those theories.>

But "people" and educational and influential organizations *can* and should be held "accountable" for the potential consequences of what they inject into society. There is a very clear and present danger in the "brainwashing" process within our educational system as conducted by a scientific priesthood type establishment, selling certain contested views as undisputed and hypotheses as settled-on-consensus. I find this these processes and the "psychology" involved to be as interesting as they are distressing ;)

But here's another thing... *You* of course can't be held accountable for what *the scriptures* claim, yet I read what you say (and have said) as that you have adopted it to be your duty to interpret and defend the Bible (1) as providing an enormous (historical / eye-witness) account to be interpreted mostly literally, and (2) to be the result/product of God's Holy Spirit, and (3) the selection and assembly of inspired scriptures to have been guided by a divine protection. Hence having resulted in a now closed Biblical Canon.

Just thinking out loud and trying to distill from your last post here how you actually see your "accountability".

In addition, I am still, after all the past months of discussions, interested in the "evidence" that is put forth for the Earth being Young. Sofar the details have remained underlighted in my "investigations", and my specific knowledge base on the argumentation is very, very small. I did read up on some stuff and watched a terribly disappointing debate involving a leading Young Earther... I should look up that 50-odd minute long clip and post the link here...

As I said it is an ongoing process of investigation and fascination for me. And unclarity.