The writer probably should let you in on what is coming up, to answer recent pleas to the effect of “hurry up and get to the science part.”
Those who are pushing are likely curious and anxious to do their confident rebuttal, they hope. This columnist can only speak for himself, but if he were in their shoes, he would be getting a little tired of the slow pace, too. I understand. Like they say, ” before you criticize someone, walk a mile in his shoes” …..(that way, when you do criticize him, you’re a mile away, and you’ve got his shoes!)
But back to point, due to the nature of this subject and the serious implications of almost any conclusions one might draw from it, reasonable caution demands we proceed slow enough to hopefully learn as we go, and not trample heartlessly on anyone or any worthy points that someone might be trying to make. That is the perspective of this writer. Stay on board if you can deal with that. And please keep commenting with any honest concerns you might have.
If there is reason to think a commenter is just blowing smoke to confuse or attack, he may be called out in the next article. So far, however, most all comments are of interest to someone, and sometimes they need quick responses from this writer to correct distortions, especially about what this column is trying to communicate to the wider general audience.
Here are some topics and some rough order they might be coming:
1. Attempts to establish common ground and agreement on something true, from which to reason
2. The borders of the playing field, such as what subjects might be outside the bounds of this page
3. Review of terms, such as the meaning of the scientific method when used in these discussions
4. The writer’s personal experience. (In this country it is assumed that everyone has an equal right to an opinion. That is not the same as everyone’s opinion is equally right, a commonly held view nowadays, but an impossibility. )
Freedom of speech tends to let the best ideas float up eventually, but for that to happen, let good opinions be based on something factual. With that conviction, and through some unique learning opportunities, the writer has developed an opinion, too. it did not come about rapidly or in an unreal and sheltered environment, but as a result of serious thought over many years. And convictions have grown with more information, sometimes listening to both sides of seriously opposite views, sometimes reading respectable books, often spending time studying and observing nature, and sometimes doing face to face encounters before hostile audiences. It was very educational to be in that environment, stating why this scientist can be a believer in the Bible without tossing out what science has to teach, nor the central message the Bible clearly teaches, which takes less a leap of faith to him now than the leaps other scientists often take into the unprovable areas of their theory.
5. What is that traditionally-held central message or world view explained in the Bible, boiled down, for the unbeliever to consider?
6. What explains the fact that such an ancient book as the Bible has survived, and that it expresses a central message with a unity and credibility about it that is unparalleled. And what could explain the type of reaction it draws from certain professional and educational fields where it is considered less than worthy of ones time to even read it.
7. Some challenges or ways to test ones own objectivity and openness in this discussion
8. What is the need for pointing out weaknesses in other beliefs, such as anti-creation faith systems?
9. What are the scientific reasons that convinced the writer of the validity of Biblical Creation as opposed to the alternative view usually taught in science class? What scientific tests or evidence can argue seriously against faith in Evolution as they teach it? What should be taught in science classes?
10. What other authors (with more credentials, from respected scientific backgrounds) have supportive evidence or rationale to present, in support of Creation and/or in arguing logically against the theory of Evolution, that people don’t usually hear about?
Writer reserves the right to change the order according to factors like unexpected comments or confusions that surface as we go. Also, there may be need to revisit a point already covered if it is being forgotten or ignored as the case for creation builds in these articles. And this list does not predict any end to relevant and timely articles to come beyond this list.