1. Joel, I’m glad you “feel the authors have placed in my hands a certain amount of trust in dealing fairly with their work.” Having seen you compare Dr. Price and myself to Ken Ham and assert that we somehow assume our previous, mutually contradictory denominations to be “the only version of Christianity,” that we “still live in a black and white world [of our] former fundamentalism,” I truly hate to think what an unfair review from you would look like!

    We survey the full range of Christian discussion on the topic, from Philip Gosse’s “Adam & Eve created with belly buttons” to John Haught’s divine drama. We give critical but careful attention to writers who believe in the importance of Original Sin–and those who don’t, who believe that the Bible is inerrant–and those who acknowledge its inaccuracies. Yet we apparently have “monolithic views—on both science and religion.” I’m interested in what nuances you think we failed to consider, what solutions you have found that somehow escaped our attention. Indeed, we acknowledge such a possibility right up front, suggesting to the reader that “maybe there is some way for you to perform the feat of accommodation that neither we nor those we discuss have yet found” (p. 12).

    Presumably this piece of the Christian puzzle that we’ve misplaced doesn’t just come down to your statement, “I may not always know what I believe, either today or tomorrow, but I do believe.” Because if it does, then there’s nothing else to discuss. Commendably, you admit to this faith-based stand and make an effort to “remove that aspect.” Good for you! We all have biases, and the more we acknowledge them, the better shot we have at intellectual honesty. But aren’t you still left with this same “motivation to wind up at the foot of the old rugged cross, no matter what” (p. 14) that we find shared by theologians creationist and evolutionist alike? You criticize us as poorly transitioned ex-fundamentalists. It’s almost as if we are a couple of heroin addicts who, having failed to get the benefit of some liberal-Christianity methadone, hit bottom on the skid row of angry atheism. But the fact is that we once believed in our respective forms of Christianity and, having found contrary evidence in abundance, changed our minds about it. It’s a tough thing to do, and we both did with an honest (and reluctant!) sense of seeking the truth wherever it leads. For my part, I didn’t particularly like where it led. I enjoyed singing and Sunday School picnics and my old church friends, and felt a genuine love for this Jesus character I’d heard about for my whole life, as well as what I thought to be his church. As I’ve written elsewhere, an unpopular truth is a cold companion. But it cannot be anything other than truth, no matter how hard we try to persuade it otherwise.

    It seems that you plan to continue reading. Good! Hopefully any follow-up will, as you would have us chastened about our 340 page book, with its 180 references, thousand index entries, and five-page table of contents, “actually deal with the issues.”


    1. Edwin,

      You seemed to have missed the point that I’ve only read the introduction — hence the referencing to the fact that I do not yet know the author’s full meanings here and the what not.

      Further, your aim doesn’t seem to be to survey, only to convert.

      Your characterization of your change is exactly what I mean. You only see Christianity and truth through your respective lens.

      Your last paragraph is a logical fallacy, by the way.


  2. Joel,

    It would have been more honest of you to admit you skimmed the book and didn’t pay much heed to the sections I found most interesting:

    Branch II: The Creature


    Damage Control

    When you have had time to read (not skim) those sections let me know.


    1. Edward, receiving a lecture from you regarding honesty about skimming is laughable given what I wrote here.

    2. Daniel Ortiz

      Did you not notice he only wrote about the introduction Ed?


      1. No… Edward seems to be bent only on getting out his viewpoint, regardless of what is actually said. I had to remove him from my friends list and after asking him to stop with FB messages amounting to nothing but rants, had to block him there.

        Now he is ranting on my huff post piece as well.

        Oh well…

        1. Daniel Ortiz

          exemplary of this quote by Eric Hoffer me thinks
          “Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance.”


Leave a Reply, Please!