Louder Fenn

Kevin Holtsberry has a response to the start of my Intelligent Design stuff. He says I'm being hyperbolic. He's right. My main problem with these brief posts is that I'm not taking the time to define terms. And yes, I'm hardcore. But I hope, by the end of it all, it's at least a little bit clearer what I'm driving at. And it's important to note that, when I talk about Evolutionism, I'm not talking about science. I have zero hostility to science. I believe -- very strongly -- that science and faith describe the same world. God made an astonishing universe and gave us the brains to understand it; we should understand it, with as many bunsen burners as it takes. Nor am I a literalist when it comes to the Bible -- provided one does not deny the details that feed the doctrine. What I'm trying to say -- in brief hyperbolic polemic, yes -- is that Evolutionism is not science. In that, I may be wrong. But as I said, maybe it'll become a little clearer as time goes on.

As a matter of fact, I might as well post all that I have so far...

P.S. Kevin also wonders why I would feel "free to doubt others faith on the basis of disagreements about scientific evidence and their correlating theories." Yikes. Actually, I wasn't doubting anyone's faith. My words were poorly chosen and I apologize if anyone thinks that. What I meant was: I think that one can intellectually do a disservice to one's faith by accepting wrong ideas about God or the world; and in that respect, one's faith is weakened. I don't want to imply that somehow God also withdraws, even partly, from the heart. Again, I apologize to anyone I may have offended or hurt.