Pastor Tim’s Response

Pastor Tim responded to my post below (Once again showing how great he is with the positive dialogue):

I guess I should join into this discussion. Let me first say how great it was to have Hemant in our services. He was very gracious and I think our congregation really enjoyed it.

Let me answer a couple of these questions.

the most important point that you are missing here, Hemant, is that I am not suggesting that anyone teach ID or Creationism in the classroom. This paper is written to my child’s teacher – not to the scientific community. I wrote this so my children’s Junior and Senior High teachers would understand Creationism – not teach it. Because of the indoctrination of evolution in our colleges, I’m doubtful than any of them ever heard a decent argument for anything but naturalism.

I am not on a crusade for ID, I merely wanted them to understand that there is an alternative and that’s the paradigm my children will be coming from. and by the way, it was very well received every time. I have probably given it to 20 teachers by now.

I agree that I need to change some wording in this document to be fair to the National Geographic, I will do that. However, your statement that there is “NO controversy in the scientific world about Evolution” can’t be true or NG wouldn’t have printed it in the first place.

I know that the 100 reputable skeptics isn’t a large number, but the Discovery Institute wasn’t trying to start a petition, they were making a point.
They weren’t “relying on numbers.” They were making a point.
Numbers is a bad idea. Most of the intelligent people thought the world was flat at one time.
“Most” is not good enough. If it’s not “every,” we should still be open. Would it have been right to throw out Darwins theory just because chance is so highly improbably? I don’t think so. So why do we have to throw out the supernatural just because it makes people uncomfortable?

If one of the leading atheists of this century has been open to it and found “design,” we should pay attention. You say genes and DNA would have made Darwin a stronger naturalist. Anthony Flew says “it has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.” (Fox News)
Flew (Atheism’s former champion) says biologists’ investigation of DNA “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved.”
He said, “My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato’s Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.”

Why can’t it be that way?


To respond back to Tim:

It’s good to know you’re not advocating teaching this in a classroom. I am all for open Scientific discussion when warranted, but as I said, it’s not warranted here. Scientists have heard all the arguments brought forth in the church document, and have either responded to them or shown why the information was incorrect. So I do get defensive when someone says this is a credible scientific alternative.

I agree the teachers should know that many of their students do believe in Creationism. Which is why I say the teachers need to do a better job of explaining Evolution. The students need to be able to sort out good science from bad science.

Popular vote is never a good answer in science and we both agree to this. However, you mentioned that we should still be open if it’s not “everyone.” If that were true, then should we should teach the idea of Holocaust Denial, Astrology, and scores of other fields that some people (even experts) believe? We don’t have to throw out the supernatural, but we cannot include it in a science class because it would defeat the purpose of the entire field. The field rests on the idea that we can explain the world around us using observation and testable predictions. It’s worked pretty well so far. Bringing in the supernatural would open the scientific world up to too many areas of pseudoscience that are inaccurate and irrelevant.

As for Antony Flew, he actually retracted the statement you quoted (retraction referred to here– See Updates at bottom of page). Flew does know that much credible research has been done in the field of Origins of Life. However, he is right that we haven’t completely figured out how life originated to 100% certainty. Because of this, Flew subscribes to the God-of-the-Gaps theory that says if we don’t know how it happened, it must be God. As we’ve seen time and time again, this method of thinking has failed every time a new discovery is made. Here, the evidence is still pointing to Evolution.

Tim, I love that we can talk like this. Thank you for responding.

I’m off to an international Atheist conference in Iceland, so I will be back next week. Hope everyone gets a chance to read, respond, and join the conversation.

[tags]Parkview, Orland Park, Harlow, Creationism, Intelligent Design, National Geographic, Antony Flew, Iceland[/tags]

  • Eliza

    Tim, thanks for your comments here. Your letter to teachers certainly looks like it was a labor of love, & the formatting looks very crisp & professional! Great use of humor, too. (That was a nice touch!)

    As someone with a background in chemistry and biology, I couldn’t help but disagree with much of the information you included; alot of it was dated (or outdated), scientifically incorrect, and/or slanted. (The existence of coelecanths is an embarassment to evolutionists? Hunh?) Anyway, clearly we are on different sides of a gulf here. But it might be useful, in case you are writing again about evolution or discussing it on a podium again with an atheist, to clarify for yourself the difference between (1) the origin of the universe, (2) the origin of life, and (3) the origin of species. Evolutionary biology concerns itself with #3, and while that doesn’t change your view on it at all, you should know that including arguments about how evolution can’t explain (1) and (2) above are unnecessary. You’re right, it doesn’t. But it also doesn’t claim to.

    If you are revising the document for any reason, I might also point out 2 items on page 30. At the top of the page, you said “To believe in evolution, one has to believe that….” Now, I’d like to suggest that you might want to rephrase #8, “And most unlikely, that life came from death.” While I am in full agreement with you that life is most unlikely to come from death, my guess is that you may not mean this to cast doubt on the Biblical descriptions of people being raised from the dead, including Lazarus and Jesus himself. (Also, evolutionary biology has nothing to do with life arising from death, but that type of point I’m not going to argue here. It’s your essay, not mine!)

    Also, while the cover letter (and your comments above) state that your purpose is not to have creationism or ID taught in schools, your closing on page 30 indicates otherwise. You say, “I just want to make sure that the students get to choose whether they want to believe this [statement endorsing evolutionary biology] or this [scripture].”

    The quote from Psalms 104:5-6, “God, you set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved,” may not convey the message you want…or maybe it does, I don’t know. But I could see teachers taking exception with the idea of letting kids choose whether or not to believe the sun (and universe) rotates around the earth, which that scripture suggests.

    And citing Psalm 23 seems imo like setting up a false dichotomy. One can believe in evolutionary biology and also believe in, and worship, God.

    Perhaps a citation from Genesis about the creation of life would serve your point better, is all I’m suggesting.

    Again, thank you for holding those 3 dialogues with Hemant, and taping them so others (like me) could listen. And for putting up with me (and, perhaps others here) making comments about ID and your essay for teachers. Again, you did a very nice job putting it together and making it interesting and funny.

    Hemant, have a great conference in Iceland. Sounds wonderful!

  • Helen aka Ir
  • Helen aka Ir
  • David

    Observing the evidence is only the first step in science. The other 3 steps are outlined in the scientific method. The scientific method isn’t a conspiracy to exclude the supernatural, but is a way of affirming useful information. Since ID supposes a supernatural agent, it isn’t falsifiable and you can’t make useful predictions. Anything is possible if you are willing to include the supernatural.


  • Siamang

    I’d add to David’s comment:

    If you want scientists to use the supernatural in their science, please tell us how they can do that.

    Is there an incantation or prayer or dead chicken we can wave over a test tube?

    How exactly do you propose doing “supernatural science”?

  • Frankfort

    To Eliza,

    “One can believe in evolutionary biology and also believe in, and worship, God.”

    How can one do that, Eliza? Are you referring to the God in the Bible or ???

  • Julie Marie


    I’ve been a Christian for over 20 years, and I see no conflict between my faith in God and my acceptance of evolution. I believe God created our world, and everything in it. I believe the scientific method can show us how. At least in part. I don’t know nearly as much about evolution and cosmology as a 21st century human probably should, but I am interested enough to learn.

  • Siamang

    FWIW, the document “Creationism for My Child’s Teacher” is still available on the Parkview Church website. The National Geographic cover has not been removed.

  • Frankfort

    Julie Marie,
    If the Christian faith asks you to take the Bible as truth, how can you not believe that God created the earth as He said he did? He didn’t write in Genesis that there was a big bang and organisms evolved and the first man (Adam) was an ape and Eve evolved from the ape. I’m not trying to be sarcastic, I’m just genuinely wondering how you merge the two?

  • Julie Marie


    Sadly, I noticed that as well.

  • Julie Marie


    The Bible is a rich and complex book, and it can be understood on many different levels. That is a wonderful, yet frustrating aspect of our faith. I believe it is a God inspired book rather than an inerrant, literal transcription of communication from God; it is a collection of writings from our ancestors describing their experience with our God. As such, God had to consider first century man’s ability to understand and conceptualize. These weren’t sophisticated people; they were hunter/gatherers who wrestled with the elements and told stories around open campfires – their only source of heat. God didn’t outline creation in detail, he used broad strokes. Twenty first century science was way beyond the conceptual ability of the men and women of Adam’s time. I should add here, I believe God’s total creation is way beyond the conceptual ability of twenty first century science. But we can only work with what we know and strive to learn more. To refuse to do so, in my mind, is to refuse to learn about how God accomplished his feat of creation.

    The way I read Genesis, rather than a literal step by step process is this:

    Genesis was first century man’s attempt to describe how he came to be. The Adam and Eve story is a metaphor, I believe, for when evolved homo sapiens were made in God’s image. The life God breathed into “Adam” was spiritual life, not biological life, in my opinion. And when “Adam and Eve” exercised their free will in a manner that violated God’s will, the death they experienced was spiritual, rather than biological.

    That is the short version of how I reconcile Genesis with modern science. Thanks for asking. And btw, I didn’t interpret your question as sarcastic…sarcasm is ill suited to a conversation between believers on matters of faith.

  • Siamang

    To support my buddy Julie, I’ll not that this is by no means a narrowly held opinion by Christians.

    I’ll bring in a quote by the Rev. George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory:

    “If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly.”

    “God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity,” he wrote. “He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves.”

    I’ll also quote the new presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, a former Oceonographer:

    “As a scientist and an Episcopalian, I cherish the prayer that follows a baptism, that the newly baptized may receive “the gift of joy and wonder in all God’s works.” I spent the early years of my adulthood as an oceanographer, studying squid and octopuses, including their evolutionary relationships. I have always found that God’s creation is “strange and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139). …

    “The vast preponderance of scientific evidence, including geology, paleontology, archaeology, genetics and natural history, indicates that Darwin was in large part correct in his original hypothesis.

    “I simply find it a rejection of the goodness of God’s gifts to say that all of this evidence is to be refused because it does not seem to accord with a literal reading of one of the stories in Genesis.”

    Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori will begin her nine-year term as head of the church in November.

  • Julie Marie

    “God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity,” he wrote. “He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves.”

    Great quote, Siamang, thanks! ISTM that literalists shackle their understanding of God to the level of complexity he utilized when introducing himself to early humans. We are capable of understanding so much more about him now.

  • Siamang

    I find Reverend Coyne’s vision of God much grander than most people’s.

    What a fascinating person he’d be if you were seated next to him at a dinner party!

    Astronomer, Jesuit, Reverend.

  • Frankfort

    What about Jesus and modern science?

  • Julie Marie

    Please narrow your question for me, Frankfort. Jesus and modern science is a big topic.

    If you mean Jesus and the resurrection, in my mind that is one of the areas modern science is not conceptually able to address at this time, given what we know and the instruments we have.

    who knows, maybe abiogenesis isn’t something to be afraid of…..

  • Frankfort

    If the Bible is a “it is a God inspired book rather than an inerrant, literal transcription of communication from God; it is a collection of writings from our ancestors describing their experience with our God. As such, God had to consider first century man’s ability to understand and conceptualize. These weren’t sophisticated people; they were hunter/gatherers who wrestled with the elements and told stories around open campfires – their only source of heat”(Julie Marie)then how does Jesus fit into that and thus modern science? Was Jesus a hunter/gatherer around the campfire telling stories? Are the stories of the cross and the ressurection metaphors or should they be taken literally? If modern science can’t explain miracles and the supernatural, how does it handle Jesus?

  • Julie Marie

    Hi Frankfort,

    Thanks for clarifying. Humanity had progressed beyond the hunter/gatherer phase of Genesis by the time Jesus joined us. Written communication was established, economic structures were in place, the Roman Empire was bringing modernity, as it was known then, all over the world. Much progress, but still the understanding of the physical world was limited…several centuries were yet to pass before we realized infectious disease was caused by germs rather than evil spirits, for instance.

    Science concerns itself with observing and understanding the physical world. Spirituality is a metaphysical concept; this falls under the purview of religion. Jesus cannot be quantified and observed; hypotheses about him cannot be tested and replicated. So I would say science has nothing to say about Jesus and his miracles. To ask science to explain God is to ask too much of science. To reject science because it cannot explain the metaphysical would be like rejecting your car because it cannot fly.

    The Bible tells us Jesus was fully human and fully divine. In my opinion, American Christianity has focused on Jesus’ divinity to the exclusion of his humanity. He was engaged fully in the culture of his time. I’ve been taught God meets us where we are and begins his work in us. His parables met humanity where they were at that time. I imagine if he were to walk the earth today his message would be the same but he would use modern metaphors.

    As far as what was accomplished on Calvary, well, that is the mystery of our faith. I can’t claim to have it all figured out. Certainly the cross and sacrifice were well understood symbols in Biblical times, although the thoughts are barbaric and horrifying today. I will spend my lifetime searching the heart, mind, and will of God and still not have it all figured out. But God knows my heart, mind and will quite well. And THAT, imo, is the more salient point.

    Jesus said: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.

    I love the Lord with my mind when I seek to learn and understand the wonder of creation revealed through the discoveries of modern science, and re-examine his Word in light of my new understanding of his beloved creation.

    I love him with my soul by desiring to know as much about him as I can find out.

    I love him with my strength when, confronted with concepts that seem to conflict with my previous understanding, I do not succumb to fear and abandon my search.

    I love him with my heart when I go to him in earnest prayer and humbly ask that he guide my steps.

    I did not understand Pauls exhortation to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” I understand it now. Paradoxically, leaving behind the comfort of certainty, and pressing on through discomfort and fear, has led to a deeper understanding of the lover of my soul. The relationship is stronger for that.

  • Frankfort

    I quite simply believe that Jesus says He was there in the beginning, He is God, and He is the Word (the Bible). So, I take Him at His word completely. It’s the mystery of my faith. He meets all where they are, if they are willing. Therefore, He meets all where they are despite (or in spite of) their education. It wasn’t always this simple for me, but I’m so glad that I finally got to a place where I know who’s in charge and that He doesn’t need me to figure out His mysteries or save the world. He has it covered.
    Carry on with your spirited debate, fine folk. I’m out for a bit, away from a computer. Best to you all.
    Signing out for now…

  • Siamang

    Whew, Julie Marie.

    I’m really blown away by your ability to communicate your feelings so well. Thanks for sharing that. I really love your ideas here.

  • Julie Marie

    Frankfort said:

    He meets all where they are, if they are willing. Therefore, He meets all where they are despite (or in spite of) their education. It wasn’t always this simple for me, but I’m so glad that I finally got to a place where I know who’s in charge and that He doesn’t need me to figure out His mysteries or save the world. He has it covered.

    Thank you for sharing your gracious profession of faith. We are all wired differently, and yes, I agree, He has it covered.

  • Julie Marie

    thanks Siamang :)

  • txatheist

    Is the letter that Tim has given to 20 teachers here somewhere? I’d like to read it. Anthony Flew did say it appears designed. Stephan Hawking said something similar but imo when you read what they had to say it comes down to their amazement at the vaseness of our universe and how many moving parts are in it, not the design but the overwhelming complexity of something so large we can’t grasp the true size of the entire universe. Anyway, where is Tim’s letter to the teacher’s? Please:)

  • txatheist

    Nevermind, I found Tim’s letter and this is ironic. My fundy grandma saw me reading that particular NG magazine. I know it was about 5 years ago and it was talking about the school district in Tennesee that held the Scopes trial still does not have one edition of The Origin of Species in any of the 11 schools.

  • Marty

    Dear Tim: I think you did a fabulous job in inviting Hemant and having a very Respectful Dialogue with him. I felt that each of you did an outstanding job of presenting what you believe/not believe in a way that helps others understand these differences and make choices. Although yours is a more conservative Christian belief than my own – throughout your dialogue I felt your openness, realness, willingness to listen and to think/reflect and even at times respect the unknown and unknowable. I also appreciated that you are a “Friendly Christian.” I am hopeful that an edited down version will be on PBS.

    Having now read some of the feedback and dialogue on this board – how you have used the National Geographic to support your point of view on creationism I find makes me wonder about your integrity – which in turn makes me wonder about the rest of your message – which makes me sad.

    It appears to me that your use of the National Geographic cover is no different than how many Atheists and Christians use the Bible – make up ones mind first and then find some verse/interpretation that supports the pre-supposition. Clearly the message in the article is exactly the opposite of how most would interpret the teaser on the cover page – and you chose to use the cover page in your publication on Creationism – and you chose not to show the first page of the article – which was exactly the opposite of what most would infer fromt the cover – and certainly what you hoped would be inferred from the cover.

    When this came out – I gave you the benefit of the doubt (I felt you deserved the benefit of the doubt based upon my positive feeling toward your having the guts to invite Hemant and then how you handled yourself and the information you provided during that interview.) and assumed that you may have seen the cover, jumped on using it to support your point – and that you never read the article. Surely if you had read the article you would not have mislead your reader in the way your publication did. I then appreciated your response above, indicating that you recognized a need to change your wording relative to the National Geographic – although I felt that was a drastic understatement.

    But now a week has gone by, the publication remains on your website unaltered. What are we now to think?

    I have also studied your website, newsletter, etc and am tremendously impressed with the fine work that you and your parishioners are doing to help make the world a better place.

    I look forward to your taking action that will be integrity and support the fine work that you are doing.

  • Felicia

    Hi Hemant!

    I was so pleased to meet you at the AAI conference in Iceland (I was the Swedish girl who kept having questions for all the speakers and made everyone gasp by openly proclaiming not to be very fond of Star Trek), your lecture was great and it was wonderful to see such a positive, friendly face on atheism. It also made me think a lot about what I can do personally to match your efforts. ;)

    I probably told you at some point that I’m on the Brights’ forums – I mean, I plugged that place whenever I had the chance. So I just wanted to take a moment to invite you there, if you have the time at some point, and maybe tell us what you’ve done. I was really surprised that I hadn’t heard of your eBay project before, especially since people on the forum are all over the net and normally report things like that!

    So, anyway, thanks for the lecture, and feel free to pop in and say hello to the international brights if you have the time.

  • Siamang

    Well, it’s officially been one week now since Pastor Tim said he’d change the document.

    It has not been changed, as of this post.

    As time goes by, I have less and less confidence that he will change it.

    As more time goes by, I may have more to say about this.

  • Reign of Reason

    You hit it on the head: “So why do we have to throw out the supernatural just because it makes people uncomfortable?” … because supernaturalism has no place in science or in the public schools.

    Supernaturalism, by definition, is neither testable nor verifiable… Hence, you can posit any explanation for an observation and be shielded from scrutiny.

    We need to focus on understanding the universe we live in… not writing it off to some mythical being… We tried that once: it was called the Dark Ages.

  • Brad Thom

    Is this the ebay atheist guy? I saw the auction ended at $500, did you spend 50 days going to church? Hrmm.. where are the archives that tell this story?


  • Helen aka Ir

    Hi Brad,

    Yes Hemant is the ‘ebay atheist guy’. There’s some information about the auction on Hemant’s FAQ page (his link to it lives is on the top right hand side of this blog).

    The winning bidder, Off The Map, also has some information about the auction on their site – you can go to their eBay atheist home page and read the links in the “Getting Started” box.

    Hemant didn’t go to 50 churches; Jim Henderson of Off The Map said he’d be happy if Hemant would go to about 10 different church services instead and write about them for Off The Map’s website. Hemant agreed to that.

    If you check Hemant’s media appearances (another link on the top right hand side of this blog), the story is told in many of them also.

    How did you hear about the eBay atheist?

    Anyway, happy reading/listening :)

  • Siamang


    Yes, it’s him. Here’s the Christian group that hired him:

    The whole story’s there.

  • Karyn Purvis

    Just wanted to weigh in and let you all know that Pastor Tim has been out of town and just hasn’t had a minute to address some of the questions posted here about his paper “Creationism for My Child’s Teacher” beyond his earlier post. We did do some tweaking, however, to address concerns about the use of the NG cover. We still like the cover…it asks the question that we want to ask ~ “Was Darwin Wrong?” But we added a caption making it clear that NG’s answer to the question was “No.” We also removed reference to the NG cover in Tim’s “Dear Teacher” letter on page 3. We felt there were legimate objections to our previous use of the cover and we wanted to rectify that. See Creationism For My Child’s Teacher.

  • Marty

    Dear Tim and Karyn – Thank you for this positive step. I look forward to when you will have time to further review the comments from those on this board. I think that how you objectively work this through with Hemant and the others on this board will either add dramatically to the great experience that you and Hemant shared (and your credibility) or dramatically take away from it. That does not mean that I am looking for or expect agreement.

    I think this is causing all of us to stretch and look deeper – while at the same time it makes absolutely no difference to me in my life as to which is correct. I find this a major waste of time, I welcome and support true science and do not want it poluted by religion. At the same time, I personally choose to believe that there is a God (by whatever name) who manifests in ways that science can not grasp – but that is my choice and I have no need/desire to prove that to anyone else.

    To me it is a shame that some elements of religion choose to make science an enemy. Where there are cases of those who are solely driven by science and are out to prove that science exclusion that there may be somethings that science can not and will not ever be able to explain – I do not support these types of scientists either.

  • txatheist

    I’d like an answer to this. On page 26 of the document it states that Noah had small dinasours on the ark and others, like large ones, died out after the flood. Care to point to one peer reviewed journal or group(not ID folk) that will show T-Rex died out after the flood? When and how did this happen?

  • Bob Johnson

    One major trap the liberal media falls into these days is the need for “equal time.” Rather than being a fount of opinion (sure, driven by the rich and not representative of majority view) as was the general case historically, the appearance of lack of bias (often as a kneejerk reaction to accusations from the Right) often becomes more important than commitment to truth. This has been painfully apparent in the media’s treatment of the global warming “controversy.” Even if 2% of the scientists who chime in on the global warming debate express themselves counter to the majority, accepted view that global warming is caused by human activities and poses a grave threat to the planet’s entire living community, and even if those 2% are almost invariably funded by Exxon-Mobil and not specialists in the field (like Michael Crichton, say), often, it gets an disproportionately large amount of media coverage. Then again, it’s anyone’s fault who hasn’t learned to distrust immediately a noisy and irrational minority’s view. [Note that I am not singling you out. While I am not an atheist, I find that they are often neither noisy nor irrational (whether or not I agree with their reasoning)]

    Often, Creationism/ID are derived (whether honestly portrayed as such or not) from a literalist interpretation of the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. I emphasize this because it is more visible among Christians than other Abrahamic religions. My advice to those proponents of ID who are Christian (that is, if there are any who aren’t), my advice is that you sit down and chart out a detailed timeline of the story portrayed in the book of Genesis, especially both accounts of the Creation, set side by side (in my opinion) screaming for non-literal interpretation. If you can get that story straight, first of all, I am very impressed…that takes a great deal of effort. Secondly, though, I can’t help but think that you must be omitting or tweaking details in order to reconcile the “fact” of the Creation. If you have tweaked or omitted even one detail, you are recognizing one of two things: 1) The fallibility of the Bible or 2) The allegorical nature certain aspects of the creation narrative (I tend toward this one myself).

    Accepting either of those two aforementioned views should lead you in a direction that allows you to accept reason as presented by centuries of the scientific pursuit of the truth. If, in fact, God created the universe, and therefore the physical laws bound to it, examination of the universe around us can only lead to a better understanding of God and the miraculous universe he created, whether it took 6 days or 15 billion years.

  • ken


    There’s one thing that always raises a red flag for me. And that’s when people such as yourself raise the point that evolution is a “theory” not a “fact”.

    Although in everyday vernacular, a fact is a proven theory, it is not in science. In science, you start with the facts: things like fossil records, carbon dating, and the complexity of life on Earth. Those are facts.

    A hypothesis is speculation about the facts. A theory is a full explanation of the facts. The point is, theory is never promoted to become a fact. It forever remains a theory. Facts are not proven theories.

    Although it’s a common misunderstanding, it’s an important distinction.

  • Paul Richard Strange, Sr.

    Thanks for the “friendly” aspect of this blog!

    I believe in God through Jesus Christ, and have friends who are atheists. We disagree, but it is also friendly.

    One thing which has made Richard Dawkins stand out, in my humble opinion, is that he dialogues with students, and engages in debates, without throwing a sense of humor out the window.

    Good website.

    Paul Richard Strange, Sr.
    Waxahachie Texas