I (almost) always add an e-mail address to my posts, an opportunity for readers to make more specific (or lengthy) comments or ask questions off-line. I received a several interesting messages last week - and would like to put forth for discussion a composite idea emerging from these disparate sources and from Justin's post last Friday on doubt. One of the letters from a reader noted (used with permission, edited for anonymity): (3) The main point of writing: one enormous obstacle is the general tone of public figures who hold to theistic evolution. Most of my evangelical friends can't fathom how evolution could be compatible with faith. What's needed is patient, quiet discussion. What worries me about [some] is the lack of winsome tone and approach (that's not uniform btw; Falk's book was excellent, and there's no problem with the main body of Collins's Language of God; Waltke, Keller, etc. are gems). I'm wondering how someone like you could use your platform to articulate this problem. In my opinion that is a bigger problem than the [fundamentalist] approach at Southern Seminary. The latter we can overcome via the web, books, etc.; but if the voices available to communicate about science and evolution are not winsome and helpful, but combative and derisive, where does that leave us? (4) Second main point: ... how does Keller's argument strike you ... that we need theistic evolutionists who can work well with others on the spectrum between fundamentalism and atheistic science? If Keller is correct, this would mean that (say) Gilberson's tone is actually unhelpful and likely to do more harm than good; it may help him get a hearing in the secular sphere, but will be a problem as he tries to communicate to evangelicals. Read more