I suppose I'll leave Dylan's lyrics and philosophy to others, though he certainly has made a significant impact on the culture through his music. Apparently mainstream (above) means most numerous? Or most traditional? I just want to be sure of what the terms mean. Not historical orthodoxy? Or Biblical teaching? Again, though, why would you, essay, "hope" that Craig wouldn't imply things about the groups you list, as to who they serve, when you don't hesitate to imply things about religious people and groups you disagree with? Jesus said, "you can't serve God and money." Your reference to creationists above and below paints with a wide brush. I hope you're not implying that many Baptists, Pentecostals, Charismatics, Jehovah's Witnesses and others who view the Bible as true (not a blend of fact and fiction) are serving money because they believe in creation and accept the accounts of Genesis 1-2. Or is it that they follow people who serve money, because they're gullible?

A good example of this is the 'creationist' claim that the evolution of species violates the laws of thermodynamics. Anyone with a high-school knowledge of thermodynamics realizes how ridiculous that is. You could use the same argument to say that buying furniture from IKEA is a waste of money, because you could leave the package in the middle of your livingroom floor for years, and it would never assemble itself.

Would it assemble itself? It sounds like it would be a waste of money, if no person assembled it. The argument is familiar. For example anti-creationist Tim Berra said it this way in Evolution and the Myth of Creationism: "For example, an unassembled bicycle that arrives at your house in a shipping carton is in a state of disorder. You supply the energy of your muscles (which you get from food that came ultimately from sunlight) to assemble the bike. You have got order from disorder by supplying energy. The Sun is the source of energy input to the earth's living systems and allows them to evolve."(Stanford University Press, 1990, p. 126) But the IKEA illustration and the bicycle beg several important questions. The illustration as an analogy sidesteps the closed system idea that is the core of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, it ignores the design elements of the product to be assembled, and the crafting of the parts, the fact that they were delived ready to function and didn't gradually develop in the living room, and it ignores the most crucial element of all, the intelligence or personality required to make, deliver, inform, understand and assemble the components. Injecting energy (from somewhere) isn't nearly enough to produce the desired order from the (already crafted) parts.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has a very legitimate place in the discussion of origins, whether people on message boards and other populist forums mangle it or not. Broadly, the idea that the available energy in a closed system can only decrease has specific implications for the existence of the universe, which is decaying in respect to energy and organization. This certainly produces difficulties for the assertion of the spontaneous origin of life, and other factors in the premise of upward evolution, the origin of species. "Obstacles" to the Second Law can be discussed as exceptions that make life possible, and yet the obstacles (anti-oxidents in the body for example) tend to be systems that depend on the pre-existence of living systems, circular reasoning. The word "entropy" is one of those confusing terms that people will misunderstand and misuse, but there is certainly some topical obfuscation in saying the principle has no bearing on whether life has come about in a mechanistic way or by special creation. Because of the debate raised by creationists, definite linguistic efforts have been made to distinguish between entropy in terms of thermodynamics entropy in terms of information, but the same basic principle clearly applies, loss and decay. The principle has been applied with respect to information theory (information conveyed in a system of communication tends to become distorted and incomplete), which again raises tremendous difficulties when the DNA sequence and the whole core concept of reproduction depends on the accurate transmission of coded information, let alone the presumed increase of information in the evolutionary model. To simply dismiss the discussion of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as "ridiculous" is not reasonable nor informed, and lumping people who believe in Biblical creation into a particular motivation (greed, you say) and political agenda (whatever that is) is neither accurate nor fair, merely prejudice.

I absolutely reject the assertion that I am belittling or ridiculing anyone's religious faith. 'Creationism' really has about as little to do with religion as with science. It is POLITICS, pure and simple, separating the 'them' from the 'us'.

How can you (or I) say someone's beliefs are ridiculous, impossible to believe, silly and contrived (just a few of the words and phrases that have been used), and still say I am not "belittling or ridiculing anyone's religious faith"? Labels, like "POLITICS" are handy for dismissal, but not particularly helpful or illuminating. At some level, any human interaction might be labeled "POLITICS", but there is a commoon connotative meaning that has nothing to do with the ordinary perspective of the vast majority of people who believe the Bible is true and the Genesis account accurate. It is a question of what is true, nor of political power.

I might just add that the address above is run by a man who refers to himself as a 'non-Theist', but who maintains a board for the discussion of Christian issues, open to everyone, and also a separate board for Christians only. What could be fairer?

I don't know. What could be fairer? What does that even mean? Just thinking outloud, because I don't know the board host in any way, but what could be fairer than Jerry Springer? He reduces everything to the same level. That's pretty fair. So what does that mean, what could be fairer? Something noble? I'm not sure. Smallpox was pretty fair, but I don't think it was very noble. Others, concerned about unbounded population growth, might disagree. Children (and adults for that matter) often object that a thing is not fair when what they really mean is they don't like it, and what is fair is what "I" find agreeable. I'm just curious what the virtue is. Some have said, and in a sin-stained world I think there's truth in it, "life isn't always fair." Maybe even not often, as the Psalmists frequently repined.

: Well, Craig, I try to avoid lumps whenever possible, whether making mashed potatoes or classifying people.

No offense, essay, but that while it may be true of your mashed potatoes, your posts here have said otherwise with regard to people. There's a whole lot of lumping going on.

: Now, Craig, regarding 'questioning the core beliefs of Christianity', to me the core beliefs are these: Love God, keep His commandments, love your neighbor as yourself, help the poor, heed the message of the Sermon on the Mount. Follow His teachings and try to use His life as a guide to living your own, realizing, of course, that you will always fall short of perfection.

A little distinction in terms, if you please. Love God, keep his commandments, love your neighbor as yourself, these things are not properly described as beliefs and are not core beliefs. These things are what we (should) do if we belief. Obedience is not belief, but people who believe in God should reasonably respond by obeying Him. The Biblical question was, "what is the greatest commandment" which Jesus affirmed is "love God..." and second, "love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:34-40). I'll come back to that shortly, but the question about commandments only had meaning if the core beliefs included the existence of God and the revelation of his will in the scriptures. The commandments were not the beliefs, but had meaning because of the core beliefs. When Paul describes the essential message of the good news, he described as of "first importance" the following:
1 Cor 15:1-8
15:1 Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
(from New International Version)

Paul here defines what are some (not exhaustive, but inclusive) Christian core beliefs. They center on Jesus life, sacrificial death, and third day resurrection + documented appearances to people who knew him, and one who hadn't. Other closely connected core beliefs are found in statements like Hebrews 11:6, "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." (NIV) Of course, the Hebrews verse directly connects to the belief in ex nihilo creation (11:1-3) and Cain and Abel (11:4) and Noah's flood (11:7), etc. which are summarized as "a great cloud of witnesses" (12:1). Real people who had real experiences as a result of their faith. Believing in God, the Biblical creator, believing in the sacrificial death of Jesus (which only has meaning if the sacrifice was without blemish), believing in the resurrection and appearances of Jesus, these are some of the things described in the Bible as core beliefs. On the basis of these beliefs, trusting God and obeying his commands, including loving God and our neighbor, makes sense.

Consider Jesus' words when he affirmed the greatest and second commandments in Matthew 22:34-40:
Matt 22:34-40
34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (from New International Version)

What did Jesus mean in verse 40? The whole Old Testament hangs on these two commandments. Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying, "We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang seperately." That is true of the Bible. If it doesn't all hang together, assuredly the various parts will all be hanged.

: Denying scientific facts is not a core belief of Christianity. Accepting the Bible as a textbook on biology, astronomy, or physics is not a core belief of Christianity. Beliefs like the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection are in another category entirely. These must be accepted by faith, and they vary from one manifestation of Christianity to another. Catholics, Orthodox, and some Protestants, for example, accept the Real Presence as firmly as the Divinity of Christ. Other Protestants reject the Real Presence entirely. While I have never denied any of these 'mysteries of faith', they can neither be proven nor disproven. That is not the case with scientific facts, and I don't believe one 'serves the Lord' by cutting oneself off from the real world.

As noted above, in 1 Corinthians and Hebrews (and we could include "trustworthy sayings" in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, and others), the resurrection of Jesus is not in a separate category from core beliefs, and the "manifestation", a good Biblical word, isn't ambiguous in the New Testament. The "Real Presence" is a debate that turned up long after the New Testament was closed, and involves interpretations and traditions, apart from the New Testament, that became required strictures for "orthodoxy."

If only what is described as "scientific facts" were limited to those things that can be proven and have been proven, there would be no argument here. Unfortunately, many "scientific" core beliefs and faith issues are assumed to be true in the arena of uniformitarian thought and regarded as "facts" when they are actually guesses, surmises, interpretations, assertions, and philosophic presumptions, rather than confirmed facts or testable truth. Believing the Bible, including Genesis 1-2 and Matthew 1, does not require "denying scientific facts" but it does come down to faith, which is rooted in fact.

: I note this morning another thread, not directed toward me, in which the question is posed: 'What if it could be proven that the earth is a million years old?' Caf's response is that he would believe it if it could be proven, but it hasn't been proven and he's confident it won't be proven. I share his confidence. The HUMAN RACE is at least a million years old, the animal kingdom many, many millions of years older and the earth itself more than a billion, according to scientific research. It's amazing to me that there are still people, otherwise intelligent, who muse over whether the earth could possibly be more than a few thousand years old. That's not faith, that's foolishness. That has nothing to do with serving the Lord. It is rather misuse, or outright abandonment, of the intellect that God has given us 'in His own image'.

But you don't ridicule or lump, right? I pointed out that the proposition of a million years, one way or another, solves no issues for anyone.

I do appreciate Noah, an "otherwise intlligent" man, who built a huge box and stocked it with food for himself, his family, and a host of animals, in spite of the overwhelming consensus of his generation, because he believed God. I think, essay, you need a historical-critical commentary on the facts and philosophies of science, an AB on evolutionist writings and dogma, so that you might see the errors and myths more clearly. But the indication is that you would disparage the source, and not read it anyway. Meanwhile, I'll go ahead and continue to read the ideas put forth by various authors, pro and con, and I'll pay close attention to what the various sources are really saying, what the facts are, what the assumptions and inferences are, how the artists draw the eyes, how the vocabulary changes when we're talking about ape behaviors and penguin behaviors, with a definite existing personal conviction that what God has said has already stood the test. Back in the second century, when Polycarp was given the choice of denying Christ or dying, he is quoted thusly: "Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?" My own conclusions conform to his.

By the way, Craig, if you are a Dylan fan, why do you think he stopped being a Christian and went back to being a Jew? I don't know (no, caf, really, I don't), I'm just asking. He has certainly written many great inspirational songs from both Jewish and Christian perspectives, 'Man of Peace' and 'Neighborhood Bully' being my favorites.

Don't look at me, I don't know, but still, I will ask, since you parenthesized me, why interject it? There's some bit of a little doubt-sowing-devil's-advocate thing that keeps popping up, for some reason. What did Dylan's apparent religious uncertainty have to do with anything? How about that Larry Flint? Now there's a conversion story. No, maybe not, probably you were just making conversation and curious about Craig's perspective, and I'm not being fair. (I'm sorry, Mike, sometimes I am that way, what you described.)

: Still, I'm thankful that there is religious freedom. This must be guarded and preserved always.

I agree, I really do. But it is already rare in the world, and seemingly diminishing rather than expanding.