Thank you for the link and the kind words. I have reciprocated with a link to Wires from the Bunker, which looks like a must read, particularly given the education and experience you bring to the table.

I particularly appreciated this statement from your bio: “Modern Christians mostly have no biblical worldview (a pattern of biblical belief) which they can apply in their lives.”

That is, I’m afraid, pervasively true, and we are often indistinguishable from our culture as a result of our uncritical consumption of its ideas.

Came on the site by accident. As a British Reformed ChristianI much enjoyed your perspectives on the evolution/Intelligent Design argument.

I wil be linking to you today.

One more thing. In your ‘About me’ you noted that most bloggers do not present any kind of biog in any kind of detail. This is something which has greatly concerned me about many Christina bloogers.

I have written (in my The Politics of Faith) about worldviews – that everyone has one, the question is: what is it? It would be fa rmore helpful if everyone took the position you and I obviously do, to be more upfront onthis.

God bless – keep up the good work.

Peter C Glover
Wires From the Bunker

That ties in very well with that “Media Matrix” article by David Kupelian that I linked to awhile back. I think I need to do more with that theme.

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

Still, thanks for the “attaboy.”

Or to put it more intellectually…
I am in complete accord with the concepts so insightfully presented herein by the most erudite scpanther!