[FONT="]Variant, [/FONT]
[FONT="]I don’t think you realize it, but the whole semantic structure of your uncompromising dichotomy between: 1) A Fundamentalist concept of God, on the one hand, and 2) An Evidential exposition of the concept of God on the other reflects the fact that you are either unaware of other possibilities of 'explanation' involving the Biblical God, or that you choose purposely to ignore those other possibilities.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Furthermore, I see that you are attempting to impale me on the proverbial ‘horns,’ a tactic which in this case seems to me to qualify more along the line of what I call the ‘argumentative straight jacket,’ wherein you drive me insane by implying that Christians who do not hold unswervingly to a Fundamentalist theology cannot, and do not, qualify as authentic Christians. Of course, I think that is a logical fallacy….but at this point, I don’t know whether to slap your hand or to offer you, instead, a chair and a Strawberry Daiquiri as a reward for your undying commitment to "Reason." (Yes, I agree, she is a babe.)[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Ok. Let’s go this route……I’m going to suggest to you that just because some Christians, perhaps many Christians, may apply a generic, philosophically defined concept of ‘god’ to explain just about any physical phenomena, this does not necessitate the conclusion—or our assumption--that the idea of 'God' can, indeed, be used to explain the physical evidence of the world.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Again, case in point: The Geologic Column. Sure, any Christian can open his or her mouth and articulate the words, “God made that.” That’s pretty simple, and probably only a couple of neurons fire in a Christian’s brain when that speech-act takes place. However, this apparently simple act is probably more of an act of desperation to ‘keep the faith’ than it is anything else. Moreover, as we both know, the description of the GC, as a collective physical phenomenon representing eons of physical change, does not appear in the pages of the bible. Hence, it can be accurately said that, in this case, the bible does not equip Christians with the cognitive tools to actually explain the above cited phenomenon.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Therefore, Christians who concede to the validity of the Geologic Column will have to make a choice with regard to retaining their beliefs: they can either a) reject the bible and its god, or b) criticize and qualify their understanding of the Geologic Column to fit the bible, or c) criticize and qualify their existing understanding of the bible, or d) reassess everything, science and bible alike. It should be clear that choice a) is linear, but choices b, c, and d have the potential to be quite divergent, and even to be subject to various permutations. [/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]As you can see, a Christian isn’t caught necessarily in a dichotomous situation in choosing between either Christianity or something clearly other than Christianity. More specifically, if it is found that a Christian’s original understanding of the nature of the biblical literature (and/or any attending metaphysical or epistemological assumptions) was in error, even while encountering and conceding to the validity of the Geologic Column, then the possibility remains that a new understanding of the way in which the bible may be applicable to human existence on the earth could be attained.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]It is possible for a Christian to resolve a conflict with the evidence of a physical phenomenon—like the GC--by either: a) dropping the Christian faith, or b) discovering a conceptual correction(s) that facilitates the movement to another paradigm. Thus, a Christian can move from a Fundamentalist’s position to one of several other possible theological (albeit Christian) paradigms, some of which may even accommodate,
without directly affirming or explaining, the validity of the Geologic Column. Thus, the ‘god’ idea itself is not used—directly or indirectly--to ‘explain’ the physical phenomenon in question (See Conrad Hyers, or Denis O. Lamereaux, among others.), a position that also comports itself somewhat well with “methodological naturalism” within the realm of science. Personally, I can honestly say that, as a Christian, I don’t know IF God had a hand in the Geologic Column, or even if He did, to what extent or by what method it would have been engaged, and I say this regardless of what Creationists or Intelligent Design advocates would proffer otherwise. [/FONT]
[FONT="]
Ok…………is this clear now? Or are you going to force me to put on my Winnie-the-Pooh thinking cap.

[/FONT]