I must confess, sl0wdjin, that this reply is disappointing. Illiterate? C'mon, sure there are some transcription errors on the part of whomever maintains that particular site -- it is not John Polkinghorne's site -- but that is no reason to call the man illiterate. As far as "fuzzleheaded", while I would expect you to dissent from some of his actual theological explorations, I am baffled as to why you would choose that particular selection to illustrate your point -- no theological analysis, no debate attempted on his part, only a couple of brief comments of a historical nature. Even Richard Dawkins, with whom he has traded critiques of their respective works, has a great deal of r...

I must confess, sl0wdjin, that this reply is disappointing. Illiterate? C'mon, sure there are some transcription errors on the part of whomever maintains that particular site -- it is not John Polkinghorne's site -- but that is no reason to call the man illiterate. As far as "fuzzleheaded", while I would expect you to dissent from some of his actual theological explorations, I am baffled as to why you would choose that particular selection to illustrate your point -- no theological analysis, no debate attempted on his part, only a couple of brief comments of a historical nature. Even Richard Dawkins, with whom he has traded critiques of their respective works, has a great deal of respect for the man.

I grant you that the author you clipped is playing games. I do have to wonder, however, whether it is the particular person with whom you disagree, or if instead, you merely shut off anyone who thinks faith and reason are compatible.

One of the two essays was more poorly written than the other, there were numerous structural rather than transcriptural errors, and the points he was attempting to make were either incomplete, drifted off-topic, dragged in irrelevancies, or wound up being non sequitur. Based on these two examples of his deliberations, he's encroaching on illiteracy and is exceptionally fuzzleheaded. Especially so with his interpretation of "myths" about Gallileo.

Maybe he's done better elsewhere. I read what was presented right up front and found both essays embarrassingly ignorant. If he's that bad on tackling a historical topic, then I wouldn't touch him with a fork on "theological analysis".

While I...

One of the two essays was more poorly written than the other, there were numerous structural rather than transcriptural errors, and the points he was attempting to make were either incomplete, drifted off-topic, dragged in irrelevancies, or wound up being non sequitur. Based on these two examples of his deliberations, he's encroaching on illiteracy and is exceptionally fuzzleheaded. Especially so with his interpretation of "myths" about Gallileo.

Maybe he's done better elsewhere. I read what was presented right up front and found both essays embarrassingly ignorant. If he's that bad on tackling a historical topic, then I wouldn't touch him with a fork on "theological analysis".

While I didn't expect him to be convincing on what he talked about, I was rather surprised that you recommended him as a "better source". Not that even a monkey wouldn't be, in comparison to the idjit my ClipMark was about.

I'm not certain where you're coming from when you speak of "faith and reason" and seem to indicate they are compatible. Reason? Maybe you're talking about the same thing as James Randi when he wrote:

"...'no conflict' works until the matter of standards for evidence is introduced. At that point, the difference between "blind faith" and "evidence-based faith" would make the road rougher..." -- James Randi