Hiya Rusty (and Peter King hi): I didn't say to look up the references to be a smarty; but to explore them equipped as you are with your understanding of science. The Anfinsen quote didn't come out of your old book. I went and found the quotes with references: http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC3W0699.pdf

They are scientists who don't agree with evolution.

(Personally I quite like evolutionary theory. I enjoyed reading Darwin; he was a great writer and he agonized so much over his work and beliefs that one couldn't help but admire and empathize).

Anyway OK, scientists that are creationists as well. This site lists many and the links on some names give more complete details.
http://creation.com/creation-scientists

Here's an astronomer:
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-One-Hugh-Ross-Ph-D/dp/1886653380

That's just a bit of chat from Collins:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

That's a list of references to be used with a main text. Just posting so you can see that there are quite a few pro-creation scientists there:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life-ref.html

David - I agree with your comment and respect you without question. However, I am not arguing against evolution - as I said, I don't have the language skills, or the scientific knowledge, to do so. By the same measure, I don't have the scientific knowledge to argue in favour of it either.

The links I've provided point out that there is a wide range of opinion on these topics - for me to pick any one of them and claim to believe it would require on my part some faith in other authorities.
The best minds in science, theology and languages argue over Biblical writings. I think it would be false of me to weigh in; though I read what others write with great interest.

Embracing Christianity requires faith; just as believing any particular scientific theory would do. Frankly, for all that science has discovered or is in the process of discovering, there is not one definitive piece of wisdom that matches the way of life modelled by Jesus.

The Bible is accessible to anyone. The stories within and the wisdom is for everyone - not only people with some knowledge of science.

Yes pynchme, I know *your* Anfinsen quote came from an exercise in quote mining. Good of you to acknowledge that.

*My* Anfinsen quote came from *his own book* "The Molecular Basis of Evolution". A classic in the field, which he wrote, expressing his long-held and supported professional position, desiring that others may understand. It was very much at odds with the cheapie you dug up.

Do you really think Anfinsen *really* supports the genesis account, or thinks evolution is not true? *Just* because what's-his-name can find a quote somewhere, arguably discussing first cause, a very speculative topic.

My point stands, yours is a dodgy as a two dollar hooker.
Now go look up the rest on *your* list, go find their *own* works, read them like an exam will be held.

You still do not percieve the difference between genuine scholarship (reading the authors works in depth) and self-indulgence (buying little compendia of quotes that are carefully selected to reflect the opinion of the target market).

You dig up a quick interview with Collins, but fail to address the fact that *your own reference* clearly said he accepts evolution and rejects literal interpretations of genesis.

No need to bother with the second-raters like Demski, who don't make much money outside of peddling such rot to captive fundy audiences.

Your shallow cherry-picking, of a commercially-inspired screed without checking (a)the genuine opinion of the quotee (b) the actual content of your own reference regarding the quotee, serves to demonstrate that you do not understand your topic, have not researched it with any attention or diligence. Do you think "jesus" or "jehova" really approve of sloppy and self-serving quote-mining? Is *that* good enough? Clearly is for you.

The *point* of all this, including baiting runner, has been to illustrate the orinal article:

Less than critical reading of the bible (or anything else), with due regard to literary history, translation, the context of the times, etc results in a tragic tendency to not understand it, and to make misinformed claims on that basis.

Rusty, You seem to be stuck in one track here. I said that I'm not trying to disprove (or prove) evolution. I am not in an argument about it. It doesn't matter much to me what Collins says about evolution; but what he, as a scientist, says about his beliefs.

However, I am showing that there is enough variety of opinion that it isn't an absolute truth - it remains a debatable theory - as many of the other scientists to whom I referred attest. Despite all of that there are accomplished scientists who find no incompatibility between their religious beliefs and science.

Collins: "You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required."

You've made a "leap of faith", and so have I.

Poor pynchme.

Keeping on track,

You didn't lob in when you did, with the post you did, to be a smarty? not at all.

"you might want to check and read in full", Did more than that. catch up.

You're *not* in an argument about it? obviously not. Recieving instruction maybe.

Here is the second line of your first post:
"Quotes from Christian scientists about Evolution:" chucked into a thread about biblical literalism in reference to a digression about evolution.

From your most recent post:
"It doesn't matter much to me what Collins says about evolution; but what he, as a scientist, says about his beliefs" well his beliefs about evolution are right there and his beliefs about genesis are there too. Does it matter what Anfinsen really held, or just what makes you feel good? What does a demonstrably false basis say about your beliefs?

The "variety of opinion".... Why does the "variety" need to be falsely presented as more than it is? Who benefits?

"it remains a debatable theory" Only if someone can "create" a false impression of controversy by using dodgy references and co-opted gravitas. who benefits?

"as many of the other scientists to whom I referred attest." Of the *other* ones *how* many? Attest what? that (they believe) evolution is true but they like a differring taxonomy for newts? That (they believe) evolution is true but that "some agency" may have a role as first cause. That (they believe) evolution is true but only in their professional capacity. not to be forgotten, of course, the gap-fillers like demski (say they) believe evolution is not true, and they do little else but say so.

"there are accomplished scientists who find no incompatibility between their religious beliefs and science" Just heaps fewer than you and that blurb imply. Virtually no literalists are accomplished. The accomplished aren't literalists. What intent does deliberate skewing of information imply?

How can you hear the music with your ears full of pastor?

If a leap of faith is "informed" by deliberate misinformation and vested interests, why should it be regarded as valid?

Rusty