Hi Ward,
Thanx for your post.

> (snip) ... when a theory borne of religion tries to set itself up as
>"scientific"--as creationism is bound and determined to do. When that
>happens, it is perfectly fair to subject such belief systems to the test of
>logic. Creationism cannot try to be scientific and then feign exemption
>from logical criticism just because the beliefs it wants accepted as
>scientific have a religious origin and explanation. If one is going to step
>into the scientific arena, you can't have it both ways.

Yes, I had forgotten that there was a group trying to claim scientific
basis to support the 6-day creation, 6000-yo earth.  I wasn't aware that
they tried to exempt themselves from logical criticism, though.

(snip "creative matrix" paradigm).

>Among creationists, you have the "old-earthers"--those who are
>perfectly willing to admit to the evolutionary mechanism for explaining
>the changes in the fossil record over time. They simply look at the
>evolutionary process as "God's glorious handiwork" so to speak. No
>problem there, I suppose. But the problem comes in if you are averring
>a *personal* God, because this tends to relegate the Creator to a role
>of having started the whole thing in motion and then gone into
>semi-retirement, only to come out of it every so often and, ...(snip)

Here's where you seem to be making a logical leap, to me.  Why does the
word "personal" imply semi-retirement?  I think the first part of this
paragraph also describes a "personal" god.

(snip "God of the Gaps")   - cute term, BTW     :-)

(snip some good points about the validity of dating techniques)

>However, "the way out" is simply to be a pantheist, kind of like the
>Taoists. I.e., if you want to have an immanent God of some sort, you
>just make the tautological equation that God = universe; God is imbued
>in every movement of the universe, etc.

You've just described me!

>But to do this, of course, you have to give up the idea of a discretely
>identifable, personal God.

Why?  The Vedantists recommend both contemplation of Brahmin (the
Absolute, what I *think* you were just describing) and worship of a
personal God ("pick the one you like - they're all the same Master
wearing his/her different outfits").  They call it "flying with both wings."  I
suppose then that Brahmin would be a sum total of "God" and "that
which is not God."  But, I see I'm getting way, way off the subject.

>(snip) ... Now of course, knowing Bob as I do as a good friend, I
>seriously doubt he himself subscribes to the idea of a personal God,

You wouldn't have a friend that believes in a personal God?  Just
kidding, I know that's not what you meant.      :-)

Cheers,
Martha