I was raised a Roman Catholic an Old-Earth Darwinist. I became an Old-Earth creationist my senior year in High School, and a Presbyterian in my freshman year of college.

For the record, for the sake of interested readers, my theological views are approximately summarized by the Westminster Confession of Faith. Physicist David Heddle is a far more arituculate expositor of the theology in the Westminster Confession than I.

I am a member of the Presbyterian Chruch in America (PCA) as is ID proponent and Physicist David Snoke and the late Reverend D. James Kennedy. The PCA is governed by Westminster Confession. Like physicist John Polkinghorne, I recite the Nicene Creed whole heartedly.

I have few points of reservation from the Westminster Confession. Although I would probably be characterized by outsiders as an Biblical Inerrantist, I would have to accept that label under much protest as I know the Bible we have in our hands today is an imperfect representation of what was originally written. Furthermore, the original manuscripts do not capture exactly, literally what Jesus said. For example, The Lord’s prayer in Luke is not the same as that in Matthew, therefore the words Jesus uttered are not literally captured by the Gospels as a whole. How can I in good conscience, knowing these things, claim the original manuscripts are inerrant without a rather creative interpretation of what inerrant really means? James Patrick Holding probably echoes my views on Inerrancy. See: Inerrancy and Human Ignorance. That said I suppose I could still be called and inerrantist, but it is a label I have great discomfort maintaining.

Do I think God answers prayer? Yes. It seems somethings exceeded coincidence in my life. Whether it was coincidence or not is a matter of debate, but it’s hard to dismiss personal experience….

Did my theology influence my rejection of Darwinism? Not really, since I was raised a Darwinist, and rejected Darwinism while I was Ken-Miller-type Catholic. I reject Darwinism because it’s a stupid theory written by a stupid pretender. Fish do not turn into birds, and fish don’t turn into cows and nor cows into whales via mechanism we see in operation today. That is an empirically demonstratable fact which flies in the face of Darwinist lunacy.

Do I think the world is young? I think there is a chance. I’m not dogmatic about it like ICR or AiG, but I do think the possiblity is worth exploring because of the emergence of Variable Speed of Light Cosmologies and the demise of Big Bang Cosmology. When three scientists from my former school (including Menas Kafatos) publicly stated their rejection of the Big Bang, I began to consider the possiblity the Cosmos was young. I am now studying physics at Johns Hopkins for my own personal benefit in helping decide which cosmology might be the most credible…

Like the beginning of the universe, it appears the beginning of life and of species was governed by principles no longer actively in operation today. Whether that implies special creation or ID is separate from the fact that Darwinian mechanisms have not been empirically demonstrated to be a credible mechanism for transforming fish in to cows and then cows into whales. Listenting to trained biologists argue that fish can eventually give birth to cows is a bit comical…..I’m tempted to ask them to characterize the LUCA (last universal common ancestor) of elephants, butterflies, and grass. You get the picture of lunacy that they can’t even in principle give a credible ancestor consistent with empirically observed configurations of these creatures. And they demand allegiance to this idea? They demand we label these speculations science? PUKE!

And then they try to debate population genetics with me. If find out a lot of them, like Darwin, are math-challenged. I recall debating Josh Rosenau before he joined the NCSE. One day we were debating the racemization rate of amino acids. The guy couldn’t distinguish “t” for time and “T” for temperature in addition to numerous algebra errors and chemistry errors — he was confusing aspartic acid with isoleucine. Then he postures himself as being more versed in science than I. What am I to think? He gets a PhD for playing with the phalluses of rodents for 3 years and coming up with a just-so story of how they evolved. That’s Darwinist science for you…

Finally, according to Darwin, the fittest survive. Does that mean rapists and murderers are more fit adaptations? Recently a creationist murdered a Darwinist. Does that mean that a murdering creationist is more fit than the Darwinist? I don’t think so. Shame on that dirt bag murderer for disgracing us creationists. But still, the cruel irony of Darwin’s theory that according to Darwin’s theory, that creationist is a more fit adaptation than the Darwinist he murdered. Not only is Darwin’s theory scientifically wrong it is morally reprehensible.