Cosmology continues to make good progress by proposing theories and testing them against experiments (for instance, the pattern and temperature of the cosmic background radiation). Yes, there are unanswered questions (such as why the universe is accelerating again); but there are theories for that which make predictions that will be tested in time.

Regarding evolution and genetics, actually the combination of the two is yielding interesting results - as be understand more and more about how genes guild the formation of bodies, we start to understand that some of the gaps in the fossil records may not be as wide as once thought.

I can not speak to plate tectonics as that’s a field I don’t follow.

Theoretical Physics however seems stuck on a meta-theory which makes no unique predictions and therefore can not be tested. This inherently slows down progress. The question - why keep flogging that approach instead of trying new ones?

:-P

As to this book, I would certain recommend others more; but it depends on what you are interesting in.

If I leave them in my head, the shelf seems a little more manageable. And also, books are expensive here so I rarely buy them except second-hand (which is limited in selection).

I was a camp in Colorado for the launch and moon landing. There was a TV at the boys' camp, so they got to watch it live, then they drove us all down in our PJ's to watch the re-run coverage.

My dad sent an e-mail (or did I talk to him?) saying that he had just watched a plane fly into the World Trade Center. I thought he was talking about a twin prop type plane...not a jetliner!

Did watch the second plane hit, and the towers fall. My parents both lost friends/acquaintances that day. I remember how eerily quiet it was with all aircraft grounded.

I has a scrapbook where I'd cut out all the newspaper stories about the astronauts and as many pictures as I could find in the Globe, the Herald, the Record American and anything else I could lay my hands on. My only regret, when the moment happened, was that I didn't have anyone sharing it with me.

I was sitting on the edge of my bed for a lot of the stuff on 9/11. Would not move to go to work, just glued to the set.

I was watching the Challenger liftoff at work (Montage in Concord MA). A group of us were clustered around the set. I still remember the silence after one of the negineers said 'it's not supposed to do *that*.'

Nixon we watched at college. Cheering every word.

Curiously, I don't remember Apollo 13 coverage at all. I was very interested to learn what would happen, but I don't know at what point I heard the news.

I consider "orthodoxy" to be a slippery slope. Yes, there are some basic facts one must agree with (IMHO the Nicene Creed is a good place to start); but it must also be recognized that "knowledge puffs up" and has historically worked against the cause of Love.

What's more, Christianity must be something accessible to all humanity, not just intelligent, well educated people, so the set of doctrines that are actually necessary must be few and simple, otherwise it becomes an elitist religion.

As an example. I have seen churches that view holding to the doctrine of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture to be essential to the faith. I don't.

Is belief in free-will vs. predestination (pick one) essential?

Is belief in Substitutionary Atonement vs Christus Victor (pick one) essential?

On the flip side, believing that we must love God with all our being and love each other as we love ourselves IS essential in my opinion. Believing that our trust in all aspects of our life (not just salvation) must be in God alone is essential. Understanding that Jesus is Lord and that we serve Him, not the other way around is essential.

If you really *get* those doctrines, will you end up in idolatry? I don't think so.

My own view is that you focus on how to live as a Christian on a day to day basis, and the doctrines that come into play while doing that, and leave the rest to academics.

You also made a good point with trying to artificially produce spiritual growth, and to a certain degree, I agree with you. I've seen far too many programs designed explicitly with the intent of replacing spiritual growth with a type of "punch list" of things to accomplish. (This was and is still huge with people in the boomer generation.) I see it as a simple re-birth of works-based theology, i.e. if I do good, I get to go to heaven. Sure sounds nice in concept, but the principle is anything but biblical!

What is your perspective on the mentor/mentee relationship? Do you see that as a viable avenue for spiritual growth? I agree that believers will grow when in the right environment, but we both know there are some environments that believers find themselves in that isn't conducive to growing squat.