>>There are fundemental errors in the above, Little Hawk, that surprise me in you<<
Why? That's typical of him, if you ask me. He wants to turn science into another religion--no differently than a fundamentalist does--in order to promote some agenda he won't quite come out and cop to. He accuses you of some kind of dogmatism simply because you accept evolution for ther flimsiest of reasons: it fits what we have observed simply we built it out of what we have observed. How he calls this dogma is never explained--not by him at any rate.
Yet he has many times pronounced himself "spiritual" without ever offering any explanation or definition of the word. Yet it is you who are the blind believer and not him.
This has been his line since I've been here and yet somehow people here will vociferously defend him as a liberal thinker if you challenge him on it--as I have found out first hand.