About Le Café

I people watch. I’m an artist. I take lots of photos. I make observations. Lots has to do with religion as I grew up in what I like to call The Yeshua Fog™, a place in the southern U.S. that is so steeped in religiosity that it’s very difficult not to assimilate those ideologies. Even more difficult to abandon them.

I like to share these thoughts with others.

Le Café Witteveen is a metaphorical haven for all things people watching, for life watching, for the wonderful world and craft of gastronomy, and for the relaying and the generation of creativity and ideas.

I also like to post jokes and funny videos. There’s not always rhyme, but there’s usually a reason.

Email me with questions, comments, ideas.

As for the rest of the blog, bon appétit,

Jeremy Witteveen
Head Chef, Le Café Witteveen

73 Responses to About Le Café

  1. [...] About the Café ← The Big Lebowski – Dude, Man Version [...]

  2. Andrew says:

    The nature and tone of this blog implies, in a somewhat doctrinaire fashion, that debates concerning belief and non-belief (and the orgins and purpose of life more broadly) are about science versus religion; as opposed to a conflict between opposing world views (specifically naturalism/scientism and theism).
    For a very lucid exposition of this point I would suggest John Lennox’s God’s Undertaker.

    I mean no offence, but your blog also implies serious tension in your world view – you say that one had better put a lot of thought into what one believes yet at the same time say you have absolutely no interest in philosophy whatsoever….
    Clearly when it comes to religion – be you a religious naturalist, or a religious christian, the arguments for and against these positions are, by and large, properly the realm of philosophy (dealing as they do with metaphysical questions surrounding matters like the origins and purposes of life). To reject this entire pusuit out of hand smacks of a priori rejection of the arguments for christianity or theistic faith more broadly. You may talk of penetrating the “yeshua fog”, for me it is about penetrating the naturalist veil of ignorance. Check out William Lane Craig’s reasonable faith if you ever become in any way interested in doing just so.

    God Bless

    • cafewitteveen says:

      Thanks for your response, Andrew. I wish you would have read more from the blog before responding. You may not have sounded so stupid if you took the time to do so.

      Your language and your references seem so archaic. William Lane Craig? John Lennox? Seriously? Neither have the ability to sway thought here.

      “World view”? For real? I was taught that term back in high school in 1993. It was on its way out then.

      Maybe next time you come around, you can bring some material that means something.

      My very best,

      Jeremy Witteveen

      • Carl Covington says:

        That’s the ticket Jeremy, ridicule and name call, that will encourage the highest form of discussion! You don’t want “material”, you want an audience for your audacity!

      • Jeremy says:


        Please be kind enough to explain how I ridiculed or name called in the above response.

        I anticipate your speedy response,


    • Kilre says:

      >>>science versus religion; as opposed to a conflict between opposing world views (specifically naturalism/scientism and theism)

      -Scientism? Really? You can do better. Considering that science is equal across the board and religions contradict each other, gleefully I might add, there is something to be said for consistency–even, though, if it is consistently denying reality in favor of magical half-truths.

      >>>be you a religious naturalist

      -I’m not sure you know what that means since you threw it out so flippantly.

      >>>religious christian

      -As opposed to an irreligious Christian? A Christian by definition is religious, don’t be so redundant unless you’re going to go into redefining terms. Which you didn’t.

      >>>the arguments for and against these positions are, by and large, properly the realm of philosophy

      -I have to agree, since the empirical evidence is such that there is next to nothing to single out a specific supernatural being. And since there is no substantive evidence outside of what you can convince yourself and others of through word of mouth and cognitive bias, the only thing you’ve got left is word games. Kudos.

      >>>To reject this entire pusuit out of hand smacks of a priori rejection of the arguments for christianity or theistic faith more broadly.

      -And what you’re typing smacks of a priori rejection of methodological naturalism. I guess you two are even.

      >>>You may talk of penetrating the “yeshua fog”, for me it is about penetrating the naturalist veil of ignorance.

      -The irony here is strangulating me. I need to get outside.

  3. biodork says:

    Is this May Le Cafe’s one year anniversary, or that just how far back I can see in the archives?

  4. cafewitteveen says:

    I think I’m going to celebrate Le Café’s one year (woot!) in June. I didn’t start getting hits until then. I had blogged a few entries in May, I guess.

    So, yes, I guess it’s one year coming up. Thanks for taking a look and reminding me!

  5. Tim says:

    A yes or no question for you. It’s simply a question. It’s not answered thoughtlessly. Anything but a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ is not an answer but an argument. I’m not here to argue. I’m not even interested in your reply. It’s just a question for yourself. Question: If I had the truth and could prove it beyond doubt, would you believe it?

    • Jeremy says:


      If you had the truth and could prove it beyond a doubt, I would consider believing it too.

      Although, among the list of resources, the bible, koran, or other religious book cannot be more than 15% of your references.

      By all means, give it your best shot,


      • Tim says:

        Jeremy, You did not answer the question. I’m not wasting my time with you.

      • Jeremy says:

        Dearest Tim,

        I wasn’t going to waste my time with you either.

        ***EDIT*** That was to say, I’m not going to have you waste your time actually researching your answer with reasonable information from reasonable sources.

        I expected this answer from you. And you delivered! Good job.

        All the best!

      • Rico says:

        >>> Majesty, the great power of a storm, the skyward reaching of the mountains, the numerous cycles of life. (the Nitrogen cycle, the Carbon cycle, the Water cycle, the Geochemical cycles, the Kreb’s cycle and the ATC cycle… ex; just a fraction of) are all systems found by the art of science that when look at in detail require one to awe at their complexity and the Majesty to which they function. A result 400 million years of cause and effect, or hint of the intellect of purposeful design? Neither is can be proved.

        But, as you assuredly already know belief in a higher power has nothing to do with proof. It has to do with faith.

        >>> Infinity we have seen through history, no matter how far we reach out in the universe or how small we can get microscopes to see, there will always be something further or more tiny to gaze upon. So is the limit of science that it is based in fact, or is it that belief in anything really, that is limitless?

        Again, you already know(maybe begrudgingly) that it is belief in(faith in) that which directs our attention, that drives us to pursue, search and discover.

  6. Tim says:

    It’s your blog so I respectfully give you the last word. My last word: I expected your answer. Once again, I’m not disappointed when challenging someone who knows it all.

    • Jeremy says:

      Hmm, apparently you haven’t read my blog nor are you a very good reader of the above information. I don’t claim to know anything for certain.

      Cheers to everyone in Idaho.

  7. [...] Witteveen also writes that his “personal goal is to help American Christians finally accept evolution as fact,” [...]



  9. David says:

    Faith and science do not contradict each other. Your understanding of what faith teaches and what science teaches might. The Bible is not a science book any more than a science book is a theology book. While it’s true that some fundamentalist Christians take the first book of the Bible literally, they’re misinformed, because they certainly don’t take the whole Bible literally.

    • Jeremy says:

      Just to bring you up to speed, the rest of the bible is loaded with less-than-scientific nonsense.

      Faith and science contradict each other. There is no amount of science available to show that a man walked on water, healed the blind in an instant or brought a dead man back to life.

      • David says:

        That’s great! It doesn’t claim to be science!

        Actually the reports of Jesus walking on water and healing a blind man (many in fact)and bringing Lazarus back from the dead are from eye-witness accounts. But as they say, to those who believe, no amount of arguement will change their mind, and to those that don’t, no amount of proof will change theirs.

      • Jeremy says:

        Au contraire, I once believed with great vigor and zeal.

        You don’t have to give me a bible lesson. I’m very familiar with the references I made to you.

      • Jeremy says:

        By the way, I don’t know who’s keeping score, but you said, “Faith and science do not contradict each other.”

        And now you’ve said, “It [the bible] doesn’t claim to be science!”

        Which is it? Is it what you claimed in the first response or the second?

        And how about these eye-witness accounts? What did your pastor teach in church two Sundays ago? Was the holy spirit a part of that service? What did the pastor say verbatim? What song played during the passing of the plate?

        Now try a year ago? What did you pastor (or priest) say? Can you remember or is it a little foggy? Maybe try your notes.

        Even if the bible were written by eye witness accounts from men who met Jesus, what makes them superhuman enough to remember exactly what Jesus did and said? Was it the holy spirit? The holy spirit would have been a part of your service 2 weeks ago, but you likely can’t remember a thing, word for word that was done or said.

        Hold the bible and believers up to the normal science of everyday affairs (memory, physiology, biology, etc.), and it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

        You were right … the second time. There’s no science in the bible. It doesn’t claim to have it. Its believers claim a lot of nonsense that has no relevance in the modern world.

      • David says:

        Explain how reason contradicts faith, or vice versa? I’m not trying to say that some people/groups don’t try to take reason out of faith-
        it’s true. But they must coexist-faith without reason leads to superstition. Reason without faith leads to relativism.

        I’m not trying to teach you the Bible, I’m just showing you what the Bible is and what it is not. It never claims to be scientific. It reports histtory, poetry, wisdom, correspondence and prophecy, but not science.

        So, if you once believed, what could possibly change your mind?

      • Rico says:

        There is no amount of prove that those things didn’t happen either…

  10. David says:

    Jeremy, for Catholics, the faith is not all in the Bible. The Bible is the basis for the Christian faith, but it never claims to present scientific fact. Faith does not contradict science. Faith tells us what. Science tells us how.

    Your questions indicate that you’re trying to equate modern man with those 2000 years ago, who didn’t have the noise we have today. Without the distractions we have today, and with the guidance and help of the Holy Spirit, our Church Fathers knew what they knew from those who would remember. It’s the same way the sky looks different when there’s no city lights around. Have you ever seen the stars from Mauna Kea? There’s a heck of a lot more of them than if you look from New York. Without all the ground clutter, you get a clearer picture.
    Let’s see, two weeks ago, the first reading was Malachi 3:19-20, we prayed the 98th psalm, then 2 Thessalonians 3:7-12 was read. The Gospel was from Luke 21:5-19.
    A year ago Sunday, we heard Jeremiah 33:14-16, Psalm 25, 1 Thessalonians 3:12-4:2, Luke 21:25-36.
    I don’t remember what hymns we sang, and couldn’t do justice to the priest’s homily, in fact, not even sure exactly where I was when I went to mass that day. I do know that in the early church scribes wrote practically any homily of any priest. In Jesus time, there was an oral tradition, which only later was put into writing. But those who recorded the words were experts, the way a modern day musician can exactly mimic the music of a contemporary artist. But I absolutely do remember the essential prayers of our mass, because we do them nearly the same every week, in fact, every day. They were written down by our Church Fathers, and we use the same prayers today.

    Regarding what the Bible says, especially regarding Genesis: The Bible says the universe was created, and that the penultimate result was man, who was created in the image and likeness of his creator, and that all the animals on earth procreated. Man sinned and was banned from eternal life, probably because he could no longer eat of the tree which provided that life. Man multiplied and filled the earth, but turned from God, so a flood destroyed most of the earth’s population. Several of each animal and human were spared, and they again populated the earth. This in no way tells us how it happened-that’s the job of science. Science agrees that the universe was created (the Big Bang), and that the ultimate result of this was mankind. Geology tells us there was a flood, at least in the region. Observation tells us that animals and man repopulated the earth. So science and the Bible agree on the basics.

    I will grant to you, as I did above, that there are fundamentalists who take the bible exactly literally, except that they take literally only parts of the Bible, not the whole thing. And we should let them be. Most Christians in the world are Catholics, and Catholics don’t have the same view, for the most part. You seem to be dismissing about 1/6 of the world because of the views of .1 percent of the world.

    • biodork says:

      “Your questions indicate that you’re trying to equate modern man with those 2000 years ago”

      Actually, it’s more like modern Christians are trying to equate today’s world to the barbaric, centralized, small-minded world of “biblical times”. Man knew very little of how the world worked back then, and he adopted rules and guidelines to help him live in that time. We’ve come a long way, baby, and many, many of those rules and guidelines are no longer relevant.

      As we have grown and Evolved as a race, Science has answered a lot of the questions that once loomed large in man’s mind. The more questions Science answers, the less relevant religion will be, and the less tolerant man will be of dogma.

      • David says:

        My point exactly. Religion has no business, and claims no business, in “how the heavens go”. Religion, especially Christianity, and most especially Catholicism, is about how to go to heaven. And what your missing in this, as is Jeremy, is that God is not changeable. God did it (creation) and left it for us to figure out how. The basic rules are very much relevant. They’re not the Ten Suggestions, now, are they. Certainly, much of Mosaic Law has been superceded, but since God can’t change, His basic rules have not changed-you shall love God, you shall worship him, you shall not use his name in vain, you shall not murder, steal, commit adultery, or covet what doesn’t belong to
        you. And what has become apparent, seeing how broken and hurting our world is, is that forgetting God, and doing things our way, is a recipe for failure.

      • Jeremy says:


        Thanks for continuing the conversation.

        You’re right. There were expert people who memorized everything and wrote it down in the bible. Let’s move away from that discussion.

        How about recipes for failure. Tell me more about that.

        Tell me. What is the recipe for success? Please, with sugar on top, what’s the recipe? Because surely 2,000 years of Catholic rule isn’t long enough to show us what that recipe is.

        I hate what’s evil in the world.

        I love what science can do for it.

        I love what science is doing for it.

        While the short-sighted Catholic leadership dragged their feet on leading the way toward progress for the last 2,000 years, science has re-emerged and made your life, and the lives of your loved ones, umpteen times better. Where the church prayed and brought war between people, science is bringing chances and life to those who had no hope.

        I hate what your Pope is doing (and has done) to stymie science. The people of Africa need condoms, medicine, and education. Hell, Americans needs education, medicine, healthcare and so much more. Secular recipes aren’t harming the failures of the church mentality … they are solving them. And you, in your direct cooperation with perpetuating dangerous mentalities, rules and regulations — all while saying it’s “love” — that are demonstrably harmful to humanity … you are not just part of the problem, you are the problem.

        You aren’t my enemy, David. I’m sure you’re a great person with great hopes for life and with much love around you. I don’t feel sorry for you. You probably have everything you want or need in the world. You have a computer with Internet, so you got something going for you.

        I feel sorry for the people around you whom you influence. You’re likely never going to be convinced that the Catholic church is and has been baking with the Ultimate Failure Cookbook. But it’s not too late for the people around you who aren’t deaf to real solutions to real problems.

        Jesus came to bring the sword. He came to divide. He came to pit son against father. If that’s the recipe for success, hey, consider yourself part of the solution. Because division and war is exactly what your recipe is bringing to humanity.

        Let me know what else you want to talk about,


      • David says:

        Recipe for success: Live Chapters 5-7 of the Gospel of Matthew. Perfectly.
        Jeremy, Jesus was the only perfect person, ever. When he walked he chose people to follow him. All of them were flawed. Peter denied he even knew Jesus, yet in Matthew 16:18, he proclaims Peter the Rock on which Christianity was founded. James and John fought for bragging rights about who was greater. Judas betrayed Jesus. Yet Jesus founded a Church-one church, not many. One. Catholics know that their church is the one, despite that the men that run the church as well as the ones who inhabit the world are inherently fallen. The Catholic Church is not holy because of the Pope, Cardinals and Bishops. The Catholic Church is holy because Jesus created it. And he said it would exist until his return.

        I hate evil in the world, too, I love what science can do (when used right) and for the most part, I love what science is doing. Guess what? God gave us the ability to know how things work-the things He created. Again, no religion should be in the business of defining science. There is one thing, though. Science and Faith should co-exist. They should be like the yin and the yang, complementing each other. As long as science doesn’t contradict faith, we’re good. Science showed us how to harden steel so we could kill more people, though, didn’t it? Bible tells us not to kill (murder, really, as in innocent people). Science gave us condoms, but the Bible says we shouldn’t be having sex unless we want children anyway. And so on. Science can do good, it can also foster evil.
        Your idea that the Catholic Church had something to do with hindering the progress of mankind is absolutely incorrect. The Catholic Church changed the attitude that women and children were slaves of men. Cared for orphaned children, built the university system, the hospital system, the legal system, and constantly challenging governments in the realm of human rights. And I could go on. This is not to diminish the things the Church has done wrong, but to put them in perspective.
        The pope is doing nothing to stop distribution of condoms, or medicine, or food. In fact, actively providing the medicine and food. I spoke to a Catholic priest who’s a missionary in Uganda not 10 days ago. He lives the same way the people do-no electricity, no running water. He uses his only tool, a motorcycle, to bring pregnant women in need to the hospital when they have problem pregnancies. It seems you are focusing on one thing when the Church does more charity than any other organization on earth. Jeremy, what is “love” to you? Jesus showed us what ultimate love is when he died on the cross. He sacrificed himself for your sins and mine, even though you don’t belive in him. The love he gives he does not expect to be returned. You say it’s love to allow people to wallow in their sin? I respectfully disagree. First of all, if I’m telling someone that, I’m first of all acknowledging that I’m just as sinful as he is, regardless of what magnitude of sin he’s done. The point is to help our fellow men out of their sin, and show them how to be healed. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a countryclub for saints.

        That passage you speak of, Luke 12:53, speaks of what will happen when some in a family accept his message while some reject it.

        As for me, I don’t need you to feel sorry for me, or anyone else to feel sorry for me. Five years ago, I’d have demanded it. I have all I need in the Catholic Church. I know where to go when I’m troubled or in trouble, when I’m in need. I also know where to go to provide help, to provide counsel, etc. They’re one and the same. Every day I walk into church, I acknowledge my own shortcomings, and look to help those who might be worse off than me. I don’t shake my finger in anyone’s face if they had an abortion or if they’re using artificial birth control. If someone asks, I give advice and help.
        Again, you’re focussed on giving condoms to people in Africa, when condoms don’t work as well as the solution the Church provides, if people will use it. It works every time. But the Church does not build a wall around people or stop anyone from distributing condoms. She just offers them a solution that works every time it’s tried.

        You say the Church brings division and war, I’d like to know where you see that? The Church has united, currently, 1.5 billion people.

      • Jeremy says:

        Jesus’ own words, dear David, say that he came to divide, to bring the sword. Matthew 10. He came to bring the sword, to turn son against father. Or don’t you believe those were Jesus’ words?

        1.5 billion united, huh? So what is god going to do with the other 77% of humanity? Let ‘em roast in torture? So loving.

        If I got a 23% on a test, I’d fail. Why do you let Jesus get by on failing grades?

        David, you’re backing a tired, ugly, bizarre argument. You show that you don’t know the bible very well. And your history lessons are suspect.

        You haven’t once thought it was good etiquette to move this conversation off this thread, which leads me to believe you don’t know the Internet too well either.

      • David says:

        You’re taking ‘Jesus own words’ out of context. I’m putting them back in context for you. Jesus is actually quoting from Micah 7:6, which talks about widespread civil corruption and apostasy from religion breaking down normal human and family relations.
        1 1/2 billion is considerably up from 12, don’t you think? Jesus gives everyone a choice, though. You can take the medicine that he gives, or not. If you don’t, he warns that you will end up in hell. It’s pretty simple. This presupposes that you know about Jesus. And He has mercy on those who didn’t know him, and still did good works on earth.
        Regarding my knowledge of the Bible, I’m learning, but I do know it very well. And just because you think the ideas I present are tired and worn out doesn’t mean they are. God doesn’t wear out, and his precepts don’t change. And if you wanted to move the discussion off the thread, you could have clicked the gravitar and taken it to where that leads, which would have been fine. I thought I did, but didn’t. Excuse me. But of course, you don’t know how to do that, do you?

      • Jeremy says:

        I will continue this conversation here.

  11. biodork says:

    Hey, Jeremy – Congratulations on surpassing 100,000 hits!

  12. Brian Brody says:

    I can understand why you feel as you do. Being raised a Jew I find that Christians have very limited understanding of the culture of Jesus, his prayer life and his teachings.
    Christians use words to describe his teachings that are taken complety out of context. Refuse to learn about Jesus’ faith in the context of Jewish culture.

    Christians are mislead in the understanding of Jesus’ role as a Sin sacrifice, is and was for the Jewish people.

    I ask you this are you like the Jew who lives a life of Torah and follows God’s directions?

    Blessing & Light

    • Jeremy says:


      Thanks for your comment. I agree with you that Christians have a very limited understanding of Jesus’ Jewish culture. I agree with those who say that Christianity was manufactured to eliminate its connections with Jewish culture and rituals purposefully despite Christianity’s continued desperation to connect itself with Judaism.

      I live a life that is very influenced by Rabbi Hillel’s recommendation to treat others as self. I hope that people are as critical of me as I am of them.

      Strength does not result from a carefree lifestyle.

      I do not follow the Torah, that I’m aware of. There are parts of Judaism that I am softer hearted about, though.

      As I wrote above, I label myself an atheist.

      Thanks for subscribing. I hope that what I post rings well with you, but I fear it may not.



      • Brian Brody says:


        I sure take no offense in any of your views; you call yourself and atheist, when I see you as more of an Agnostic then an Atheist.

        My heart hurts for you my young friend, because you have been forsaken by the hypocrisy of the misleading of the Christian teachings.

        I hope you will visit either my blog site posted or visit my Ministry on FB you can find us at “The Light In Christ Ministry”.


      • Jeremy says:

        I’ll definitely check out your blog and your ministry.

        I won’t argue over whether I’m an agnostic or atheist. I don’t believe in god or gods. How that qualifies me as agnostic, I’m unsure.



  13. George W. says:

    I know why you seem agnostic. You seem so well reasoned and jovial. Atheists are hate spewing assholes who hate Jesus based on no evidence.

    • Viv says:

      that’s true George.

    • Chris says:

      *waves* Over here! I’m an atheist. have been all my life actually. Like most of my countrymen. but, sorry, try as I might to conform to your definition I can’t – I can’t hate someone I don’t believe in. I don’t hate the easter bunny either. Although that tooth fairy – if I get my hands on her.
      Sorry love, I don’t mean to be faceitous, it’s just that really – Jesus has as much relevance for me as Mohammed does for you. Hope that is food for thought.

      • Marie Terry says:

        Exactly! I’m a little offended by that comment too. How do you hate some thing which does not exist. It is a common misconception that atheists hate religion. I am simply not dumb enough to get sucked in by fairy-tales about all powerful magicians which will punish me if I don’t serve the masters which they put on earth for us. Especially not when said tales are told by said masters themselves. I do find that most atheists are a very tolerant people who accept the right to religious freedom. Hate, fanaticism, violence and conflict are mostly trades of religions. Not that I mean to generalize, it just seems to fit the overall picture.

  14. lambskinny says:

    Hi Jeremy,
    I’m a Christian; and I believe in evolution. Nothing in evolutionary theory (in my opinion) eliminates intelligent design. If the world is as old as “carbon-dating” indicates, then the story in Genesis of the world being created in “6 days” likely means those “days” are not of 24 hour duration. Whether God picked up a handful of dust and breathed life into it to make man or gradually created human beings through a series of seeming “mistakes” or random events, He still is the Creator. Just a thought.
    Thanks for “listening.”

    • Jeremy says:

      You might be right, lambskinny. Perhaps, nothing in evolutionary theory eliminates Intelligent Design from an open-minded perception.

      But science renders a great portion of the bible impossible.

      Why confuse science with non-science? Why force “god” into a place where god doesn’t belong? If god had no hand in creation, what does it matter? Why is “creation” the make or break moment for so many believers?

      Intelligent Design makes “god” out to be an imbecile, so why stand behind such an idea?

      I figure you won’t “listen,” but I would write it anyway.

      All the best,


  15. Angie says:

    So sorry to hear you’ve lost your faith, but I commend you for your honesty and agree with your goal of trying to get (my fellow) Christians to accept science! The anti-evolution thing doesn’t make sense to me either.

    I believe God values honest searching, fwiw, which it sounds like you’ve been doing. :-)

  16. Chris says:

    Americans are hilarious.
    If even the pope can accept evolution then I think it might be time for you guys.
    Good luck, from a loving UK based humanist.

    (btw I’m an atheist (as is, like, everyone I know btw) – but I don’t think I’ve spewed enough hate in this post to convince you of that, what if they take my card away?! Ok. Um….oh here we go – goddamn you all to hell!….Oh, bugger, hang on a minute, that doesn’t work. Hmmmmm)

  17. Nelson Rose says:

    Even though we had a bumpy start – I love your blog and you seem like a guy that I could have a few beers with. Following you (stalking) and even added you to my Blog Roll)

    • Jeremy says:


      So glad we got through the beginning.

      My head is swollen from the compliments and I’m honored to be added to your blog roll. I’ll take you up on a beer sometime. :)

      I’ll get subscribed at your blog so I can keep up with your musings and postings.



  18. Keri Williams says:

    Hey Jeremy,
    You might want to checkout biologos if you haven’t. This is a group of Christians (academics, scientists, scholars) who believe in evolution and are working to bridge the divide between science and religion. http://biologos.org/ They have an active debate/conversation going on via blog with the Southern Baptists. They’ve got some really interesting thoughts on this subject.


    • Jeremy says:

      Thanks, Keri.

      I’ve openly promoted Biologos on this blog, and evoke the names of Francis Collins and Ken Miller, who are both religious and are both advocates of evolution and common descent.

      I realize you meant no ill-will, but find it’s a common go-to for this discussion.

      I glanced over at your blog and plan on reading it a little more.



      • Keri Williams says:

        Sorry, I didn’t mean to be repetitive–I haven’t read everything on your blog yet. I am personally not a believer in evolution, but I do follow the conversation and think it’s an important discussion. I think too often Christians tend to shut down the dialogue with trite answers instead of really engaging in the discussion. I am also very interested in some of the work biologos does on Bible interpretation, inerrancy and so forth.

      • Jeremy says:

        No problem. And I don’t think it’s likely you’ll read everything on my blog.

        Perhaps a great place for a parent like you to start is to read about Kitzmiller v Dover which was a court case involving Creationism/Intelligent Design vs Evolution being taught in school.

  19. TC says:

    To people who believe in the Bible: I respect you but do not understand you. I read a comment by a fellow named David, who mentioned that Ten Commandments are not the Ten Suggestions. Well, help me understand if this is really true. Or, are there exceptions to these ten rules? For instance, are you against murdering someone if it would cost you your life if you didn’t? Or the life of someone dear to you? So perhaps, murder in self defense is ok? And why is it I hear people say all the time that the United States is a Christian Nation, when murder in self defense is legal, the death sentence is legal in many (or all) states, and abortion is legal? I am interested in answers by the way, not in arguments. Thank you.

  20. TC says:

    Oh, and in Jeremy’s defense; Kilre criticized you for using the adjective religious followed by Christian; but I disagree that a Christian is obviously by definition religious. There are some who seem to be sort of born into it. They comply with their supposed duty to show up to Church every Sunday, throw a dollar into the bucket, even when they have no idea where this money goes, and if you ask them after mass what the homily was about they have no idea (I am good friends with a few of these types of people). Also, they do not enjoy arguing about religion, or get very frustrated discussing religion because they know very little about it. I have a feeling there are many Christians like this. They are what I call the unreligious Christians. So, I think your use of that adjective was perfectly acceptable. And Jeremy, I love that you started this blog to encourage discussion about religion and science; two fascinating and endlessly broad topics. BUT Jeremy, I didn’t like that you called Andrew stupid. Maybe he said something unsubstantiated, I don’t know. I honestly was bored reading his comment, I kind of just skimmed it for information, so I didn’t really read the whole thing. But really, my comment to you (Jeremy) is that if you “hope to help American Christians finally accept evolution as fact” (that is my belief too by the way), you might have an easier time if you are tactful. I am very passionate about science and I am a scientist, and I can be sarcastic, .. so I know, tactfulness is sometimes difficult, but I think it is the only way if you are going to make a good argument for your cause.

  21. Jeremy says:

    Oh, and TC, your one paragraph style of boring, endless idiocy is sillines that I can’t stand.

    Retardness has a higher IQ than you.


    Keep up the ridiculous work.



    • TC says:

      Are you serious? So Jeremy, you think by adding a lot of spaces in between your insults you are a genius? WOW! Cheers to you my friend. Good luck trying to convince anyone of your views! Insults by the way are often the tool of those who lack the intelligence to substantiate their views.

  22. TC says:

    To Keri,
    I was delighted that a group of Baptists has found evolution to be factual! That’s a big step forward! I was a little disappointed I must admit though, to find that someone posted on your biologos site that he or she believes that “Perhaps God created it (the universe) 6,000 years ago, but made it look millions and billions of years old”. I hope most of you do not believe that, that sounds rather mythological, don’t you think? I don’t think anyone on Earth really knows when time began, and I know that is a difficult point to agree on (with a religious person) but fabricating a theory that has absolutely no evidence to support it is in my opinion a diservice to your religion.

    • Jeremy says:

      We can’t help it that Kansas is a lonely place tonight.

      Whatever your ideology might be, you suck at what you’re aiming for tonight.

      • TC says:

        I retract my comment that I enjoy your blog. You sound like someone who should see a psychiatrist.

      • Jeremy says:

        Darn! I thought you were going to like me because I was dumber than you.

        Oh well.

      • Jeremy says:

        You are, without substance, the best thing that happened to this blog in at least the last five minutes.

        Consider yourself awesome!

  23. Nelson Rose says:

    You kill me Jeremy!

  24. “What I care about is that whatever you believe or accept as truth, you should put a lot of thought into it.” I support this, as once upon time a christian and now not, I guess I`m one of those who knows more than many about these two worlds of difference. Interesting blog you have, I like the way humour has a place in it :)

  25. Jeremy says:

    Thanks for checking in and your comment.

    I try to keep it fun. Life is too short.

    I enjoyed browsing your blog, too. Keep up the photography!


  26. gnatseyeview says:

    Something I very much appreciate about the way you respond to the many angry writers here is that you do not return the anger. That, in itself, is refreshing. I admire a person who is able to put his or her thoughts out there, and defend them in an intellectual, yet compassionate tone. Good stuff.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 696 other followers

%d bloggers like this: