Chippy?

What's a "chippy?" Is that a phrase for carpenter? Is the reference to the wood chips that tend to fly when doing woodwork?

I can't tell you how often I've mis-cut a piece of wood. Often the result is only that I must cut another. But when I'm working with a $50 sheet of plywood, I very definitely measure and re-measure, just to be certain. Still, I've goofed more than once.

* * *
You wrote:

"I know that you personally do not subscribe to natural selection/evolution"

That's not strictly true. My complaints with the theory as presently held and practiced are really this:

• It is held as fact by many, though there are considerable scientific reasons for doubt.
• It is often used as a means to deny God. This is done by setting up the false choice of either evolution or God. I see no theological reason why both can't apply.
• It is widely misunderstood. Too many feel that natural selection/evolution and the changes wrought by it must make sense, as if there's a reasoning behind it. If God is that reasoning, then it works. But if the God-less notion of pure random mutation is the mechanism, then sense -- particularly forward-looking sense -- plays no role.
• The role of "Lighties" is too often overlooked. :-)

This is where the field of "Intelligent Design" works into the discussion. I am quite frustrated by those that suggest that the Intelligent Design advocates make this claim: since something can't presently be explained, it therefore must be proof of God. I've read enough on Intelligent Design to know that the true advocates of that discipline do not make that claim. The ID claim is really more akin to: given what we know about science and our understanding of the mechanics of natural selection, how likely is it that X would occur absent a form of outside design? To my reading the thrust is not "Therefore, proof of God," but rather, "Therefore, critical shortcoming of natural selection."

The counter-argument I most frequently see from natural selection advocates is, "We have yet to discover the mechanics behind that." That's a convenient argument. The implication is that all unexplained things may one day be explained, so until then are we must assume there's a scientific explanation for it. The burden of proof is placed back on others to disprove the theory rather than proponents of it to prove it. "Until disproven, then assume true" seems to be the mantra.

With that established, then the problem becomes what constitutes sufficient evidence has been accumulated to disprove a theory? Natural selection -- as Darwin initially proposed it, not this contemporary notion of a sentient "natural force" directing things -- is a theory that has been placed on this pedestal of "Fact." Significant evidence is accumulating against the theory, but those who cling to the theory simply raise the standard for disproving it.

Note: this was my trick when arguing with my brother about "Lighties." He'd bring up every scientific refutation of my theory -- all of which decimated my theory, of course -- and I'd simply say, "No, you're not taking into account ..." and I'd make something else up.

This is why I come across as opposed to the notion of natural selection and evolution. Not because I think it by definition rules out God. But because those who cling to it do so primarily because they want so desperately to rule out God. Evolution has become for them very much a secular religion. They just won't admit it.

In many ways, the contemporary environmentalism movement has fallen into the same trap. I've known more than a few of them, and almost to a person they ascribe a kind of supernaturalism to the idea of the environment. (Which, by definition, is absurd: if anything is "of nature" it is ... um, nature.)

For the record, I see no theological problems with the idea that biological change occurred over time, and that God was the original creator and the guiding hand. I don't subscribe to the literal view of the earth being created in six days some 5,000 years ago. I also don't think Jesus is a literal door, or that heaven is literally a mustard seed. But I do believe that God is the omnipotent creator of all, and is sovereign over all things.