> Does anyone else find this as curious as I?
Since you asked ...
I don't find it curious at all.
There are (at least) two kinds of `facts' in the world. Those which
represent apparent observations (and logical inference), and those which
reflect prejudice.
There is no reason to expect the Scripture to find resolution with the
latter, but there is ample reason to expect the Scripture to be
compatible with the former. Where it is incompatible, we are either
misunderstanding the Scripture or misunderstanding the observations
(it is not always clear which is the case).
Otherwise `truth' has no objective meaning.
This seems to be what Glenn has repeatedly said. Given this conviction,
one would look for resolution wherever there is apparent conflict
between observation and Scripture. This is what Glenn has repeatedly
done.
Now I am not in particular agreement with the way that Glenn resolves
some of the conflicts, but it isn't at all curious that he does so.
It demonstrates a sort of integrity that we have discussed before.
As Glenn also (repeatedly) points out, it is troublesome that so many
Christians seem to fail to acknowledge conflict between observation
and Scripture. I believe that such acknowledgment is a sort of humility
which is likely to promote better understanding:
If anyone supposes that he knows anything,
he has not yet known as he ought to know; [1 Cor 8:2]
Our understanding of the Scripture is extremely limited. It doesn't
always say what *we* think it does (as Jesus repeatedly pointed out).
Confessing an absolute belief in the truth of the Bible is not in
conflict with seeing the Bible as ultimately agreeing with all valid
observations. On the contrary, such a view demonstrates great
confidence in the validity of Scripture.
--Dave