a trinity of infinities

Explanations of the Triune God often resort to analogies. These analogies tend to suggest that each of the three parts must be less than the whole. And a triangular division into three also tends to suggest that the whole must be finite: else how could something be a third of infinity?

Yet a mathematical analogy for infinity is available. Suppose that someone counts, and never stops counting. The resulting collection of numbers is "all the multiples of 1". These are usually called the natural or whole numbers. The entire collection is limitless, which is provable by a straightforward test. Any time you think you've reached the largest number, count one more time. The next number is greater than any of the prior numbers, so it's a new number (i.e. not equal to any of the others). Therefore the set is produced by a well-understood procedure, and nevertheless infinite or unbound.

Now consider some different procedures that result in different sets. The numbers 3, 4, and 5 have no factors in common; none is a multiple of the other two. 3, 4, and 5 are quite distinct. Now, for each number in the set from before, i.e. all the multiples of one, multiply that number by 3. If it helps, think of two tedious people standing side by side. After the first person counts, the second person immediately multiplies the new number by three. This set is "all the multiples of 3". Like all the multiples of 1, it's produced by a well-understood procedure, and nevertheless infinite or unbound.

We can do the same for 4 and 5. Finally, there's four infinite sets: the multiples of 1, 3, 4, 5. Since the procedure to construct the set of multiples of 3 consisted of multiplying each multiple of 1 by 3, all the multiples of 3 are also multiples of 1. The same applies to all the multiples of 4 or 5. These sets are provably infinite and still included in the "whole" original set, the multiples of 1. We have a trinity of infinities that are still contained in a infinite whole.

Although the member-numbers of the three infinite sets all belong to the set of natural numbers, the three sets aren't completely distinct. Presently, there are numbers that are multiples of both 3 and 4 (the multiples of 12), or 3 and 5 (the multiples of 15), or 4 and 5 (the multiples of 20). If it's more satisfying to consider three distinct infinite sets, then alternative procedures could accomplish that goal. However, the cost is greater complication and the exclusion of many former multiples. For the "3" set, instead of multiplying each natural number just by 3, 1) multiply by 3 then 2) multiply by 4. The result is a multiple of both 3 and 4, simply because it's equal to 3 multiplied by "other stuff" (i.e. the original natural number) and equal to 4 multiplied by "other stuff" (i.e. the original number multiplied by 3 a moment ago). Similarly, 3) multiply that by 5 to achieve the end goal of a number that's a multiple of 3 or 4 or 5. Now take that number and 4) add 3. This final number is a multiple of 3, because it's 3 added to a multiple of 3. On the other hand, it isn't a multiple of 4, because it's 3 added to a multiple of 4, which is 1 too few to "reach" the next multiple of 4. Neither is it a multiple of 5, because 3 is 2 too few to "reach" the next multiple of 5. Presto! The procedure can start with any (all) natural number and construct a number that's a multiple of 3 but not 4 or 5. Procedures that are broadly similar can produce an infinite set of numbers that are multiples of 4 but not 3 or 5, and an infinite set of numbers that are multiples of 5 but not 3 or 4. Due to the logical fact that a particular number can't both be a multiple and not be a multiple, it's a logical impossibility for a number that belongs to one of these sets to belong to either of the others. The first few members of the "3" set are 63, 123, 183, 243. The "4" set, 64, 124, 184, 244. The "5" set, 65, 125, 185, 245. (Naturally, the predictable gaps of 60 between adjacent numbers are due to 3 times 4 times 5. If you graphed these procedures as mathematical functions, with the result as the vertical axis and the starting number as the horizontal axis, you would see a set of closely space parallel lines.)

All different, all infinite, all drawing from the same source.

impossibility or incorrigibility?

I'm somewhat amused when I read the perspective, "Merely eating less and exercising more is an approach to weight loss whose effectiveness has been disproved innumerable times throughout recorded history." While I agree that it's ridiculous to think that a person of any shape can target any weight they wish, surely it's beyond doubt that weight is affected by habits of eating and physical activity? Practically speaking, people come naturally in all sizes, but each person has the final decision on how to adjust those two "levers". Someone with the same inborn body range as me could be heavier or lighter than me, via the multitude of choices.

Some cultures put excessive emphasis on weight. Like the stars on the Dr. Seuss "sneetches", it's an easily identifiable distinction for sorting individuals by superiority. Cultural taboos and attitudes are quite variable. People who would be acceptable in one society could be scorned in a second. No sensible or universal rationale is necessary for the shaky "morals" of appearance and behavior that are invented by capricious earthly judges.

As Christians who follow God's laws, we think differently. In this case, we recognize the plain sin of gluttony, but we also acknowledge that conspicuous sins are often less deadly to the spiritual life than unseen or subtle sins. A greedy dependence on food may attract more stigma than a greedy dependence on money. Regardless, Christians shall forbid either in order to be free from enslavement to any created thing.

And when we repent of gluttony or the worship of Mammon, we live in faith of the possibility of change. We don't scoff at the idea of self-discipline. Instead we comply with the metaphorical crucifixion of our sinful leanings. Rather than contemplating and wrestling with temptation, we do something simpler: we deny it less than a toehold in our thoughts. The path to committing a sin of action or omission starts by committing the sin mentally within one's fantasies or mental plans.

Cynics are accurate in their observations of the failures of the unspiritual person to achieve personal transformation through weak natural willpower. Flesh demands fleshly actions. In contrast, Christians exercise their godly focus in practice. They release their hungers to Him, and they're revitalized to reject sin in general, including the unspiritual person's fixation on gluttony.

proving them right

Group 1: Enemies of the faith claim that we invent God and all related ideas.

Group 2: People who are for Christianity but against "organized" flavors willingly admit that their beliefs are based on their personal intuitions and emotions. For example, "The God Whom I worship would always judge people like me to be acceptable. He thinks and acts in ways that, conveniently, make perfect sense to me."

Aren't the people in group two confirming the hypothesis of the people in group 1? Whenever I read the Bible and confront its truth, I'm often reminded that the difficult doctrines of Christianity don't always fit my preconceptions and prejudices and preferences.

grand rewiring

The devoted Christian life is undeniably spiritual. Yet a singular focus on the spiritual dimension of everything is also an error.

This is especially true for behavioral improvement. In my opinion, many Christians would be further along if they simplified the problem by deemphasizing the "spiritual" aspects, be it only for a moment. Of course, prayer and seeking for the divine anointing of power and truth should continue, but also reconsideration through a different mindset.

Think of the soul through an analogy more commonly employed, very loosely, for the brain: a massive tangle of wires that connect sensors and reactions. At birth, the soul-wire connected to a coveted object also connects to grasping and consuming of the object. The soul-wire connected to God is connected to rebellion. A soul-wire links the self with egocentric pride. Whenever the target is sensed, the soul-wires conduct the signals in such a way that literal depravity is the soul reaction.

After salvation, when the soul comes under the influence of God and His church, a significant proportion of the wires change. Past preconceptions and attitudes begin to shift as the same situations lead to diverging responses. Increasingly the soul-wires attach to love of God and humanity, even enemies. The soul-wires that carried out a past addiction may remain for an exceedingly long time, but operating in a flaky hit-or-miss fashion. This is the grand rewiring, a miracle in which the members of the body that were formerly oriented toward evil then become oriented toward good. Holiness is no longer alien to the soul but instead suffuses it. It's not perfected but its inclination is at least less evil. Goodness is more "natural", i.e. less of a chore. Teaching is thus important because it's part of the process to renew the mind. It introduces novel categories and assists in assignments to those categories.

Now consider a strategy of holiness that's nothing more than monthly vows to do better (or, worse, a yearly resolution). Is it surprising that this strategy is flawed? Soul-wires don't move because someone makes an idle wish. Working against the effect of the unmoved soul-wires is exhausting. All the triggers that "set one off" will simply remain. Patterns will simply recur as patterns do.

Active participation in the grand rewiring requires that someone steadfastly adjust their thoughts, emotions, and actions in accordance with God's express will. Devotees don't rely on split-second course corrections to be holy. Rather, they redirect their vision to the Lord long before the moment hits. They study and memorize the Word, not out of duty but out of an ardent passion to better know Him. They're eager to reconfirm the lessons by putting into practice. They flee temptation merely because it pollutes and dilutes their attention. It may take a lot of effort to undermine and change soul-wires, which is why rewiring is best done frequently and fervently.

Observing from the outside, some people might comment that "All the worshiping and teaching of Christianity should be secondary to just doing the right thing day by day. Singing pretty songs and debating theological points is completely peripheral to what religion should be about."

Admittedly some Christians probably need to hear that sentiment. But in light of the grand rewiring it's somewhat backwards. The closer that Christian spirits approximate the Spirit of God, the holier that their behavior is.

revisiting the Matrix

Preface

More than 10 years later, I'm well aware that mining the Matrix movies for religious illustrations isn't groundbreaking anymore. Neither has it ever been insightful, since the movies invite it by borrowing much inspiration, imagery, and symbolism from various religions and then leaving the borrowings strewn about in clear view for the audience ("Zion"? "Trinity"?). Also obvious is that despite all the iconography the movies are not uplifting or evangelistic (not for biblical Christianity anyway) in purpose or design or content; the base ingredient of philosophy combines with heavy dollops of mayhem, lasciviousness, and profanity. Lastly, many of the premises of the movies are present in other works that aren't as broadly-known.

Nevertheless, the Matrix has undoubtedly popularized an idea at its core that's shared by many supernatural belief systems: the reality of the senses isn't the entirety of existence and in one way or another can act as an illusion that hides something more important. This is literally portrayed in the Matrix as the "Matrix", a fake reality maintained by machines to subjugate humans. This is achieved by a direct electrical connection from the human bodies to the electric impulses that simulate the Matrix, so that in effect the humans' "senses" simply have never experienced anything real. The implication is that by hijacking the nervous system a person's mind is completely trapped in a convincing fantasy. In effect, to trap the brain is to trap the mind.

Disconnect

For completeness (and self-indulgence's sake) it's worth mentioning that as the storyline progresses, the movies increasingly undermine and downplay the entrapment of the nervous system as a simple explanation of the Matrix's functioning. Readers who haven't seen the movies and/or wish to avoid getting any geek splattered on them can skip ahead.

• When the Matrix simulates someone's "death", the person's real body is said to die also because "the body cannot live without the mind". Similarly, when a person's body is suddenly unplugged from the Matrix, both the body and the Matrix "virtual body" drop dead. But if the Matrix is just fakery for the body, then how could it be separating the mind from the body in either case? The most straightforward though mysterious rationale is that when a person connects to the Matrix his or her mind actually leaves the body, which is quite distinct from the concept of the Matrix as electrical signals directly relayed into the person.
• The opposition "agent" programs of the Matrix somehow occupy people's virtual bodies in the Matrix, but only those who've never been unplugged. Agent Smith, who unlike other agents can reproduce, manages to continue to inhabit an unplugged actual human body. While it's unclear why this "possession" by the agents is necessary at all when many other sentient programs exist in the Matrix without it, still more unclear is how a person's identity could be overwritten through the Matrix mechanism. What stream of sensations could accomplish this? Talk about rapid personal change! More on this at the end.
  
• As Neo develops into an advanced stage, he demonstrates the astounding capability of observing and affecting real machines without any physical connector whatsoever, and as if to underline this point he can do it after losing his vision. He can also be in a virtual reality known as "limbo", although this is involuntary. Unless the viewer assumes that the environment previously presented by the movies as "reality" is truly a Matrix within a Matrix (an inventive yet tricky story twist), Neo's later feats presume that his mind extends beyond his nervous system.
  
• In the climaxes of the first two movies, plugged-in people are revived from lethal wounds sustained by their Matrix virtual "bodies". The status of someone's virtual "body" must have a strange relationship indeed to the status of his or her body, in order for death and resuscitation to sometimes flow one way and sometimes another. There could be a couple loopholes: either being plugged-in isn't a genuine total takeover of the nervous system or the association between a person's mind and body isn't fully based in the nervous system at all.
  

Soulfulness

Coming to the point after laying aside the movies' own increasingly complicated stance toward the concept, the Matrix analogy raises a provocative question that perplexes me. If the Matrix is like the physical reality of the Christian and a mind in the Matrix is like the soul of a Christian, then how can a Christian soul distinguish physical reality from spiritual reality any more effectively than a plugged-in person in the Matrix can distinguish the (mostly) seamless Matrix from reality? Falling even farther down the rabbit hole, how can a Christian soul distinguish whether the source of his or her thoughts is natural or supernatural? How does a Christian increase soulfulness in practice so he or she lives not in human "strength" (or brainpower) but instead in divine insight as contacted by the soul?

The question isn't theoretical or academic! It should be confronted by all Christians who believe in a living and active tripartite God, for their answer will shape how they respond when they have a thought that might be from Him. Is a sudden impulse to do a specific good act a supernatural "nudge" by the Spirit or the end result of an undirected (subliminally-triggered?) series of neuron "tickles"? Is a "crazy" idea a mission from God or is it from the same peculiar part of consciousness that in children suggests jumping off tall structures?

Of course, I'm familiar with many of the usual checkpoints for atypical spiritual directives (atypical meaning it isn't one of the easily-understood universal directives like "stop acting arrogant"). Christians should examine their motivations, compare the directive to the Word, pray more about it, ask other Christians for advice, look for tangible "confirmations" of it, etc. I firmly believe that Christians should also evaluate the foolishness of the directive when deciding if it's from God, but on the other hand many people have built a convincing exegetical case that godly wisdom has a tendency to appear foolish to human minds.

While those checkpoints are excellent, anyone of a scientific bent will quickly reply that falsification is easier than proof; it's easier to say "for sure" that a spiritual "directive" that contradicts the Word isn't from God than to say "for sure" that a spiritual directive that meets the approval of three other Christians is from God. In the end, with our souls encased in the "Matrix" of physical reality, we can't reach absolute certainty about our distinctions. A leap via faith and trust is inevitable. The leap may include a discomforting mental shift from "Does this directive match the God I imagine?" to "Do I need to revise the God I imagine to match this directive from the God who is what He is and not merely whom I imagine?"

Dually Noted

However, the question of how to sift physical reality from spiritual reality (or sift the Matrix from reality in the Matrix) runs deeper than practical concerns. According to direct quotes from experienced leader Morpheus in the Matrix, the reason why the Matrix can be a perfect trap is that all human sensations arise through the internal actions of the nervous system and brain. "If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain." "Do you believe that my being stronger or faster has anything to do with my muscles in this place [the Matrix]? Do you think that's air you're breathing now?" "Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind."

"Fine," the audience might say. "Regardless of defining mental sensations as nothing more than raw sense data, people can still freely think for themselves. The mind or soul remains an independent piece able to react to sensations however it chooses." Unfortunately, this opinion is flawed under close examination.

Once the audience concedes that sensations are just occurrences in the nervous system, there's no theoretical obstacle to tracing the "lifecycle" of one of those sensations, especially in simplified form. The sensation starts when something outside or inside (infected appendix?) the human body changes. That original change causes a change in a neuron. (Alternatively, the plugged-in human's neurons are jiggled by the Matrix.) The neuron's change has the side effect of changing other neurons. Eventually the chain reaction reaches a part of the brain that receives that category of sensations. Then through the unimaginably dense interconnections that characterize the cortex, the sensation produces "waves" of activity across other brain areas, perhaps including the ones specialized for speech. After a period of time relatively lengthy by the rapid-fire standards of nerve conduction yet considered short by people, some of the motor-control brain areas start another chain reaction among neurons but this time toward the mouth. The mouth says, "Yeowch!" or "Narf!" or whistles "Whew!"

Doubtless some readers anticipate the question this little cartoonish sketch of a sensation's lifecycle is leading up to: in the scenario where and when is the separation between perceiver/brain and decision-maker/mind/soul? Crudely put, how does the brain "make room" for the mind inside the cramped skull? In Matrix terms, doesn't being plugged in mean that someone's very brain is a part of the Matrix, and if so why and how does someone retain the ability to make decisions?

Traditionally, the solution to this conundrums of this sort is to split reality into dual parts, the physical and the non-physical. The brain and the soul reside in opposite realities. Each soul is intimately bound to one brain, and that one brain is its only window into physical reality because souls don't literally see through another's eyes.

Finally, the earnest believer in dual realities faces a last Matrix challenge. It portrays software "agents" occupying the brains of plugged-in people, which has led some to speculate why the machines didn't originally follow Smith's clean solution of agents just replacing everybody. But according to dual realities, if a hypothetical Matrix gained total control of a person's physical-reality brain, would the person's non-physical-reality soul be free and independent regardless? Comparing and contrasting this hypothetical with the biblical accounts of demonic possession is left up to the reader.

ask the introvert

Some people have told me they don't understand how introverts can "lock up" around other people and have trouble carrying on a conversation, especially when it's perceived as high-pressure. It's just other people, and it's just talking; how could that be hard? Shouldn't something as simple and routine as "typical small talk" be easy?

It might help to consider a situation that seems analogous: test-taking anxiety (which I don't have in the least). This anxiety results in someone who, despite studying hard and learning all the answers beforehand, feels his or her mind "go blank" when the test is in front of them. The test-taker feels an undercurrent of panic, has trouble thinking of the answers, and keeps rereading the same question over and over rather than taking a moment to pause and quiet themselves mentally.

The experience I described above has similarities to what can happen when I'm confronted with a social situation (although I'm getting better at it). An open-ended, casual question gets my mind spinning with concerns such as "What am I expected to say?" or "How do I most easily explain ____?" or "If I say _____ then wouldn't I seem weird?" As I try to optimize my response out of the several candidates according to the criteria that I'm applying, the questioner's facial expression starts to indicate that he or she doesn't understand how complex the question was, and he or she may be starting to wonder at the apparent sluggishness of my mind. At that point I start to think "Say something! Now!" and I spit out something that turns out to be neither interesting nor expected.

The other possibility is that as soon as someone begins to ask the question, I think "I'm being put on the spot! This didn't turn out well the last time it happened! Oh no!", shift into the classic body state known as "fight or flight", and feel my thoughts freeze completely. Just as an anxious test-taker finds it difficult to write an answer when his or her mind is "clenched", so for the introvert who in similar straits finds it difficult to formulate coherent sentences.

In the past, people have advised me to relax in social situations and say something without "overanalyzing it". After saying something, then I can proceed to clarify as needed. While that's a sensible recommendation, I hope the people making it understand that it's a little like telling someone with a spider phobia "The next time one crawls onto your clothing, remember that the vast majority of the time it won't hurt you and you should respond by calmly pushing it off". Easy to say but not so easy for the hearer to put into practice.

yet another curious conflux

Some people have said that the character/integrity/"personal" beliefs of a public servant matter less than skill/capability/talent for the specific post (such as US president).

Some people have said that the religious character/integrity/"personal" beliefs of a public servant (such as Francis Collins) matter just as much if not more than skill/capability/talent for the specific post (such as heading NIH).

what if one of us were God

One of my annoyances is when Christians reuse "What if God Was One of Us?" Listening closely to the lyrics seems to indicate the concept of God as "just this guy, you know?" God as a human, doing what humans do. In short, "Jesus" being indistinguishable from anyone else in the crowd. God cut down to size.

But Christian thought progressed beyond this point centuries ago! The Jesus of the Bible was fully God and fully man (not ghostly) similar to how the Trinity is fully three and one. Jesus' divinity is essential. He taught like no human. He reordered parts of creation in miracles. He knew temptation without sin.

Perhaps every rendition of "What if God Was One of Us?" should be immediately followed by "Mary Did You Know?" In the latter song, God has seen and done the unimaginable despite presently looking like a small, dependent infant in the mother's care.

God took a face, but always remember that if He hadn't, we'd be dazzled and humbled by his countenance.

two unconditional loves

As you might expect, the first unconditional love is from God to fallen creation, including us.

The second unconditional love is the reciprocation of love from us to God regardless of Him not being reliable in the common ways we define reliability in our everyday lives.

Which Faramir represents your response to temptation?

The book Two Towers by J.R.R. Tolkien was adapted into a hugely profitable movie some years ago. One of the changes that long-time readers easily spotted was a divergence in the character "Faramir". And this difference illustrates two responses to temptation, which in Tolkien's trilogy is clearly exemplified by the "attraction" of the One Ring.

• In the movie, Faramir sees the Ring and chooses to only consider the good that it might do, despite also seeing the manner in which the Ring twisted Gollum's mind. His mindset is "ends justify the means", and he willfully ignores the issue of the Ring's consequences. The extended edition of the movie includes other scenes that show a deep rift between Faramir and his father due to favoritism for his brother. Faramir allows this pain to control his reaction to the Ring's temptation, acting out of that instead of acting out of a clear-headed appreciation of the importance and danger of the Ring. He feels that he must earn love. Instead of turning away from the Ring immediately, he keeps it close to him for a while until later circumstances force him to observe the dark truth of what the Ring is.
• In the book, Faramir is highly-principled, perceptive, and wise. He recognizes that both the Ring and Frodo's quest are beyond his authority to control. Although he could take the Ring by force, he manages to learn from his brother's mistake rather than repeating it. He doesn't need to entertain the thought of the Ring's power for very long before rejecting it. He lets it go.

Temptation is as strong as the One Ring's "pull", especially when someone has allowed it to rule him or her. When it speaks to you and you could easily reach out your hand to grasp it, will you respond like movie Faramir or book Faramir? Will you act out of past pain and fear and confusion and selfishness, ponder the temptation in your mind, and close your eyes to the likely outcomes, then give in? Or will you act out of integrity and humility, eject the temptation from your mind, and consider a full view of the likely outcomes, then turn away?

(I have listened to the commentary and interviews about the movie. I realize that the book version would have reduced the seductive power of the Ring in the eyes of the audience, and the detour to Osgiliath furnished an effective and exciting climax to Frodo's storyline in the second movie. It raises a secondary question that's also interesting: like the movie's portrayal of the Ring, do you see temptation as close to irresistible for any mere man? Or closer to the book's portrayal of the Ring, do you see temptation as conquerable by any mere man, so long as he refuses to give it a foothold in his mind? To be fair, it's notable that in the first movie, both Aragorn and Gandalf succeed in leaving the Ring with Frodo when he offers it willingly.)

odd ethical confluence

One ethical trend is an upswing in the opinion that heterosexual marriage is a meaningless legal distinction. "If a man and a woman are in a long-term, caring relationship, why should they go through an archaic marriage ritual or otherwise try to 'forcefully ensnare' one another in a way that lessens his or her personal freedom, flexibility, independence?"

On the other hand, a second ethical trend is an upswing in the opinion that homosexual marriage must be equivalent to heterosexual marriage in the eyes of the legal system and society at large. "If homosexuals are in a long-term, caring relationship, why shouldn't they go through the beautiful ritual of marriage and publicly acknowledge their strong personal bond rather than continue to be treated as independent individuals?"

Does marriage matter or not? The greater likelihood of a heterosexual couple having a family (surely that can't be denied?) points to their marriages being more important. But that would be too logical.

A peculiar joint expression of these two trends is a heterosexual couple who claims to forgo marriage until homosexual couples can also marry. Or the already-married will stop wearing their rings. What a protest! That'll show 'em! Show your support for marriage by not doing it!

two categories of hypocrisy

The common definition of hypocrisy is someone not doing what they say.

One well-publicized category of it is that of Christians, or any other person who doesn't keep quiet about morality, not living their lives as perfectly as they say they should.

But there's also a second category. In this category, people don't claim at all to live in accordance with their religious "beliefs" or even to "take them seriously" (literal Hell, anyone?). Yet they attend services, sing songs, feign prayers, and always expect the other guy to volunteer. They silently dismiss any mutterings they hear about taking up crosses.

In the first category, well-meaning people make mistakes like everyone else as they struggle to put their difficult beliefs into practice. In the second category, people openly do as they like while telling bald lies to themselves and others about their feelings, commitments, and loyalties. Which is worse?

a musical contradiction

Regardless of genre specifics, musical forms have long been criticized for being inherently unacceptable or at least unsuitable. For just as long, the defenders of each musical form have had a defense: notes, beats, chords, and instruments have no inherent meaning. In short, musical forms should be evaluated and enjoyed apart from lyrics, content, and context.

So be it. However, if someone uses that defense for a musical form, isn't it contradictory to then show automatic disdain for "Christian-ized" works in that musical form? If your musical form is really innocent fun because lyrics, content, and context don't matter, how can Christian lyrics or content or context change your opinion of a work in that musical form?

You can't have it both ways. Either your musical style is blameless and harmless because factors extraneous to the music are irrelevant, or Christians performing your musical style are patently ridiculous because the actual music is only a part of the total musical experience. Choose.

a surprising symmetry

The following observation will likely get me in deep trouble with people of many beliefs, but...

You know how some pro-evolution proponents scoff at how some anti-evolution proponents point at comparatively minor differences or conflicts of evolutionary thought and say, "See? Even pro-evolution folks have serious doubts?" And the reason the pro-evolution proponents scoff at that rhetorical technique is because technical disagreements between experts don't change the fact that evolution is 1) widely accepted as the dominant viewpoint and 2) would need to exhibit much deeper problems to be overthrown as the dominant viewpoint.

You know how some Christians scoff at how some pro-homosexuality proponents point at comparatively minor differences or conflicts of theological thought and say, "See? Even Christian folks have serious doubts?" And the reason the Christians scoff at that rhetorical technique is because complex exegetical disagreements between experts don't change the fact that homosexuality is 1) consistently denounced as wrong throughout the Bible and 2) could only be considered as moral by bringing up much deeper inconsistencies (if sexuality, which is a huge part of being human, no longer has any restrictions, then was God kidding about that one commandment forbidding adultery?).