I have divided my posts into two: those dealing with the issue of whether it's reasonable to suppose the authors' Judeo-Christian God exists, and those dealing with whether creationism should be explicitly acknowledged in school science classes as something science has not disproved (which is what author wants).
On the first issue: two posts ago I pointed out that evidence from design etc. is very weak evidence for the very specific god believed in by Christians (who is all-powerful and good), and that there is, in addition, very powerful evidence against the existence of that God supplied by the problem of evil/suffering. So, in terms of reasonableness, author's belief system looks very unreasonable indeed.
In response, author comments that:
(i) he doesn't want to focus on this issue
(ii) that he has faith - i.e. "chooses to believe what God says" about his own goodness
(iii) that the evidence for his good God is "of such a subjective nature that I wouldn't suggest it to someone who is biased against it".
(iv) he adds "And even to the extent that there may be objective evidence of God's goodness, I don't think you would accept it, and I wouldn't want to debate it here."
So author suggests he might have "objective" evidence, but refuses to present it because I am biased and would not accept it. Also much of his evidence is "subjective", and a matter of "interpreting".
Seems to me the author's "subjective" evidence is not evidence, for it appears to boil down to just always insisting that, no matter how horrific the suffering unleashed upon humanity, etc. might be, he chooses to see it - "interpret" it - as somehow all for the best. But this is not "evidence for" a good God. Actually, that's simply choosing to ignore (or explain away) the evidence against what you believe.
As for the "objective" evidence which is hinted at but never presented - why not present it?
It seems to me author is now becoming highly evasive. These are exactly the kind of moves we expect from believers in auras, astral planes, chi-energies, etc.
They say such things as:
"You can't see the aura? - well, that's your problem: you are not subjectively attuned like me. Plus I have lots of objective evidence for auras, but I won't present it to you 'cos you're biased and won't accept it!"
I bet author sees straight through such moves when employed by practitioners of these flaky arts. So why does he feel he can get away with the exact same moves here?
Summary: seems to me that, on my point that belief in the author's specific God is not supported by his evidence, and in fact the empirical evidence pretty much conclusively refutes that belief, the author is now quickly running out the door...
So perhaps I should now turn to his case for saying school science classes should explicitly acknowledge that creationism has not been disproved by science...