I gave up my lunch hour and all I got was this post and a seven layer burrito at taco bell

If I were still in college I'd beg for an extension.

The selective history of the first several chapters of Schaeffer's book made it difficult for me to concentrate on the conclusions Schaeffer was trying to support. For a while I stopped every few paragraphs to shake my head at a particularly galling omission or unsupported conclusion.

Eventually I tried to separate Schaeffer's conclusions from the evidence he used to support his conclusions. Then I just quit thinking about whether or not the evidence he gave actually supported his conclusions. Then I quit thinking about the evidence altogether. That made things better.

Dusty's piano analogy is a good summary of the argument I felt like Schaeffer was trying to make. The argument is easy to attack, but I feel it still has some value. After I finished being angry about Schaeffer's work I started to think about my response -- and that was the valuable thing about the book for me. Reading Schaeffer pushed me to think about how I would outline history, and it forced me to examine the "base upon which society is built". For that I am grateful.

I'd love to go into more detail about the specifics of Schaeffer's book, but my lunch hour is almost up -- I'll save it for tonight.