[Zionist Conspirator]

Looks like the worshippers of the holy trinity of Jefferson, Darwin, and Ayn Rand are going to have to continue to suffer the "discrediting" of the conservative movement. There go all those tax cuts and clone farms.

Be prepared for the additional embarrassment of a rebuilt Holy Temple and restored `Avodah (sacrificial service) in the near future, please G-d.

[RadioAstronomer]

This article is full of crap. ID is not science.

[longshadow]

Oh, look! This at least the third time an article has been posted on FR as though it were a mainstream news story, when in fact it is a guest column written by one of the clowns at the UnDiscovery Insititute. Behold:

David Klinghoffer of Mercer Island is a columnist for the Jewish Forward, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, and the author most recently of "Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History" (Doubleday).

Amazing how it is that posters somehow manage to forget to include that passage; it appears right at the end of the column.

[Sols]

"In brief, Jones ruled that disparaging Darwinian evolutionary theory in biology class violates the separation of church and state."

My my, that is quite the whopping lie.

[shuckmaster]

If you're going to post garbage like this, you should at least be honest enough to post the disclaimer at the bottom of the article that identifies the writer as a stooge for the Discovery Institute.

[GSlob]

Let's pour a good libation to Bacchus. And then repeat.

[darkangel82]

At the University of Minnesota, biologist P.Z. Myers, a bulldog for Darwin, writes about how he wishes he could use a time machine to go back and eliminate the biblical patriarch Abraham: "I wouldn't do anything as trivial as using it to take out Hitler."

Um, WTF?

[fizziwig]

Doesn't take long for the hostility of the Darwinists to come through. Its amazing actually, because they have a compelling case. So why the extremist defensivness and hostility?

And they won, this case anyway.

Pretty shocking what the two Darwin honcho's had to say....and to state that one would rather off Abraham than Hitler? Now that is revealing!

[wallcrawlr]

ping

Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

[thomaswest]

You wrote: "Quite apart from what one thinks of his legal decision, what should we make of his theology?"

Reply:
I think your question is extremely revealing. If we have a Republic of laws and judicial processes, then why is his 'theology' relevant? If we enjoy the benefits of advances in knowlege in science and engineering, then why is an individual's personal 'theology' relevant?

We all know that a person's personal theology is not a good measure of their qualities as a citizen. We all know that personal faith and public displays of piety are often not the same.

Your question seems to show that your concern is about theolgy and not about science or public policy. It is significant that the Founding Fathers wrote into our Constitution, "there shall be no religious test for...". Attacking Judge Jones for his 'theology' is not only cheap, but a discredit your position. And discredits you as a Freep poster.

[Zechariah11]

Very interesting.

[Elsie]

 

this week when U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III released the first federal ruling on intelligent design, there was at the core of his written decision an unambiguously theological ruling: that evolution as formulated by Charles Darwin presents no conflict with the God of the Bible.

 

---

HMmmm...    Let me help!

---

 

 

Most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says.  If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and then of the New Testament writers, they have to decide what the following verses mean:

 

Romans 5:12-21
 12.  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
 13.  for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
 14.  Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
 15.  But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
 16.  Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
 17.  For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
 18.  Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
 19.  For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
 20.  The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
 21.  so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

 

 

If there were  no one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.

 

If Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.

 

If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.

 

 

Are we to believe that the one man is symbolic?  Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?

 

 

The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.

 

 

 

 

1 Timothy 2:13

  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.   Was Paul WRONG about this???

 

 

 

[P-Marlowe]

Thank you for posting this article. You know, I read the decision of the Judge and kind of glossed over the statement that he made that Darwinism "in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator". I knew there was something insidious about that statement and then it hit me when this article came out. He had no business making such a decision. It is not his job to determine whether or not Darwinianism is antethetical to God. To make that decision is to make a religious statement and specifically to judge that those religious people who believe that God and Darwin do not mix are in error in their religious beliefs.

Whenever a poster states that Darwinism is a religion they get pummeled with insults, but it is clear that the Jugdes decision to favor Dawinism over Fundamentalism and to disparge the religious views of fundamentalists and then to claim that their religious position is without merit comes hundreds of miles closer to an establishment of Religion -- in this case the cult of Dawinianism -- than a simple statement in a science class that ID may present an alternative viewpoint to the conclusions of that cult.

The author here has captured the essence of what was wrong with both the trial and the decision. The judge's religious view is that God and Darwin are compatible. That is not a scientific conclusion, but a religious belief. He has now made his religious belief the law of the land. He has done exactly what he falsely accused the Dover School Board of doing.

[P-Marlowe]

Why was this current event discussion moved to the Smokey Back Room? This is an important news story and as far as I can see everyone has been as civil as they are on the news forum.

Are discussions of Court rulings on the first amendment not a proper subject for the news forum or even the religion forum?