Skip to comments.
Orthodox Jews in S. Florida join debate on evolution vs. intelligent design
Sun Sentinel ^
| December 12, 2005
| James D. Davis
Posted on 12/13/2005 8:47:24 AM PST by Dichroic
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-98 next last
1
posted on
12/13/2005 8:47:26 AM PST
by
Dichroic
To: Dichroic
2
posted on
12/13/2005 8:49:43 AM PST
by
The Ghost of FReepers Past
(Exalt the Lord our God, and worship at His footstool; He is holy. Ps 99:5)
To: PatrickHenry
What do you think? Ping worthy?
3
posted on
12/13/2005 8:50:45 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
To: Dichroic
Ah the vaunted evolutionists may be required to face the results of animal behavior established via that theory of common descent!!!!
To: Dichroic
"I think intelligent design is a theory of convenience, an attempt to open a second front in public schools," said William Gralnick, director of AJC's regional office in Boca Raton. "But I don't think it has legs. It won't catch on." Rabbi Anthony Fratello of Temple Shaarei Shalom in Boynton Beach agrees. "Everybody knows that this debate is about injecting religion into the study of science," he said. "And I don't believe they belong together. Science is about the hows of things. Philosophy and religion are about the whys.
Yup! ===> Placemarker <===
5
posted on
12/13/2005 8:55:10 AM PST
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: 1st-P-In-The-Pod; A Jovial Cad; A_Conservative_in_Cambridge; adam_az; af_vet_rr; agrace; ahayes; ...
FRmail me to be added or removed from this Judaic/pro-Israel/Russian Jewry ping list.
Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.
6
posted on
12/13/2005 8:56:14 AM PST
by
Alouette
(Learned Mother of Zion)
To: Coyoteman
How about this statement?
"Lipskar met head-on the suggestions by some that intelligent design is meant as a "back door" to putting religion in schools. "It's not a back door, it's a front door!" he said. "But the objective is not to make people religious. It's to make them understand that the world was put into place by an intelligent being. We are not random chemical reactions."
7
posted on
12/13/2005 8:59:43 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
To: Dichroic
Lipskar met head-on the suggestions by some that intelligent design is meant as a "back door" to putting religion in schools. "It's not a back door, it's a front door!" he said. "But the objective is not to make people religious. It's to make them understand that the world was put into place by an intelligent being. We are not random chemical reactions." But decree is antithetical to scientific understanding.
The fact remains that intelligent design is not a scientific theory. At best it is set of criticisms of debatable legitimacy. At worst, well, I won't go there.
My high school science teachers never demanded that my Sunday school teachers present biochemistry on Sunday morning, and at the moment, I am wishing the good rabbi would resist the urge to meddle in the biology curriculum.
To: freespirited
Ah but you are being deceptive. Your high school science teachers did insert themselves into your Sunday School class by claiming that Genesis is false. At minimum those who believe Genesis should have the opportunity to defend themselves in the environment where the false charge is made.
9
posted on
12/13/2005 9:17:26 AM PST
by
The Ghost of FReepers Past
(Exalt the Lord our God, and worship at His footstool; He is holy. Ps 99:5)
To: Dichroic
"Ask Rabbi Sholom Lipskar, one of the conference organizers, about the topic, and he sounds much like a conservative Christian."
Well, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the same God - sounds pretty reasonable to me.
10
posted on
12/13/2005 9:19:49 AM PST
by
jagusafr
(The proof that we are rightly related to God is that we do our best whether we feel inspired or not")
To: freespirited
I keep hearing that ID is not a scientific theory. That's right, but evolution isn't either. Like ID, it can't be disproved and it doesn't predict anything.
11
posted on
12/13/2005 9:23:31 AM PST
by
rrr51
To: Dichroic
> "The moral and ethical morass today -- hate among nations, juvenile delinquency, drug addiction, family breakdown -- comes from people not believing there is a higher authority that owns and directs the world," said Lipskar
Well, that proves he's a bit dim. I suspect that *many* of the "hate between nations" crowd are quite convinced that their god (often goes by the name Allah, but not always) is on their side. And the rest of these are hardly either new or limitted to "secularists."
12
posted on
12/13/2005 9:24:29 AM PST
by
orionblamblam
("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
To: rrr51
> Like ID, it can't be disproved and it doesn't predict anything.
Wrong to both. Evolution could be fairly easily disproved *if* it were untrue (human and tyranosaur fossils together, a snake giving birth to a goat, humans and chimps turnign out to have very different DNA, cats more closely genetically linked to fish than to dogs, etc.), and it is regularly used to make predictions (that have generally been borne out).
13
posted on
12/13/2005 9:26:45 AM PST
by
orionblamblam
("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
To: freespirited
"My high school science teachers never demanded that my Sunday school teachers present biochemistry on Sunday morning, and at the moment, I am wishing the good rabbi would resist the urge to meddle in the biology curriculum."
You make a good point. Perhaps physics professors should be taking Sunday schools to court to demand they teach alternate theories of things like Jesus walking on water. It could be explained that Jesus walking on water was only one 'theory', and that others include that he was actually walking on sand in a very shallow part of the water, or that heat produced a mirage of water under his feet. If some people feel the need to inject religious beliefs into the science classroom, perhaps others should look into injecting some science into the religious classroom.
Personally, I think that both are equally inappropriate.
14
posted on
12/13/2005 9:36:05 AM PST
by
NJ_gent
(Modernman should not have been banned.)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
What do you think? Ping worthy? I donno. Lemme read the article again and mull it over.
15
posted on
12/13/2005 9:43:32 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
16
posted on
12/13/2005 9:50:20 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, common scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Ah but you are being deceptive. Your high school science teachers did insert themselves into your Sunday School class by claiming that Genesis is false.
Well my biology didnt stand there serving up a point by point rebuttal of Genesis. I doubt many others do either.
To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
"Your high school science teachers did insert themselves into your Sunday School class by claiming that Genesis is false. "
My high school biology teacher was a nun. She taught us evolution. In fact, she even played an episode of *The Cosmos* with Carl Sagan where he spoke of evolution.
18
posted on
12/13/2005 9:57:43 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Your high school science teachers did insert themselves into your Sunday School class by claiming that Genesis is false.You don't have to travel that far. Even C. S. Lewis is on record saying that Genesis is copied from earlier mythology.
19
posted on
12/13/2005 9:58:16 AM PST
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Your high school science teachers did insert themselves into your Sunday School class by claiming that Genesis is false. My teachers in high school or college never claimed Genesis was false. Your insecurities are showing as fabricated accusations.
20
posted on
12/13/2005 10:04:31 AM PST
by
elbucko
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-98 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson