That's like saying that "except for a few Republicans, everyone voted for John Kerry."
The Rabbinical Council of America has no problem with evolution. Neither did Chief Rabbi Hertz or Chief Rabbi Kook. Except for Klinghoffer, I have not seen any Jewish writer attacking evolution.
If you dare to dispute these points, then say so instead of cowardly hiding behind implications of German higher criticism.
What does "German higher criticism" have to do with this?
As for "reform" and "conservative" "rabbis," who gives a fig what the clergy of those supercessionist chr*stian wannabes have to say?
Azoy redst vi a rebbe?
The Rabbinical Council of America has no problem with evolution. Neither did Chief Rabbi Hertz or Chief Rabbi Kook. Except for Klinghoffer, I have not seen any Jewish writer attacking evolution.
You are merely reiterating what I myself said. The RCA and other Orthodox evolutionists state that it is possible to reconcile opening of Genesis with Darwin and don't go on to tell anyone that once Adam arrives on the scene they are as Fundamentalist as Jerry Falwell. Since most evolutionists (chr*stian and atheist) are Biblical higher critics, they then assume that Orthodox Judaism tolerates higher criticism and the "mythology" of the Torah as well. Thus, the RCA (a Modern Orthodox group anyway) knowingly implied to naive chr*stian and atheist Fundamentalists that the Divine origin and inerrancy of the Torah are not dogmas of Judaism. They got to look sophisticated without actually saying that they endorsed higher criticism, thus removing the heat from themselves so the Bible-bashers would move on to ridiculing Southern Baptists.
What does "German higher criticism" have to do with this?
You could not possibly be that naive. Do you honestly believe that the evolution debate is simply over how to interpret the first six days of Genesis? Do you? Even Klinghoffer is an evolutionist ("ID" is simply a form of Theistic evolutionism and is quite happy to take the creation account figuratively). Do you actually believe your fellow evolutionists here on FR stop their non-literalism with the appearance of Adam? C'mon. You and I both know better than that.
This debate is all about German higher criticism. Aside from evolutionist Orthodox Jews, all other Theistic evolutionists dismiss the literal truth of the entire TaNa"KH and take it as mythology (much of it adapted from paganism).
If all you want to do is defend a non-literal interpretation of the first six days why are you even attacking Klinghoffer? Klinghoffer isn't arguing against a non-literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis but against the idea that the universe created itself. It's amazing how many "Theistic evolutionists" are offended by the idea that G-d did it. Why do you call yourselves "Theistic" evolutionists if that is the case?
I am not an IDer. I am a literalist Creationist myself and make no claim to be anything else, nor do I agree with Klinghoffer's non-literalism. But all he does is argue that evolution was the work of G-d as opposed to being utterly unplanned and meaningless and all you "Theistic" evolutionists start pulling at your collars. Maybe you're not so "Theistic" after all?
The publicly enunciated pro-evolution argument (as its makers well know) implies a great deal of other ideas, and it is partly for that reason that it is made. And you know it as well as you know the position of the majority of the Yeshivish world. Shoot, even the Modern Orthodox National Council of Synagogue Youth has published anti-evolution stuff (I have one of their books).
Mr. Klinghoffer commented on Rav Kook. As for Rabbi Hertz (do you actually think I don't know about him?) he departed radically from tradition in many ways (such as accepting higher critical theories about the Prophets, though not the Torah itself) and is touted by some chr*stians who don't like the "fundamentalist" commentaries published by ArtScroll.
Now, you were saying . . . ?