Monday, January 16, 2006

question

i don't know if my questions will be as good of a discussion starter as fletch's, but i'll try it any way.

why is it that both Jews and Christians, who have the same creation story, have such different takes on the literal-ness of Genesis? why is it that the whole debate over intelligent design is waged by conservative evangelical Christians, but not Jews? the Jews still have the same creation story, so why don't they care? do Jews' faith not rest on the creation story? why is it that Christians are so caught up in defeating evolution? does faith in God and in Jesus as the Messiah rest largely on the creation story? can one believe in evolution, and still believe that Jesus is the Messiah?

30 comments:

james said...

I would say yes. I suspect the importance of the literalness of the creation story for evangelicals rests in their need for inerrancy.

kidpositive said...

does this mean that the truth of Christ (for them) rests on inerrancy?

Mike Murrow said...

man i hope you can believe in evolution and jesus. i just don't see how the two are connected. i have heard the arguments but there are a lot of hoops and leaps.

i don't think it as much inerrancy as inerrancy is one more thing like eveolution that evangelicals get excited about.

i think it is the siege mentality that is part of the evangelicals approach to culture. if the "secularists" are for evolution then evolution is where the battle will be fought.

james said...

I think Fletch does have a point with siege mentality. But i think the siege mentality is a symptom which comes in much later in the mental framework.

I remember once in college while rooming with a friend named same, he and I had words over the creationist/evolution debate. And he would always come back and say "Because the Bible says it does." This to me is founded in a strict literal interpretation of the Bible, which I believe is a subpoint under the so-called doctrine of inerrancy.

Inerrancy believes that God's word is perfect and without error, therefore anything written in it is correct. If the Bible says that God created the world in 7 days, then this is correct. Then if you state there are a bunch of God-hating secularists out there trying to tell you that the world was created in billions of years, differing from the error-free Bible, this creates a kind of 'persecution complex.' Kind of a, "they are attacking what i believe so i must take a stand!"

Then if you throw into the "persecution complex" that the secularists have an agenda to keep people from going to heaven...dude...shit hits the fan.

I'm pretty convinced that one of the best ways to control people and get them to do what you want them to do, is to tell them that they are among a persecuted minority who has exclusive access to a certain truth. This will get them riled up in no time.

Works for Rush anyway.

kidpositive said...

it seems to me that one of the largest tenets of "fundamentalist" faith is that all truth is contained in the Bible, and that there can be no truth that exists outside of the Bible. what do you think?

i mean, obviously, there is truth that exists outside of the Bible. the world we experience every day is "truth", and it isn't contained inside the Bible. from what I've read on Islam, Mulsims are adamant about the authority of the Quran being the "final word" of God. therefore, no truth can exists outside of/after the Quran. is this how we also view the Bible? i think this view is dangerous.

at the same time, those fundamentalists would claim that if you have no solid foundation, how do you know what to base your life off of? how can you live a life after God if you don't trust what's written in the Bible? the fact is that i've never said i don't trust the Bible; i just can't read it the same way that others do...in a literalist reading. i believe the Bible is true and good. i guess that's a "form" of inerrancy. however, i DON'T believe that we can strictly intepret texts written thousands of years ago directly into our cultural context. there has to be a transformation of some kind. i mean, the creation story was written when people still thought that the world was flat. did they even know what the sun was then? these might seem like minor points, but they aren't. your awareness of your world and physical surroundings dramatically influences your perceptual framework.

although i don't believe that science is the final authority, i do believe that the knowledge we gain through a scientific process is fundamentally important to understand who we are, where we've come from, and where we're headed. and since i believe that God created physical reality, i also believe that science is merely the inquisitory investigation of God's creation. therefore, science should really lead us more towards God, not away from God. when we stand in fear of what's outside of us, that's when we really start to travel down the wrong path. fear is not of God. as 1John says, "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear has punishment. He who fears is not made perfect in love."

when we view the world as a "threat" to our Christianity, i think we're being ruled by fear, not by love.

Mike Murrow said...

yeah i agree. the reformed tradition teaches that you have to read the bible contextually, or literally in the sense of the literal genre of the books. so mathew is a narative not a book of precepts (though the sermon on the mt might be an exception but then again that would be a genre with in a genre) proverbs is a book of proverbs - not universals, psalms is poetry and so on. that keeps one from a fundamentalist wooden translation. if one takes this approach to gen then one could see gen (esp the first chapters) as more of a poetic form, not a scientific paper. one is to take the books in their genre and then once one begins to understand what the book or passage was saying to the original readers/hearers one must then take that message and re interpret it for our times.

we used to ask three basic questions, what did it say to the intended audience, what does that mean, and then what does that mean to me today.

i think that allows one to avoid most of the pitfalls of a wooden literal approach.

so i would say i take it literally in the sense that i read it in its literary context.

g13 said...

i think a lot of it has to do with the fact that american evangelicalism and fundamentalism took root in the soil of the enlightenment. the modern attacks on the authorship of scripture and their denial of any supernatural reality led to the literalistic readings that fundies and ee-vangelicals are still defending.

of course, the jewish mind was formed in an ancient, pastoral context that knew a good creation myth/epic/story when it saw one. but of course that's only my opinion, i could be wrong.

james said...

I would agree with both Fletch and Gentry at this point. What Fletch is pointing to is good exegesis, and gentry is point to the reason why inerrancy was necessary for the fundies. i.e. to protect the Scriptures from the skeptics.

Mike Murrow said...

j, just wanted to say that when you said, "Inerrancy believes that God's word is perfect and without error, therefore anything written in it is correct. If the Bible says that God created the world in 7 days, then this is correct"

i think we are not defining inerrancy very correctly. inerrancy is simply that the bible has no errors. it doesn't have to include 6 day creationism. 6 day creationism is one interpretation of the text.

i don't believe there are errors in the original manuscripts, i have no reason to believe there are errors in the bible so i guess i would say i believe in inerrancy. i don't think that you have to disbelieve in some form of evolution, ID, or 6 day creation from a reading of Gen. if evolution is true that just means we need to re interpret gen, we don't have to decide it is in error.

i have about as much faith in the findings of science and the abilities of reason and rationality as i do in anything else. that is just to say that just because science currently has a dispute with something in the bible that is not the final word. there have been many instances when archeology disagreed with the bible... then they realized archeology was wrong. science used to teach that there was nothing smaller than the atom... then they found more crap in there, then more crap and so on.

for a long time newton was the man in phisics, then Albert came along, now we have the string theory guys and even now there are other scientists casting doubt on those theories. my point is that science can be wrong but we act like "science" is some inerrant infalible source of truth. when in reality they make mistakes. i don't think scientists claim this but we are so modern that we exault them to this place.

anyway, just because science (archeology, history, biology, etc) disagrees with the bible right now that doesn't mean that i should change what i believe about the bible or what it teaches.

james said...

Right and I'm not saying that we should have to change how we feel about it just cause science and the Bible don't agree (right now).

Perhaps you and I have the same feeling toward the Bible, just we're calling it different things?

Mike Murrow said...

j,

most likely. i am with you if you just don't want to use the word inerrancy but believe it to be with out error, i probably am still with you if you think the book has errors - i just don't agree with you.

kidpositive said...

well then that begs the question: what does it mean for the written word to have errors? errors on part of the original authors? did they hear from God the wrong way?

now that we've discussed this, it really makes me think that there are so many more levels to this whole issue, and that we really just don't have the full vocabulary to explain all the intricacies.

james said...

Just to clarify here's a bit I added to my friend Dave's blog a bit ago. I'm citing myself here:

"The main issue I have with the concept of "inerrancy" is not that I wish to say the Bible has errors, but that "inerrancy" allows believers to impose a set of standards upon the Bible I don't think were initially part of it's intended design. It is a problematic term.

Inerrancy is what forces Hank Hanegraffe into a corner when someone calls the "Bible Answer Man" program, to debate why II Chronicles 9:25 numbers Solomon's horse stalls at forty thousand, when I Kings 4:26 declares them only to have had four thousand. Similar it is with some contesting genealogies throughout the Scriptures, and meaningless debates on whether or not Creation was formed in a literal 6 days. This, at best, is a waste of our time.

What I find almost more damaging is that the notion of inerrancy sets up a false principle, namely, that if the Bible is found in error at only one point, then the whole thing can be effectively found patently false. This is faulty logic at best, but these are the set of standards inerrancy has imposed upon the otherwise, God-breathed and trustworthiness of God's Word."

I'm down with the Bible. I believe it and find its truths rather amazing at times.

word up.

Mike Murrow said...

i guess i can't follow you there. maybe we are asking two different things or what ever.

i would just ask if there are errors of any kind. like for example the bible saying X is true but in reality Y is actually true.

you sight that example in chronicles but couldn't that just as easily be an example of a copiest error and not an error in the author?

kp, i don't think i understand you when you say i am begging the question and i guess i don't understand what you are asking in your next two questions. sorry.


i guess i also don't see what you mean J when you say that if i say i believe that the bible is with out error (inerrant) then if the bible is found to have one error then the whole thing is wrong.

i guess i just dont see why i would trust anything the bible said if i thought there was errors in it. how would i then know that any of it was true.

what else am i to trust if i don't have the bible? there are no other forms of revelation that would reveal the jesus as the bible does. not to say i don't believe that creation reveals truth, but a lot of folk have creation and don't find God in it, and for sure not Jesus. the bible is where we get the story you know? if it gets stuff wrong then why should i trust any of it?

james said...

Fletch, you said: "you sight that example in chronicles but couldn't that just as easily be an example of a copiest error and not an error in the author?

Yes. This is entirely possible and i imagine quite probable. I think the next question you asked will help me with this further. You said: "i also don't see what you mean J when you say that if i say i believe that the bible is with out error (inerrant) then if the bible is found to have one error then the whole thing is wrong."

Perhaps I could better state it this way. If our trust in the Bible is contingent upon it's being inerrant, should it then be found in error at one point, then the whole thing potentially can be found untrustworthy.

So consider the Hanegraffe example. The Bible Answer Man holding to a trust in the Bible which is inerrant is forced, when people call in to debate the geneolgy issue, to protect the infallibility of the Scriptures by trying to prove how the Bible is still without error in light of a textual differentiation. Now, if he would just quit using the infallibility lingo, he wouldn't need to debate the issue at length. He could just explain it as a manuscript error.

I don't know...does this make sense?

And man...I'm not trying to talk anyone out of how they feel about the integrity of the Bible in all this. I mean, I really think we hold the same trust in the Scriptures and interpret them similarly.

Mike Murrow said...

And man...I'm not trying to talk anyone out of how they feel about the integrity of the Bible in all this. I mean, I really think we hold the same trust in the Scriptures and interpret them similarly.

yeah no doubt bro.

So consider the Hanegraffe example. The Bible Answer Man holding to a trust in the Bible which is inerrant is forced, when people call in to debate the geneolgy issue, to protect the infallibility of the Scriptures by trying to prove how the Bible is still without error in light of a textual differentiation. Now, if he would just quit using the infallibility lingo, he wouldn't need to debate the issue at length. He could just explain it as a manuscript error.

well, i still think the bible is with out error and that is called inerrancy and i just explain it as a manuscript error - an error in a copy.

i have no alegence to bible answer dude, but i have heard him explain it in just the same way. that the bible in the original texts were inerranty and the errors we have are copiest errors.

i don't see why we have to throw out the word inerrant or even inerrancy for that matter just because we find ourselves having to defend the idea and the term. we have to defend the trinity yet we don't want to throw that out. it is easier for me to see inerrancy claimed by the bible than the trinity. modelism or monarchism would be easier to defend and makes more sense rationally but that isn't what the bible teaches when you actually study the texts.

good discussion folks.

i keep hoping "anon" from zigs blog, or "JW" from my blog will jump in... now that would be interesting.

oh well.

Mike Murrow said...

kp, sorry, we got off the topic of why we feel that creationism is such a big deal.

james said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
james said...

Here's a couple more points that hopefully, and eventually, will return us to the topic of creationism.

1) Regarding the term Inerrancy and it's use in light of other terms the church uses, such as Trinity. This is a great question. The term Trinity however has been brought about by a great collection of church councils and therefore has great meaning for the whole of Christian history and Christian theology. The term may not be found in the Bible, but it is present in the bulk of church history. Inerrency on the other hand is a relatively new term as far as history goes. As Gentry has mentioned previously, it is a term which found its root in the aftermath of the enlightenment. There existed a great need to protect the Scriptures from the skeptics and devising a philosophy/theology as such was a means of doing so.

2) Regarding the originals. As I've mentioned previously, the original manuscripts are very possibly without error though as we do not have any of the originals this is difficult to rest upon completely. Yes, it is very likely there existed some copying errors. But is it also possible that a copyist gathered a different understanding of the topic and sought to correct what he thought was an error, or even at some point wrote to allow a clearer interpretation? Using for example the numerical reference to Nero in Revelation 13, most English translations use the number 666 though one translation (i forget which) uses the number 616. This is generally thought to have happened due to the translators understanding that his audience would understand the Nero riddle easier if he used the Latin alpha-numberic equation of 616 rather than the Hebrew alpha-numeric equation of 666. (If some don't understand what i am saying here just go with me for now.)

3) Lastly, I think an adamant defense of the Bible being "Inerrant" leads us as Christians into a precarious position. On the one hand we may be stregthening the position for the reliability of the Scriptures, but on the other hand we're positioning the Bible to either stand or fall at only one point. And I guess I don't think this is fair, nor do I think this is what the original authors had in mind (how does one begin to classify poetry as inerrant for example?). By claiming inerrancy we are almost inviting others to the challenge of trying to debunk the "Infallible" Bible. Using a citation like, "In 1 Samuel it says 'Saul took his own sword and fell on it,' but the same author in 2 Samuel says '...the Philistines had hung them after they struck Saul down on Gilboa.'" one can then say this proves the Bible is fallible, and therefore the whole thing cannot be trusted. Inerrancy-speak can lead to a "throwing the baby out with the bath water" so to speak.

If someone were to challenge me on the above example I would just say, "okay. Sure it could be an error, or it could be the authors intention in putting it this way was this...but the essence of the story stays the same, and point the author was trying to make still seems clear." If I was an adamant defender of inerrancy I might be backed into a corner at this point. I don't know.

I just think we would do better not positioning the bible to stand or fall on terms of inerrancy, but on its ability to convey truth and its trustworthiness.

As it relates to creationism, i think inerrancy leads many Christians to the belief that whatever and however the Bible says something, that's what it means! One might say, "If I believe the Bible is inerrant then I believe when it says that God created the world in 6 days, then this is how it was done." My old roomie Sam used to do this to me. Once I mentioned that I was watching a science program and thought it cool a theory on the crossing of the Red Sea. The program had a model of the sea floor and a probable crossing point along with a theory that winds could have played a role somehow. Sam was determined. "But the Bible says," Sam mentioned, "that they crossed on dry land. That's how it happened." This stuff still makes me a little irate.

*whew* that was a lot. I don't know...are we back to creationism?

Mike Murrow said...

J, you said, "But is it also possible that a copyist gathered a different understanding of the topic and sought to correct what he thought was an error, or even at some point wrote to allow a clearer interpretation?"

well sure and in fact that is one of the reasons that folks who believe in inerrancy give for percieved errors. that is considered a copiest error.


then you said, "Lastly, I think an adamant defense of the Bible being "Inerrant" leads us as Christians into a precarious position. On the one hand we may be stregthening the position for the reliability of the Scriptures, but on the other hand we're positioning the Bible to either stand or fall at only one point. And I guess I don't think this is fair, nor do I think this is what the original authors had in mind (how does one begin to classify poetry as inerrant for example?). By claiming inerrancy we are almost inviting others to the challenge of trying to debunk the "Infallible" Bible. Using a citation like, "In 1 Samuel it says 'Saul took his own sword and fell on it,' but the same author in 2 Samuel says '...the Philistines had hung them after they struck Saul down on Gilboa.'" one can then say this proves the Bible is fallible, and therefore the whole thing cannot be trusted. Inerrancy-speak can lead to a "throwing the baby out with the bath water" so to speak."

so you think there are errors? if not, again i don't know why it is such a big deal to defend. in the decade that i served the church i faced this a lot and never saw any "contradiction" or alleged error that could not be resolved.

you basically want to throw out not only the term inerrancy but also the concept that the bible is with out error because as you said you don't want to be backed into a corner to have to defend the concept. but then couldn't you also be backed into a corner and have to defend the authority of the bible if it has errors? for example, why should i trust the bible when it says that jesus rose from the dead, or the teachings of jesus to seek peace and justice and so on if the bible got other things wrong? By whose authority do you say jesus is God? based on what? did you see jesus? were you there? then how can you say that he is God?

J it is a matter of the authority of the bible.

here is a quote from Boice not a fundie but a good old reformed guy,

"We are faced with a basic choice in the matter of biblical authority. Either we receive the Scripture as completely reliable and trustworthy in every matter it records, affirms, or teaches, or else it comes to us as a collection of religious writings containing both truth and error.

If it does contain mistakes in the original manuscripts, then it ceases to be unconditionally authoritative. It must be validated and endorsed by our own human judgment before we can accept it as true. It is not sufficient to establish that a matter has been affirmed or taught in Scripture; it may nevertheless be mistaken and at variance with the truth. So human judges must pass on each item of teaching or information contained in the Bible and determine whether it is actually to be received as true. Such judgment presupposes a superior wisdom and spiritual insight competent to correct the errors of the Bible, and if those who would thus judge the veracity of the Bible lack the necessary

[p.94]

ingredient of personal inerrancy in judgment, they may come to a false and mistaken judgment - endorsing as true what is actually false, or else condemning as erroneous what is actually correct in Scripture. Thus the objective authority of the Bible is replaced by a subjective intuition or judicial faculty on the part of each believer, and it becomes a matter of mere personal preference how much of Scripture teaching he or she may adopt as binding."

you can find the article and more here

"I just think we would do better not positioning the bible to stand or fall on terms of inerrancy, but on its ability to convey truth and its trustworthiness."

how can you "position" the bible to stand and fall on terms of its "ability to convey truth and its trustworthiness" if it has errors? if it has errors then it is not AS trustworty and its ability to convey truth comes into question - which is the point i have been making but i think we aren't understanding each other.

your example with sam makes me laugh cause he would do the same to me. and yes, that kind of reasoning makes me irate as well. but here is the deal, that was sams fallacy, it wasn't because he believed in inerrancy it was because he couldn't deal with neuanced thought. all you would have to do is ask him if it was possible that when God parted the sea that it looked a lot like wind doing it? or some other argument. there are many people out there who believe in inerrancy and evolution and in naturalistic explanations for many things in the bible... they simply interpret the bible differently. why throw out the concept that the bible has no errors if you don't believe there are errors? i don't care if you use the word.

there are tons of ways to understand the creation story and still understand the bible to be inerrant. i think what you are mixing "wooden literal" interpretation with inerrancy. a wooden literal interpretation would lead you to 6 days. but not inerrancy. sam was reading the bible in a wooden literal sense that lead him to that line of thinking.

i think you are mixing up the two. not that you don't know the difference but i think you are frustrated with sam and bible answer guy and other christians. you blame it on their belief in inerrancy but really it is their "wooden literal" interpretation that is the problem.

james said...

Your bit about Sam makes me laugh. :)

Perhaps I am confusing the two. But when I think of Sam my thought is that he employs the use of a wooden literal interpretation because he believes the Bible is inerrant, not the other way around. I could be totally wrong about that.

And as I mentioned before. I'm not trying to prove that I believe the Bible has errors. I don't see any reason to say so.

I think we are on the same page (if not we're at least close) and perhaps we are confusing each other's position.

Perhaps, I am less comfortable confiming that the original autographs were error-free as we do not have any of them, and am therefore less inclined to confirm their state as such. But I know that with everything we do have, we have every reason to trust them, cause they're pretty damn accurate (Dead Sea Scrolls and what not...). I guess it's a matter of faith. I believe the original autographs to be trustworthy, just as I do the Bible. Any supposed "error" which the Bible contains I feel I have reasonable explanation for, and it really doesn't bother me. I think you feel the same as well.

Mike Murrow said...

" If our trust in the Bible is contingent upon it's being inerrant, should it then be found in error at one point, then the whole thing potentially can be found untrustworthy."

yes that is exactly correct and i would think so. if the bible actually teaches 6 day creation and evolution is actually true then the bible starts with error and why should i trust it any more than the book of morman?

Mike Murrow said...

fur sure.

were you there when they tried to scare me into speaking in tongues?

not that i have any problems with tongues but that was typical sam.

you are correct it is a matter of faith. and that is hard because it is really just circular.

why do you believe in the reserection?

cause the bible teaches it.

why do you believe the bible?

cause i do.

but really it is a matter of faith.

i think you and i (i don't know kp well enough so i won't speak for him) but i think we see the things that folk like sam do and we over react. this inerrancy thing is a good example, as is the 6 day thing.

i would say that half the time i am a 6 day creationist cause there are good arguments for it and i don't think scientists are infallable. and half the time i am not for the same reasons.

when i hear a creationist argue in dumb ways and mixing catagories and all that i cringe and don't want to be associated with that. my first impulse is to reject the whole thing. but then i realize that i believe in many of those things yet i don't make dumb arguments (IMHO ;) ) so why throw out the baby with the bath water.

i think we need to be careful when we try to distinguish ourselves from our embarassing brothers/sisters.

james said...

Unfortunately, I was there when Sam called for a prayer and a test to see if Fletch would speak in a tounge. Having had a recent bout with tounges, I probably wasn't the best person to be in the room.

Sorry, if i added any insult to injury there.

kidpositive said...

"i think we need to be careful when we try to distinguish ourselves from our embarassing brothers/sisters."

but that's really difficult, you see. it seems to me that one of the sources of misunderstanding in this dialogue is the use of the word "inerrant". when fundamentalists use the word, they mean it to imply that the Bible can be read AS IS, and interpreted exactly that way. however, i think the definition fletch is using for "inerrant" is much different, basically meaning that the words originally used to capture whatever the author was trying to convey are good and true. that the source material is without error.

i also think there is a big difference between something being inerrant and something being reliable and trustworthy. big difference. newton's physical laws are both reliable and trustworthy, but not inerrant. they were inerrant for a time, however, but then the collective intelligence of the human race surpassed the level of understanding of newton. so, when we read newton now, we don't say "this isn't completely true, so ALL of this is wrong". instead, we read his writings within the context of his time and the scientific understanding at that time.

the problem with the Bible is that so many peolpe read the text, and then think that the words of the text directly apply to their own lives. i'm not saying this can't happen, but the fact is that when you read something that's thousands of years old, you have to take it's age into account. if we were to really read the Bible literally, then we'd find a lot of justification for war and polygamy. i mean, david is one of the prominent figured in the Bible, and how many concubines did he have? try passing that off in a fundi church. IT'S BIBLICAL!!!

the manner with which we treat our texts is fundamentally crucial to our own theologies and philosophies. from this discussion, it's apparent to me that there really doesn't exist much of a consensus among Christians as to HOW we read Scripture. and with the protestant reformation, it's basically opened the floodgates for any joe-schmoe to start a new church based on his understanding of Scripture as guided by the "Holy Spirit". this, in my opinion, is one of the strongest arguing points as to why we ought to make more efforts to reintegrate back into the Catholic & Orthodox Church. but that's a different issue.

point is: there are good and bad ways to read Scripture. i do not believe that we can just read Scripture "AS IS" and then directly apply it (maybe in some limited circumstances). it seems to me that one of the best ways to read scripture is for it to be done within a community, measured against all those who have come before us. that seems like a good way to step forward...

james said...

KP you said, "point is: there are good and bad ways to read Scripture. i do not believe that we can just read Scripture "AS IS" and then directly apply it (maybe in some limited circumstances). it seems to me that one of the best ways to read scripture is for it to be done within a community, measured against all those who have come before us. that seems like a good way to step forward..."

I'll raise a pint to that.

*Lifts a pint of Imperial Stout*

Mike Murrow said...

yeah, no doubt about it bros.

and as far as the community and interpretation i couldn't agree more. in my reading of history it has always been the larger body of believers that spoke to those who would have went off with there own interpretations of scripture.

the thing is about the way i define inerrancy is that yes it may differ from the fundies you have met but it is directly out of the reformed tradition. that is how the reformed tradition understands inerrancy. i pretty much paraphrased what i have always been taught about inerrancy... that it is a matter of faith (but not unreasonable) that it is only the autographs, not the copies and the second, sepparate issue of translation - wooden literal vs contextual the reformers read it in its context which means the history around the text, the form of the text (poetry etc) and in light of what we now know about the world. that is why you don't hear many reformed folk crying about creationism - some do but they are still learning the reformed way of understanding the scripture.

kidpositive said...

good discussion.

*lifts a newcastle as james grimaces*

Mike Murrow said...

no doubt

(lifts... runs to firdge to get a Molson... lifts a molson)

thanks for starting the discussion, i feel like i learned a lot from both of you.

Dones said...

Excellent discussion. I hope to start something on my own blog, but to answer KP's original question, I think that some Jews are fighting the evolution/ID/creation fight, but aren't getting the attention. Aside from those people, it appears to me that Jews feel they have more pressing concerns than what is taught in schools, similar to the majority of Christians.