Pim wrote:
> The court is not in the business of promoting the Truth or the Gospel.
> Therefor, from a perspective of justice, the ruling was well rooted in
> precendent and legal practice.
>
No it is not, that is my point. Even if the decision was correct, a more
narrow decision would have been more favorable to the Gospel, so the broad
decision that was given is not something that we as believers should be
praising.
Pim wrote:
> The idea of a balanced treatment has also failed to withstand judicial
> scrutiny for good reasons, it intended to promote a (Christian) religious
> idea.
> Since science is often confused with materialistic worldview, I'd argue
> that such a position does an additional disservice to those who reject
> evolution as materialistic. I am presently reading an excellent book by
> Keith B Miller "Perspectives on an evolving creation" with chapters by
> many ASA members who show that science need to contradict with religion
> and vice versa. In fact, the chapters not only present compelling
> theological arguments but also compelling evidence why evolution is
> strongly supported by such "Icons" as the Cambrian explosion, transitional
> fossils, biochemistry, and genetics. All in all a book well worth reading.
But those "good reasons" are cultural and judicial reasons not biblical
ones. Yes those who wanted to push ID in Dover did it sloppily, and their
actions were a "sham" in the sense that they were dishonest about their
intentions. But that doesnt make all of the precedents in decisions
regarding religion in schools just. Have you ever thought that perhaps the
judiciary is interpreting the first amendment in ways the authors never
intended?
Received on Mon Jan 2 20:01:46 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 02 2006 - 20:01:46 EST