Secular purpose

[JMH ACLJ]

I begin with an apology to Eugene if this message is in any way a furtherance
of the controversy over whether the universe came into existence with or
without assistance.

R. Conrad Douglas wrote:

<< I know a thimbleful about biology and, as a third year law student, not
much more about law.  But as someone who holds a Ph.D. from the Department of
Religion, Claremont Graduate University (nee Claremont Graduate School), I do
know that a literalistic interpretation of Gen 1:1-2:4a or of 2:45-3:24 is
regarded by the very large majority of biblical scholars as just plain bad
exegesis and as doing violence to the  quite diverse ways in which the Hebrew
Bible (and New Testament, for that matter) describes divine creating.  I would
of course not oppose somebody's entertaining a literalistic interpretation in
their own meditations and would vigorously resist my kids being taught that
interpretation in school, if that meant they were expected to subscribe to
such an interpretation (as opposed to knowing that that interpretation
 exists in the universe of possible understandings).  "Creationism" goes
farther than simply believing in a personal Creator and is a code word for a
fundamentalistic interpretation (using "fundamentalistic" in a non-pejorative,
historical sense). >>

1.  As lawyers, we all know how important it is that we create, define and
limit admission to a specialty that we then work to convince others is of
extreme importance.

2.  It is no more convincing to me that "bible scholars" or "theologians" have
endeavoured in their fields to accomplish, albeit generally for less
remuneration, the same sort of self-aggrandizing creation of expertise.

3.  If you put all bible scholars on one side of a pan scale, and the New
Testament recountings of the lineage of Christ in the other, particularly one
shooting straight to Adam, which has more weight?

Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ