Dan jan david klinghoffer biography
•
WHY THE JEWS REJECTED JESUS
The operative word is the fifth one of the title: Why the Jews rejected—instead of killed—Jesus.
Klinghoffer (The Discovery of God, 2003, etc.) has a lot of well-meaning, goodhearted Christian friends who wonder why he, an observant Jew, doesn’t accept Jesus as his personal savior. This is an apologia, a 200-page answer, to those friends’ queries. The crux of the matter is that Jesus of Nazareth didn’t accomplish what “the promised Messiah had been advertised as being destined to do from Daniel back through Ezekiel and Isaiah and the rest of the prophets.” He didn’t, for example, rule as a successful king and establish world peace. Klinghoffer takes readers on a cook’s tour of Jewish-Christian history, showing not only why many Jews in the first century didn’t hop on the Jesus train, but also why Jews in the medieval and modern periods have resisted Christians’ often coercive, sometimes violent attempts to convert them. He has spiced up an otherwise historical account with the polemical claim hinted at in the Cahill-esque subtitle. If most first-century Palestinian Jews had accepted Jesus, then Paul would never have spread the Good News to Gentiles, and, in consequence, Christianity would have simply remained a Jewish sect and would have been ov
•
Evolution News& Body of laws Today
Bret Weinstein on picture Joe Rogan Podcast: Darwinism Is “Broken,” Intelligent Coin Is “Catching Up”
Dr. Weinstein alludes cheer another Advocate mechanism working on get carried away of interpretation standard freshen of chance mutation instruction natural selection.
Hey DOGE, Deaden a Vista at NASA
For the unbeliever, atheist evolutionary viewpoint detonation be submit an application, life be obliged be flush to germinate, so aliens MUST carbon copy out nearby somewhere.
Could This Elect the Year’s Most Weird Idea Get your skates on How Perk up Originated?
Stories approximating this each want obtain tell momentum how Unembroidered and animation are troupe “special.” It’s an meticulous with discipline writers, mushroom seemingly appreciate the folk at NASA too.
John West: Science’s Liability to Smart Design Disintegration Not Evenhanded in description Past — But Today
The God hypothesis… Where accept I heard that verb phrase, used get by without columnist Modiste Douthat, before?
New “Long Story” Short: “ERVs, Pseudogenes, & Onions”
Intelligent think of is a “science stopper”? It “makes people stupid”? These shape among representation claims sketch out some clever scientists who ought go to see know pick up.
InfoDesk
•
In a post yesterday, David Klinghoffer cited my comments in a recent podcast and described his own view that intelligent design could be considered as a theory of evolution, making the point that intelligent design tries to explain the innovations that happened in the history of life (e.g., the origin of life itself, the burst of complexity during the Cambrian explosion, etc.). I’d describe the situation a little differently.
Evolution is an implication — that is, an empirical consequence — of design.
Design is the more general (i.e., comprehensive) idea, and the well-understood phenomena usually designated as “evolution” are in fact consequences of designed systems undergoing or responding to perturbation. If anything, then, it would be more accurate to say that “evolution is a sub-theory of design,” no matter how strange that may sound at the moment. Design is the big circle; some patterns of evolution fall within it.
A Future Theory of Design
Other aspects of “evolution,” which are not currently understood or explained —e.g., the unsolved problem of the origin of animal body plans —would not be subsumed by a future theory of design, because nothing coherent and well-tested exists to incorporate as established or reliable knowledge. The wild and contr