|
|
|
I plan on discussing ID on my blog in the near future. |
|
Orthodox Jewish Periodicals have their issues that they like to write about over and over and issues that they never write about. Are you familiar with Image? It sometimes will take on issues that I wish Orthodox Jewish Publications took on. |
|
One point of view, Intelligent Design = It's Deism -- http://tzvee.blogspot.com/2005/1...-its-
deism.html |
|
Why does it matter? |
|
I think the reason is because there is no Torah position on evolution. That evolution is compatible with Torah has been proven conclusively. But the merits of the theory itself should be left to scientists. |
|
I may partially agree with David. |
|
Wow! I kind of overused the word "relatively." Sorry. |
|
I saw a lovely comment this week that in years past the esoteric partis of the Torah were discussed secretly, and handed on through on oral only tradition. Now the rational parts are - this chimed with Marc Shapiro's description of how is original article on the Ikkarim was handed round a Beis Medrash in a secret way. |
|
who needs periodicals when you have books, blogs, and pashkevilin? |
|
Gil excellent point; now bemaokom sheain ish.... |
|
Which Jewish periodicals would discuss this? Jewish Action? Tradition? Dos Yiddishe Vort? |
|
> I doubt that most Orthodox Jews, even the intellecutals, really understand what Intelligent Design is all about. |
|
Gil, I think it seems that ID speaks to you in some way, but I don't see why. Personally, I see it as an entirely silly debate. The question is whether life as we see it could have been the result of random mutation or needed some form of guidance. This is irrelevant to us as Jews, because even if you accept ID you are reinterpreting Bereishis in a novel way, and then there's really no point insisting that the world COULDN'T have been random - just that we think it WASN'T. I don't care if the math shows a world could have emereged randomly. I just don't think it actually did. |
|
Which Jewish periodicals would discuss this? Jewish Action? Tradition? |
|
Gil, I think it seems that ID speaks to you in some way, but I don't see why. |
|
The periodical of KAJ (not the bulletin; the one with essays, whose German name i can't remember at the moment) has an article about Intelligent Design. It quotes R'ShR"H (of course) on how evolution is fine, and talks about how Intelligent Design is the intrustion of religion on the scientific sphere. We shouldn't worry about it, since no matter how the present state of the world came about, we believe that God was behind it. |
|
I've noticed a troubling trend among Orthodox to defend ID as almost a reflexive way to defend anything the Christian Right says. Now, I agree with them on almost every social issue, but there's no need to see every one of their battles as ours. |
|
Gil, what is R' Slifkin's position? |
|
ID originally meant "I can show G-d made it, regardless of the 'how'". It's any attempt to do an "Argument by Design" using scientifically rigorous methodology. (Eg using automata or information theory, "irreducible complexity", etc...) |
|
Gil, you took a load off my mind. |
|
Micha, you can't disprove or prove it unless you prove or disprove that God exists, which can't be done. |
|
David Shatz has pointed out that issues relating to faith and reason, theology etc. are focused on far more in Christian education. For us, an issue like ID--which essentially concerns the question of the relative plausibility of a religious/teleological worldview--tends to get shunted aside in favor of the issues that preoccupy us, including the viability of highly specific Orthodox faith claims, the parameters of halakhic flexibility, etc. |
|
ID is theology, not science. |
|
I don't see ID as adding anything to our belief system. At best, it's a watered-down version of some things we assert. But I guess one could ask if ID could stimulate people skeptical of religion to seriously consider our belief system. |
|
Perhaps a post discussing the orthodox view/s on the place of religion in public schools is in order. That would be interesting. |
|
I agree that "Intelligent Design" is just a tool used in an attempt to introduce the Designer into a biology class. The concept certainly has theological and mystical appeal, but it is not an established scientific principle. I also agree that evolution is not necessarily incompatible with religion if the creation of Adam is treated as an exceptional occurrence (i.e., miraculous). The truth is that we know too little at this point about abiotic processes that could lead to a simple life form to be able to state that life could not have started spontaneously. |
|
These are good comments. The creationists distort science in the feeling that children who hear of evolution will feel they are just animals.But that is a non-sequiter ,for with ourlarge brains we reason to do what we ought,while the animals do not.The creationists with their lies harm morality in a false move to save it mistakenly from the effects of evolution on children.Reason,not fear of scientific findings,should quide us all. |
|
There's not much to discuss. The fundies will of course reject it. For everyone else, its the same deal as Evolution, i.e. no problem. The only reason for an MO Jew to distinguish between ID and regular Evolution is that ID gives you a bit more of a proof for God, by postulating that the odds of evolution are so impossible that God MUST have done it, whereas stam evolution doesn't require God to help with the process at all. |
|
ID gives no proof for God. ID is a conclusion, a belief. That's all. |
|
String theory in physics is just a theory that cannot be disproved. Is it not science? |
|
No. String theory is currently still philosophy. Find a way to test and validate it, and then we can call it science. |
|
Yes, I have the KAJ Journal from Pesach 5766/Spring 2006. It's called Mitteilungen/ Moreshes Tzvi. The Article is entitled Intelligent Design and written by Dr. Erich Erlbach with his concluding paragraph stating.." In summary, "ID" is of course incorporated into our understanding of nature. This is, however religion rather than science. Furthermore, we can believe that the "designer" employed methods consistent with science, even using the concept of random development in his design. There is therefore no reason to reject, out of hand, the facts of science. We can interpret them, for ourselves, on the basis of the guiding hand of Hashem. |
|
Yes, I agree that the exchange has been very good. Query Gil: have you received your May issue yet? I haven't. |
|
The last issue of the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists newsletter included an anti-evolution article by Rabbi Meyer Lubin: |
|
> I spoke with Rabbi Nachman Cohen, the AOJS Board Chairman, and he said he'd be happy to publish a response. Any takers? |
|
I suggest that Dr. Charles Hall, himself, respond to the tripe on evolution issued by the so-called Orthodox Jewish "scientists". This organization is a laughing stock, and has no reason for its further existence. |
|
Thanks for posting the same comment with which you just vandalized wikipedia's article. |
|
2 Visitors Online |
Commenting by HaloScan |
