Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Jews Say 'Feh' to Darwin

By Mariah Blake, Miami New Times. Posted January 4, 2006.


The Orthodox Jewish community clashes over intelligent design.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Mariah Blake

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

On a recent Tuesday evening, Moshe Tendler, an influential Orthodox rabbi and Yeshiva University biology professor, ambled onto the stage at Kovens Conference Center in North Miami. A stately figure with a wispy white beard and heavy glasses, he surveyed the 300-strong crowd of scientists and intellectuals -- most clad in yarmulkes and dark suits with tallith tassels dangling about their waists -- and urged them to spread the word that Darwin was wrong. "It is our task to inform the world [about intelligent design]," he implored. "Or the child growing up will grow up with unintelligent design Unintelligent design is our ignorance, our stupidity."

This may seem an unlikely message from a prominent Jewish biologist. After all, intelligent design theory -- which holds that life is too complex to be a fluke of evolution -- has been crafted primarily by evangelical Christians and spurned by most scientists.

But some Jewish leaders, like Tendler, have begun to quietly embrace the theory. And several of them went public with their support during the Sixth Miami International Conference on Torah and Science, which ran from Dec. 13 to 15 and was hosted by Florida International University's religious studies department, the Shul of Bal Harbour, and B'Or Ha'Torah journal of science. In an area with the second-highest concentration of Jews after New York -- there are 113,000 in Miami-Dade alone -- the event attracted about 1,000 Jewish researchers, intellectuals, teachers and students. There was also one prominent evangelical: Intelligent design luminary William Dembski was among the event's featured speakers.

The conversation proved divisive. Tendler kicked off the conference by attacking the idea that complex life could flow from "random evolution." "That is irrational," he said.

As soon as Tendler finished speaking, biologist Sheldon Gottlieb rushed to one of two microphones perched in the aisles. "We all know evolution is not random," he grumbled. "It goes through the filter of natural selection You cannot use those arguments with this audience." Tendler and Gottlieb sparred for about five minutes. Meanwhile, long lines began to form at the mikes. But the moderator cut the question-and-answer session short and sent the crowd home.

Dembski, a slender man in a tweed blazer and a forest green oxford shirt, spoke the following morning, and more than 400 people packed in to see him. Besides Jewish scientists and intellectuals, the crowd included students from the Hebrew Academy and the Lubavitch Educational Center, as well as a busload of girls from Orthodox Beis Chana School, who arrived with Pumas and Nikes tucked beneath their ankle-length skirts.

Much of Dembski's talk concentrated on the evidence of design in nature. He offered the classic example of the tiny flagella that bacteria use to propel themselves through their environment. "They can spin at 100,000 rpm," Dembski marveled. "And then in a quarter-turn, they're spinning the other direction. Imagine if a blender could do that Is it such a stretch to think a real engineer was involved?"

After about 45 minutes, Dembski wrapped up his talk, and dozens of attendees swarmed the microphones again, many of them eager to air their objections. "Our speaker has fuzzied the main issue," complained Nathan Aviezar, who teaches physics at Bar Ilan University in Israel. "The whole enterprise of science is to explain life without invoking supernatural explanations. Intelligent design is not science, it's religion, and it shouldn't be taught in science class."


Digg!

Mariah Blake is a staff writer for the Miami New Times.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
religious wackos
Posted by: Doubtom on Jan 3, 2006 8:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All religion is bullshit , why wouldn't that include jews?

One question--Why is it that religions aren't satisfied to remain within the confines of the church or synagogue? Weren't we all happier then?

Until we start teaching calculus or science in churches or synagogues you can keep your religious crap out of our schools.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: religious wackos Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: religious wackos Posted by: jwg
» RE: religious wackos Posted by: No BS
» RE: religious wackos Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: religious wackos Posted by: mejsmith
» RE: religious wackos Posted by: hotar
» RE: religious wackos Posted by: Roverton
» RE: religious wackos Posted by: pomes
» RE: religious wackos Posted by: fernandoxu
» I vote Separation! Posted by: BillC
» RE: religious wackos Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: religious wackos Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: religious wackos Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: religious wackos Posted by: shannonwhite
» RE: religious wackos Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: religious wackos Posted by: waldencrabtree
» RE: religious wackos Posted by: treat2
Not a theory.
Posted by: secular on Jan 3, 2006 8:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come on, Mariah, show some scientific knowledge. ID is not a theory, it is an untested and probably untestable, hypothesis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not a theory. Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Not a theory. Posted by: secular
» RE: Not a theory. Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Not a theory. Posted by: Lizka
loosing their grip
Posted by: Urstrly on Jan 3, 2006 9:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So next they'll turn their backs on Spinoza? And Einstein? It's hard to believe that a religion which has given rise to some of the world's most brilliant scientists would abandon science itself. But their are reasons why people shun Orthodoxy, just as Protestant Christians often shun Fundamentalism. You'll never convince me that the theory of evolution is any threat to God.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» lost their grip Posted by: jwg
» RE: loosing their grip Posted by: bgroat
» RE: loosing their grip Posted by: slav
» RE: loosing their grip Posted by: paco
B Jammin
Posted by: BJammin on Jan 3, 2006 9:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is profoundly sad is that the people who want to abandon Darwin in favor of such tripe as ID always cite "randomness" as the feature of Darwinian evolution that makes it "impossible" as an explanation for the marvels of biological systems. This of course reveals their total lack of understanding as to what Darwinian evolution is in the first place. (This is certainly not surpising. After all, Ayatollah Khomeini rendered a death fatwa on Salman Rushdie without ever having read "The Satanic Verses," and the same type of ignorance is at work here.) The results of Darwinian evolution are not really random; it is DNA mutations that are the random events. As someone else pointed out, those "random" events are then filtered through the process of "natural selection," so that only those mutations which contribute to success become "selected" to be passed on to future offsrping; those that are detrimental (which are most), lead to nowhere, or worse. The results of the "selected mutations," which manifest themselves over very lengthy periods and large populations, lead to the amazing diversity and functonality of biological systems. The problem with science seems to be that we are simply not doing a good enough job of teaching Darwinian evolution in the first place. Of course those who criticize it the loudest understand it the least, and unfortunately (still) do not want to!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: B Jammin Posted by: Paxmana
» RE: B Jammin Posted by: Siciliana
» RE: B Jammin Posted by: mazur
» RE: B Jammin Posted by: Roverton
» Scared of Science Posted by: decembrist
» RE: B Jammin Posted by: wolfcry
» RE: B Jammin Posted by: Paxmana
» RE: B Jammin Posted by: morticia
» RE: B Jammin Posted by: wolfcry
» RE: B Jammin Posted by: Paxmana
» RE: B Jammin Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: B Jammin Posted by: Paxmana
» RE: B Jammin Posted by: wolfcry
» RE: B Jammin Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: B Jammin Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: B Jammin Posted by: Lizka
» RE: B Jammin Posted by: Lizka
» RE: B Jammin Posted by: Lizka
» RE: B Jammin Posted by: Lizka
» RE: B Jammin Posted by: Roverton
» RE: B Jammin Posted by: treat2
» RE: B Jammin Posted by: yellow
Monty Python's flying sheep
Posted by: Xjy on Jan 4, 2006 1:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This report was written as if the jury is still out on the scientific character of ID. It never needed to be out in the real world (hokum is hokum), and it isn't even out in the fantasy world of the US legal system any longer. ID is *unscientific* and *antiscientific*.
Which is why reactionaries and obscurantists of all persuasions flock to it. Some of them well-dressed and impressively titled.
It's all like the farmer watching his sheep leaping from trees in the Monty Python sketch.
Reporter: "But they don't so much fly, as plummet."
(sound effect of plummeting sheep....)
Farmer: "Ah, but think if the amazing commercial possibilities if they succeed!"
In the present case, not so much commercial as ideological. Irrationality in indisputable control of the minds of the young.
Rasputin rules!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Monty Python's flying sheep
Posted by: Xjy on Jan 4, 2006 1:09 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This report was written as if the jury is still out on the scientific character of ID. It never needed to be out in the real world (hokum is hokum), and it isn't even out in the fantasy world of the US legal system any longer. ID is *unscientific* and *antiscientific*.
Which is why reactionaries and obscurantists of all persuasions flock to it. Some of them well-dressed and impressively titled.
It's all like the farmer watching his sheep leaping from trees in the Monty Python sketch.
Reporter: "But they don't so much fly, as plummet."
(sound effect of plummeting sheep....)
Farmer: "Ah, but think if the amazing commercial possibilities if they succeed!"
In the present case, not so much commercial as ideological. Irrationality in indisputable control of the minds of the young.
Rasputin rules!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

as a Jew....
Posted by: jfreed on Jan 4, 2006 1:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm kind of ashamed to hear about fellow Jews who support intelligent design. For nearly two thousand years, Jews have embraced the idea that the Torah/Bible is meant to be taken as symbolism rather than literally. That's why we have the Talmud (Rabbinical commentary on the Torah), the Midrashim (allegories meant to explain Biblical themes), and Kabbalah (a school of mysticism that aims to bring out the hidden messages in the Torah). I think all this can be summed up in Rabbi Hillel's teaching "What is hateful to you, do not do to any other person. That is the whole Torah, all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it." If a Rabbi who lived two thousand years ago understood that the Torah is a code of ethics, rather than a historical account of how the world was created, surely modern-day Jews can understand that as well.

On the other hand, I am relieved that the Orthodox community is debating the issue, rather than pushing one particular viewpoint. Debate (read: disagreement) over religious and ethical principles is a cornerstone of Judaism.

Finally, I'd like to say that I think many people misinterpret exactly what is being debated, particularly those who support the notion of intelligent design. The debate is not about whether intelligent design is "true", but rather whether it should be taught in science classrooms. There is a MAJOR difference there. No one will ever be able to prove whether or not intelligent design is "true", as it is a matter of faith. This is precisely why it should not be taught in science classes and there is no way to make a valid argument against that statement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: as a Jew.... Posted by: Bigteam
» RE: as a Jew.... Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: as a Jew.... Posted by: Roverton
» RE: as a Jew.... Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: as a Jew.... Posted by: Arolem
» RE: as a Jew.... Posted by: Doubtom
» "Most of the jews I know are atheists" Posted by: AdamSelene11726
» RE: as a Jew.... Posted by: treat2
» RE: as a Jew.... Posted by: afrothetics
Scientists must take some of the rap...
Posted by: Colin on Jan 4, 2006 2:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...for the way in which evolution has been presented. Take this line in the article: '...intelligent design theory -- which holds that life is too complex to be a fluke of evolution.'

To my mind, by focusing on the fluke - the random mutation aspect - you are denying an equally important part of the theory - the practicalities. Surely it's inevitable that if people are constantly told evolution is a 'fluke' they are bound to throw up doubts. After all, we are very complicated beings.

By focusing on the random mutation you negate to mention the vast amount of time involved in evolving. If instead of thinking of it as random mutation, think of it as trial and error played out on a massive scale over a period of billions years.
Now, when I think about random mutations taking place against a backdrop of, and I'll say this again, billions of years, with life for the winners and death to the losers, the idea that living things are incredibly complicated, efficient survival machines not only stops being implausible but, indeed, feels inevitable. You can almost see the family tree of all life forms ever to have lived and, if you do, you'll notice literal millions of dead branches for every one that continues on. To say evolution is just a fluke negates the memory of all those creatures who died trying to live.

Further, if I was to psychoanalyse the piece, you would have to say the most telling line is spoken by Sholom Lipskar when he says: "If it's accidental, then what's the point? But if there's design, we're here for a reason."

This is the reality of Intelligent Design and perhaps ‘God’ themselves. Lipskar is, without wanting to be blunt, in it for himself. He is not dedicated to truth, whatever that may be. He is satisfying his own emotions first and foremost by giving himself what he perceives as an opportunity for peace. That wouldn’t be a bad thing, if he accepted he can only satisfy himself by such a conclusion. Personal peace is a subjective experience, a fact is universal. It is because of this universality of facts that we value them so highly and for this reason we should abandon teaching religion as fact. They may be noted Jewish scholars but, in my opinion, they should stop being so selfish and learn to accept the truth, whether they want to believe it or not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: adaptation Posted by: hotar
Serious question
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Jan 4, 2006 3:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A question that has always bothered me, but not enough to do any research on, is this. Is a colony of bees, or any colony of insects that has a queen, made up entirely of clones?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Serious question Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: Serious question Posted by: Roverton
» RE: Serious question Posted by: Roverton
» RE: Serious question Posted by: treat2
The ID textbook
Posted by: bgroat on Jan 4, 2006 4:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Page 1:

Come on, couldn't there POSSIBLY be a god?


Page 2:

Seriously, don't ya think there COULD be?


Page 3:

'Cause, you know, I don't understand how biology works, and saying God did it is just so much easier than, you know, RESEARCH.

Discussion Questions

1. Isn't saying God did it easier than studying biology and physics? Explain.

2. Could you come up with an actual textbook for ID that actually does more than plead ignorance about the natural world and offer God as a copout? Explain.

3. Is the existence of Intelligent Design Theory actually the best argument AGAINST an Intelligent Designer? Discuss.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The ID textbook Posted by: cuja1
» RE: The ID textbook Posted by: treat2
ID is for the masses, I suspect.
Posted by: Bigteam on Jan 4, 2006 4:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Sholom Lipskar personifies the appeal of ID to the masses with his statement:"If it's accidental, then what's the point? But if there's design, we're here for a reason". In other words, the absurdity of our existence( viz. Sartre, Camus et al.) is too unbearable for the masses, they need something which provides or entails purpose, hence the appeal of ID.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Crap
Posted by: karyse on Jan 4, 2006 6:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuts! And I now have lost my last faith in Jews as well. I have always been impressed that Judaism produced so many great thinkers who could put aside the god thing in order to study the world as it is.

And it makes me insane when anyone says things are too complicated for god NOT to exist. The opposite is the case. If there were a god we could all be animated gumbys. Whenever punishment became necessary he/she could just make an arm or leg fall off -- why mess around with using complicated cancers and weird auto immune difficiencies?

One more point: If god can be eternal, what makes it so problematic that the earth can be millions of years old?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Crap Posted by: Arolem
» RE: Crap Posted by: Ahimsa
» mea culpa Posted by: karyse
» RE: Crap Posted by: treat2
More evo examples, the complexity argument
Posted by: Drclaw on Jan 4, 2006 6:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Other examples of evolution-insect resistance to pesticides. The number of pesticides to which insects are resistant to has gone up tenfold (to around 50-I think) in the last 20-30 years as pesticide use has increased. Often called the pesticide treadmill, it means we have to think of different (often more toxic, expensive) means to kill things. Same reasons for rapid evolution in bacteria; animals that breed quickly, in large numbers, combined with a powerful incentive to adapt. If that's still too small, Peter and Rosemary Grant have observed large changes in beak size in Darwin's finches (the canonical example of evolution, where beak size and shape is a distinguishing feature of different species, and allows species to eat different types of seeds). Beak size may change 10% per generation (2 years). If that doesn't sound like a lot, average height of humans probably hasn't changed that much in th last 1000 years.
As a side note, the IDers attempt to minimize the importance of these changes because they happen within species as opposed to leading to new species (micro- vs macroevolution) and they do not consider complex traits (e.g. flagella) that to them, requirer a designer. Total bs of course, but that brings me to the evolution of complex traits.
The structure of the IDers central point here is that something so complex as an eye, or wing or flagella cannot have evolved all at once, without a designer. The logical flaw is that it need not evolve all at once, of course. They eye or wing is a product of many small(ish) steps, where at each stage, the structure is advantageous, but maybe not in the same way as in the final product. Eyes started out as sheets of pigments just designed to sense light/dark, then became elaborated into more refined structures. These many small steps do not require the final structure to be designed de novo, as is implicit in the IDers arguments. Its like saying the space shuttle must have been designed by God because its so complex-it ignores every thing from Von Braun to the present. Going forward is not the same as looking back (which is what the IDers only do).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Feh on Obfuscation!
Posted by: Alan Sharavsky on Jan 4, 2006 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before I kvetch, let me kvell. I love your publication, a wise and witty presentation of what used to be a centrist viewpoint that the right has radicalized and "liberalized". However, in your zeal to brief and clever, your headline was completely misleading. Jews in general DO NOT endorse Intelligent Design. Orthodox Jews may, and perhaps not all of them. Most of my Jewish friends – and I – see Intelligent Design as the religious right's Trojan Horse, to slip their theology (creationism) into the classroom. It's not surprising that another fundamentalist branch backs ID. And that's their prerogative. But your headline is a blatant misstatement, as to be sensational. I expect better from the news source that is supposed present a balanced and factual point of view, albeit from the left side of the window. Get it right next time!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Feh on Obfuscation! Posted by: gary_7vn
» RE: Feh on Obfuscation! Posted by: mark
» RE: Feh on Obfuscation! Posted by: Arolem
» RE: Feh on Obfuscation! Posted by: treat2
ID unscientific?
Posted by: bgeerdes on Jan 4, 2006 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ID is unscientific? It's untestable? Sure. Just about as unscientific and untestable as the idea that there is not a designer, which plenty of secular evolutionists feel free saying. Relax, everyone, ID is not the end of the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ID unscientific? Posted by: Paul D
» RE: ID unscientific? Posted by: pomes
» RE: ID unscientific? Posted by: treat2
Tornado in a junkyard....
Posted by: dikaiosyne on Jan 4, 2006 7:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You proponents of Darwinism are really blinded by your religious fervor for this discredited theory. The ID folks have a better basis for their arguments than you Darwinists for yours. You have no reasonable explanations for the lack of transitional fossils. You have no arguments for "irreducible complexity" and development of the bio-organism. The mathematical computations of the chances of 10's of thousands of flora and fauna developing simultaneously over a mere 4 billion years (assuming that is how old the earth is) has been calculated as so great as to be impossible. In fact there is a greater (mathematically speaking) chance of a tornado going through a junk yard and leaving in it's wake a fully assembled 747 with a full flight crew than for Darwin's speculations to be true. Then again this will have no impact on you followers of Darwin because his theories validate your religious beliefs. That being the religion of humanism and in humanism there can be no G/D except man himself. Darwin gave you the road to follow and wide is the way that leads to........you can fill in the blank.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Tornado in a junkyard.... Posted by: Iconoclast421
» Legend in your lunchtime. Posted by: Colin
Not evolution vs. Id, but evolution and ID: science and religion
Posted by: Thinker on Jan 4, 2006 8:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Intelligent Design is a claim without scientific proof that there is an intelligence behind life. It is a belief. It is a religious belief. Evolution is a theory which has moved from hypothesis to theory after much examination and observation by scientists.

I see no antagonism between the two ideas. One is a religious teaching which should be presented in the religion classes at religious schools, or in churches, synagogues, mosques or other meeting places of religious denominations. Evolution should be studied in biology classes.

I believe one of the purposes of man is to utilize his mind to understand as much about creation as possible. This means he must use all methods of learning, science, theology, cosmology, philosophy, etc. In this pursuit it is sometimes important to designate which discipline is being followed. At present, there seems to be confusion between the discipline of science and religion or theology. One is not more important than the other. One isn't more valid than the other. Each can contribute to man's understanding of creation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why this discussion at all?
Posted by: Ahimsa on Jan 4, 2006 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a religious person, it bothers me tremendously to see that some folks out there have the urgent need to prove that God exists and that He is behind all of reality.
This obsession is what seems most absurd to me, since when belief needs proof? This seems idiotic and a waste of time and energy to me. I understand that politicos, wether christain or jewish fundamentalists push it for the sake of political gain of some sort. The religious want their old political power back. Sorry, I may be jaded or by natural selection developed x-ray eyes that allow me to see right through bullshit, but I just don't buy this at all. Watch out folks, don't be fooled, this ID argument is Intelligently Designed to capitalize on our most transcendental existential fears and our irrational side for political gain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

#1Genesis and #2 Rapture
Posted by: alternetleslie on Jan 4, 2006 8:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
#1 In Genesis, on the first day, God separated the light from the darkness. Even when I was a kid on my own I knew this story had to be a metaphor, simple because there was no spinning earth to define one day. Could a day be a billion years long, not unlike the length of ages in the Hindu and Sihk tradition. Look carefully, at this myth, every civilization has creation myths; humans need to know their origins to be content. They tell of how things changed in the past to become the way they are now. No where does it say the waters or the earth was created by God. God merely separates the waters, but no word on creating the waters. God merely separates the land from the waters, but no where creates the land. Isn't it interesting that the fish in the sea, going back to separating the waters, are before the land animals, just like the theory of evolution. Isn't is interesting that the other mammals were created before human beings, just like the theory of evolution? Could it be that God, the Creator, loves to play and create and has been using evolution as a tool experimenting with his medium: living beings? Afterall, God, the Intelligent Designer, can control atoms of the Universe, like those in DNA and has endless time to create and experiment and design. With so many kinds of insects, birds, cats, viruses, fish, monkeys, this creator loves variety. Why would this kind of Creator, spend a mere 6 days, in human terms, 144 hours and then rest forever from creating new life forms? Maybe God just moved on to another solar system? Why can't both theories be close to the Truth? Why can't an Intelligent Designer use evolution to create? Is the world flat?

See #2 Rapture in a comment below.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: #1Genesis and #2 Rapture Posted by: Roverton
#2 Rapture
Posted by: alternetleslie on Jan 4, 2006 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
#2 Rapture is what will happen, Fundamenalists Christians believe, when Jesus returns. All the good Fundamentalist Christians will experience this rapture and float up to Heaven to God and leave everyone else behind. (Sounds like Bush's Leave No Child Behind Act for education, because his staff picked that to get the Fundamentalist Christian vote. There is a series of books with a title like that, which has sold millions, all about the Rapture. See Amazon.com) But according to their belief, this will not happen until other events occur. A Satan figure will pretend to be the leader from God for peace, but will start wars, (sound familiar) then Jesus has to come and fight him and win. But that is not all. According to them all the Jews have to return to Israel and then be converted to Christianity. So when you hear about Fundamentalist Christians sending money to help Jews return to Israel and to support Israel, remember movement toward Rapture is their goal. Super Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist both take scripture literally and as the Word of God. They have much in common in that way. However, Fundamentalist Christians, as well as other Christians, believe the Jewish faith is surpassed by Christianity and Christians are the New and Improved Israel. If the Jews believe Christians are helping Israel out of compassion and love, think again, because all through history, they would gladly get rid of all non-converting Jews, like slaughtering whole towns of Jews on the way to Jerusalem during the Crusades. Catholic Hitler was not excommunicated by the Pope who was in view of the concentration camp from the Vatican. Pope John Paul ll converted the dead and buried Jews in Auschwitz and put up a huge cross. No, Jews, do not be fooled.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: #2 Rapture Posted by: Ahimsa
» RE: #2 Rapture Posted by: treat2
Could It Be?
Posted by: daross on Jan 4, 2006 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Might it just be that the cultural construction we call religion, similar to the construct we call science, is a complex socio-biological feature of Darwinian selection processes at work within the human species?

Like so many other human cultural constructs (art, music, politics) they all create conditions that enable some to survive better than others. So, though all this concern about Intelligent Design is underdstandable --since it has nothing to do with the study or progress of science-- it is also seems clear to me that the consideration of all of our understanding can be framed within the context of a particular belief system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Could It Be? Posted by: treat2
Dembski and the Design Institute
Posted by: AdamSelene11726 on Jan 4, 2006 9:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have never been able to decide if the Discovery Institute is an organ of neoconservative political movement, or a parasite that feeds on it -- if Dembski is a sincere crank, or a opportunist with a self-created academic niche and a gift for campus politics

In any event he and the Institute have had ten years and more to

1) Devise some lesson plans for teaching ID in a classroom. But, testimony in the latest Dover NJ case reveals not only that they have not done so, but also that they have no intention of doing so any time soon. Instead, they endorse the pre-existing Creationist text "People and Pandas" text edited to global replace 'creation' with 'intelligent design.'

2) Develop and publish some expansion on Dembski's original "Irreducable Complexity" mathematics. While ninth graders can't really be expected to follow the mathematical argument ... graduate math majors can -- and to this point the sort of people who have obsessed on the provability of Fermat's Theorum and every other mathematical puzzle and conundrum that comes there way, are not particularly impressed, intrigued, or curious about Dembski's equations.

The Discovery Institute agenda is political, not scientific or philosophical -- and their sincerity is highly questionable. What is indisputable is their announced opposition to teaching "Materialist Science" in public schools.

No wonder:

Teaching 'Science' inclulcates a habit of skepticism and inquiry. Scientifically minded people constantly ask themselves, 'how do I know what I think I know, and why do I believe it." So, it's hard to persuade them that "Saddam has Weapons of Mass Distruction and intends to share them with The Terrorists" without some tangible evidence.

But faith-based thinkers are easily satisfied with the line of reasoning that goes: "The President is a charming and honorable man who says "Sadddam-Terrorists-WMDs, Must-invade-Iraq" ... and since noone can prove there AREN'T WMD-Terrorists-Anthrax-Smallpox-Yellowcake -- QED: we MUST invade Iraq.

Or put another way: if you're innocent you want a jury of Scientists -- they won't convict without proof. If you're guilty, you want a jury of Intelligent Design Theorists -- if they like your lawyer, they'll acquit you IN SPITE of any proof.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I checked the website ... Posted by: AdamSelene11726
Dare to Evolve
Posted by: wiesen on Jan 4, 2006 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you are someone who believes in your innate ability to change the way you see the universe, if you are able to adopt a world view in a sea of complexity, then you are evolving. There's no social organization – church, ethnic group, tribe, President, political party, etc. – that can do the work for you.

Religious leaders seldom match their religious beliefs with a firm understanding of scientific endeavors. However, there are a few rare individuals with have an understanding of complex systems and who are willing to examine the metaphysical (before physics) stream of thought as it informs experience.

To the religious brethren, who probably don't contribute to Alternet, we might encourage them to read George Ellis. The Rigid Right may then put down their swords and maintain proper sequencing of information using the frontal lobes of the brain. In the meantime we can talk in metaphor about the music of the spheres as well as the laws of physics, but not in the same breath.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dare to Evolve Posted by: treat2
religious wackos
Posted by: patsy6 on Jan 4, 2006 10:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of these posts just prove that the antireligious portion of the left wing can be just as intolerant as those "religious wackos" in the right wing, sometimes more so. Pardon the expression, but let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Look in the mirror, antireligious left wingers. You won't find much tolerance there.

I am a left wing person of faith. Faith is just that, faith. It is not science. Intelligent Design is based on faith, and should not be taught in public school science classes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: religious wackos Posted by: Asmodeus
» RE: religious wackos Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: religious wackos Posted by: wolfcry
» RE: religious wackos Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: religious wackos Posted by: Roverton
» RE: religious wackos Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: religious wackos Posted by: treat2
What the debate is really about
Posted by: bptort on Jan 4, 2006 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The debate is certainly not about evolution but about metaphysics. Science has one metaphysical dogma: "Nature is not teleological" (nature doesn't have a purpose) and a corollary: "To physical phenomena a physical explanation" (for physical effects, physical causes). Both of them make up the materialist view which is what most proponents of ID oppose. The question is: Why have these dogmas at all?, why not be truly committed with truth and be open to whatever explanation we come up with and not just limit ourselves with materialistic explanations? The answer is Progress. The materialistic outlook ecourages the most research. If I were, as a biologist, to begin with the notion that life is the product of the creative abilities of an intelligent designer, there would not be much more to find out because I would have already found the cause of the phenomena in question and research would be trivial, at best. On the other hand, if I begin with the premise that the natural world has no purpose, and I also have evidence of highly complex systems like the human brain, then I would be inclined to come up with a hypothesis to try to explain the order or the natural world, and come up with ways to contrast our hypothesis with experience (with what there actually IS). My point is supported by the lack of evidence or research presented by the ID side of this debate. The ID group (I'm thinking about Behe and Dembski), has instead focused on criticizing Darwinism and have avoided presenting ID as a truly scientific theory.
Imagine what the state of our knowledge would be if the following were an acceptable scientific explanation: "Members of the American Acamdemy of Sciences, I have discovered that when bacteria enter the bloodstream of a human organism a miracle happens (God intervenes) and we get sick. Thank you." Imagine that instead of in front of the AAS it is in front of a jury that is supposed to determine whether you commited a murder or not. "Ladies and gentelmen of the jury, I know the defendant is guilty because the death seems too complex to have been accidental, therefore it must have been a murder". There is not one of the poponents of ID that would not ask for an appeal if tried for murder and accussed on such flimsy "evidence".
The contrast between these two outlooks is WHAT IS understood by the notion of EVIDENCE. And what is at stake is not just what we understand about science, but the basis of our judicial system as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anyone who says evolution is "discredited"
Posted by: esactun on Jan 4, 2006 10:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is lying. It simply hasn't been. Not by any serious biologists who don’t have a religious agenda. There simply is no dispute about evolution among the knowledgeable. That a bunch of loonies and faux scholars loudly claim that evolution is discredited does not mean that it has been—it only means that a bunch of loonies and faux scholars say it has been. For whatever that’s worth.

I could loudly declaim that invisible squid orbit Venus. I could construct a nearly airtight argument to support this point. I could get thousands of people to say astonomy is discredited and that all who oppose our views are dogmatic and bigoted. But none of that would make giant squid orbit Venus if they're not there. Ditto for Iraqi WMDs.

ID is the pseudo-science variant of the Goebbels/Bush Big Lie technique--keep repeating the same of shit, scare the people with laughable lies most of them are too ignorant to evaluate, and, eventually, at least half the populace will believe you.

ID is also the end of science, progress, and the Enlig