Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Orthodox Jews in S. Florida join debate on evolution vs. intelligent design
Sun Sentinel ^ | December 12, 2005 | James D. Davis

Posted on 12/13/2005 8:47:24 AM PST by Dichroic

Evangelical Christians aren't the only ones making evolution and intelligent design a cause célèbre: Leading Orthodox Jews have the topic in their sights as well -- some of them gathering for a three-day conference this week in South Florida.

At least two area Jewish groups have booked heavy hitters to discuss the issues this month. And, they say, Jews have a stake in the outcome.

Intelligent design holds that some structures of life -- such as blood clotting or the flagella of some microbes -- are so complex, they could not have developed without a purposeful designer.

"This is one of the cutting-edge issues of the culture wars," said religion professor Nathan Katz of Florida International University, a co-organizer of the conference. "The basic question is: Is God there?"

......... Starting Tuesday at FIU's North Miami campus, the International Conference on Torah & Science will muster 30 experts from the United States, Israel, Canada and South Africa. Their specialties are as varied as Kabbalah and solar research. They'll cover topics as diverse as food production and religious law.

.......

Ask Rabbi Sholom Lipskar, one of the conference organizers, about the topic, and he sounds much like a conservative Christian.

"The moral and ethical morass today -- hate among nations, juvenile delinquency, drug addiction, family breakdown -- comes from people not believing there is a higher authority that owns and directs the world," said Lipskar, of The Shul of Bal Harbour. "But when we look to purpose and meaning, a superior authority, things fall into place, socially and spiritually."

(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: antievolution; creation; darwin; evangelicals; evolution; god; id; intelligentdesign; moralabsolutes; orthodox; orthodoxjews; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 last
To: Dichroic

Religious people think science somehow destroys their faith... doesn't sound like they have faith to begin with.


81 posted on 12/13/2005 6:42:36 PM PST by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
No copy. Genesis has a very different take on creation than Babylonian/Egyptian mythology, because it is montheistic.

Perhaps there was a slight bit of revision, embellishing, misinterpretation, misremembering, misunderstanding, manipulation, folding, spindling, mutilating, etc., between circa 2000-1500 B.C. and the late 8th century B.C., when the creation story that became Genesis was finally captured as written word thanks to the development of the Hebrew alphabet.

Not to mention that even as late as that the Israelites still maintained a pantheon of deities led by El-ohim, the god of gods.

And that doesn't even get into its tumultuous journey from then until it was revised, refined, edited, and selected to be included in the newly conceptualized idea of a bible by Bishop Eusebius of Caesaria during the 4th century A.D., and then compiled and translated by Bishop Jerome of Dalmatia about a decade later into the finished product: A political tool for the Roman Emperor Constantine.

But from that point on, I'll grant you that we can be assured that the creation story in Genesis has maintained its monotheist storyline.

82 posted on 12/13/2005 6:57:43 PM PST by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Can creationists come up with an argument that isn't predicated upon a logical fallacy. In this case it's an appeal to a strawman.

Your attempt at ridicule is weak, as are the arguments for evolution.

83 posted on 12/13/2005 7:01:45 PM PST by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Dichroic
Gerald Schroeder, The Science Of God
84 posted on 12/13/2005 7:12:51 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antonello

Given your lack of documentation, this is all a stretch. Why not just say that the Israelites reinterpreted the story in the light of a new insight or, if you will concede, the revelation of a creator God who cares for his people. If there is any consistent story line in the Bible it is that of a people whose identity is establisheded by disentangling themselves from the mythology of the other peoples of the religion. Only the religion of the Persians follows such a progressive path , unless we include the theology of the Greek Philosophers, so we find them converging and conflicting by the time of Christ.


85 posted on 12/13/2005 7:27:46 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Dichroic

later pingout.


86 posted on 12/13/2005 7:39:12 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Given your lack of documentation, this is all a stretch.

Maybe you're right. Maybe this is all a stretch. Of course if you want to know for sure, you could spend a handful of years studying the subject from a historical and archaeological viewpoint.

87 posted on 12/13/2005 7:40:28 PM PST by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: sagar
Religious people think science somehow destroys their faith... doesn't sound like they have faith to begin with.>>>

Some religious people surely feel that way, but only one religious person I know feels threatened by science.

My friends on the other hand, they're either Catholic or Episcopalian or Buddhist or Reformed Jewish and have no problem with science.

And see no conflict betwixt the two.

88 posted on 12/13/2005 7:49:03 PM PST by Dichroic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
Your attempt at ridicule is weak

Ridicule? I was making a statement of fact.

as are the arguments for evolution.

Example of a weak argument for evolution and explanation as to why it is weak?
89 posted on 12/13/2005 8:19:10 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Antonello
The Bible is the largest set of documents that have survived the past three thousand years. The rest of the evidence is pretty spotty and has been interpreted by perople with an of discrediting the testimony of the Bible. So we have the claim that the story of David and Solomon is an invention. But now we have digs that may be some evidence that it is not. I am not one who believes all that much in the science of history. Too much has returned to dust. If we do not have the dialogues of Aristotle, however much else has simply disappeared? 99% I guess.
90 posted on 12/13/2005 8:20:12 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Aracelis
"The Catholic church did quite well by this precept during the Middle Ages because most people could not read Latin. Some mullahs today are also doing very well in pushing their personal agenda on illiterate followers."

According to the "Arab Human Development Report" by the UN the rate of illiterate male is at 30 percent and at 50 percent for the female population.
91 posted on 12/14/2005 2:23:00 AM PST by MHalblaub (Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
"you have been told and told and told and told... and now shall be reminded yet again: In their own writings on ID, the gurus at the Discovery Institute consider common descent a fact, unchallenged and irrefutable. Their game is not a challenge to speciation, but this symantic game they call "irreducible complexity"."



"This fact has been pointed out to you at least two score of times in the past three months. Why do you persist in stating and implying that ID excludes common descent and is analogous to special creation?"

Did my post show a separation of the two thoughts? Did my post promote ID? I think NOT. I spoke to the RESULTS teaching young minds the theory of 'common descent'. Evolutionists cannot wall themselves off from demonstrable results.
92 posted on 12/14/2005 3:49:06 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Dichroic
(But I notice that Smugness lies heavily on the ardent Evo side)

whereas Smugness, Conceit, Deceit, and Ineducable Obstinance are not the battle-colors of the ardent Creo side?

93 posted on 12/14/2005 4:49:15 AM PST by King Prout (many accuse me of being overly literal... this would not be a problem if many were not under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

ID is a result of hucksters pushing quasi-religious lab-coated babble on the ignorant.

your grasp of causality seems tenuous.


94 posted on 12/14/2005 4:54:30 AM PST by King Prout (many accuse me of being overly literal... this would not be a problem if many were not under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

"your grasp of causality seems tenuous."


I have no self imposed walls around my grasp. The "HOW" of things is not outside the realm of the "WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE and the WHY" of things. Evolutionists seek to set supreme the "HOW" of things and are BLIND regarding anything outside that parameter.


95 posted on 12/14/2005 4:58:51 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Evolutionists seek to set supreme the "HOW" of things and are BLIND regarding anything outside that parameter.

no. those who study evolution, its record, and its mechanisms seek to comprehend speciation of living things on Earth. studying the "how" of things is the core of all empirical science, by definition. If you believe scientists do not consider the why of things, beyond the scope of science, simply because they don't call non-science "science", you are blind to a greater number of things than I have time to point out.

96 posted on 12/14/2005 5:06:03 AM PST by King Prout (many accuse me of being overly literal... this would not be a problem if many were not under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
The completely "supreme" response. At the very core of evolution is denial of the Creator, which is Written would be. The well build walls of evolution which permeates education from the top down were founded upon sand.

Evolutionists are blind to the results of their well funded and controlled ideology, but hey it is alll about what can be seen now isn't it?
97 posted on 12/14/2005 5:16:14 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
At the very core of evolution is denial of the Creator

pure bovine excrement - typical of your posts on the topic.

98 posted on 12/14/2005 7:30:40 AM PST by King Prout (many accuse me of being overly literal... this would not be a problem if many were not under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson