The Association Of Orthodox Jewish Scientists Goes Over The Edge

The association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, once the proud home of giants like Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, ztz"l, has apparently morphed into a bizarre collection of haredi apologists and wannabees. As GodolHador notes (hat tip: me, yours truly, the anti-Mendel), calling this rank propaganda may be giving AOJS too much credit:

Evolution is not "only a theory"; it is a hypothesis, and not more. And according to the rules of logic, the opposite of any hypothesis is as valid as its original statement. The dictionary states that "a hypothesis implies insufficiency of presently obtainable evidence and, therefore, a tentative explanation; theory implies a much greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth," (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1949).
Rabbi Meyer Lublin, Intercom, Vol XXV, Issue 3, Fall 2005 AOJS.

The rules of logic eh? I’m impressed. Of
course we cannot ignore the rules of logic, that would be very bad
indeed. And since it’s only a hypothesis, any opposite theory is just
as valid? Amazing! So my theory that Zoboomafoo created all humanity
from a cup of Tradition Noodle Soup (Beef & Vegetable flavor no
less) is just as valid too! I think the AOJS needs to be informed of
this development.
GodolHador, about a half hour ago.

Think rational Orthodoxy is standing up to the Rabbi Slifkin Ban? Think again.

[It should be noted that it is hard for mere scientists to stand up for the truth when so many rabbis have remained so conspicuously silent. I think it’s time for the RCA to issue a statement on Torah and Science. It’s long overdue, as is a parallel statement from the leaders of the YU beit midrash.]

Marc Shapiro On The Age Of The Universe

[T]he entire received body of knowledge in just about every field of
human study is dependant on the fact that the world is not 5000 years
old and that there was not a flood. These facts are the fundamentals of
biology, physics, astronomy, history, anthropology, geology,
paleontology, zoology, linguistics, etc.

Belief in a 5000 year
old world and a flood which destroyed the world 4000 years ago is a
denial of all human knowledge as we know it.

Rabbi Moshe Tendler Backs Intelligent Design Quid-Pro-Quo Deal To Save Son Accused Of Abuse?

Mariah Blake of the Miami New Times reports :

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 December 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 1000 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."

The contentious Q&A lasted 25 minutes. When it was done, dozens of scientists rushed to the front to pelt Dembski with questions. The hubbub lasted so long that Sholom Lipskar of the Shul was pushed off the agenda.

Lipskar, a soft-spoken man with a thick charcoal beard and wire-rim spectacles, ranks among Miami’s most influential rabbis. And like Tendler, he believes Jews should back the intelligent design movement. "The fundamental question the theory answers is, accidental or intentional?" he explains. "If it’s accidental, then what’s the point? But if there’s design, we’re here for a reason." Lipskar also advocates bringing intelligent design into Jewish classrooms. "It should be taught together with chemistry and physics," he says.

In fact much of the debate at Torah and Science turned to whether intelligent design should be integrated into Jewish-school science classes; Miami’s Center for the Advancement of Jewish Education even signed on as a sponsor. The organization’s president, Chaim Botwinick, says the event is a harbinger. "Many Jewish schools are beginning to discuss making intelligent design an integral part of their curriculum," he explains. Among them, he adds, are a handful of schools in Miami, a city that has long been a stronghold of traditional Judaism.

What do the students think? Many of those who heard Dembski speak said they would like to study his ideas in class. "His words make sense," commented Annale Fleisher, a seventeen-year-old senior at Miami Beach’s Hebrew Academy. "Saying life comes from evolution is like saying a library was made by someone spilling a bottle of ink."

Nathan Katz, who heads the Center for the Study of Spirituality at FIU and was one of the conference organizers, says the enthusiasm some Torah devotees express for intelligent design reflects a growing alliance between traditional Jews and evangelical Christians. The two groups have found themselves on the same side of many culture war battles. And evangelicals have funneled tens of millions of dollars into Israel. "The monstrous evangelical support for that country has led some Orthodox Jews to be willing to listen to evangelicals on other issues," Katz explains.

For his part, Dembski hopes the conversation that began at the Torah and Science conference will continue, and that some Jewish scientists will eventually lend their talents to the intelligent design movement. "It would be huge in terms of PR because it would give lie to this idea that this is just a conservative Christian thing," he explains. "It would also expand our talent pool immensely."

But critics in the audience at the conference chafed at the prospect of Jewish scientists contributing to a movement that has stated as its goal the "overthrow" of "scientific materialism." "We would be helping to eliminate science as a discipline," said Aviezar. "And that would put us back in the Fifteenth Century. It would be a disaster."

The Rabbinical Council of America just issued a statement in support of evolution. Rabbi Tendler was a member of the RCA but has distanced himself from the group because of the RCA’s expulsion of Rabbi Tendler’s son after multipile sexual abuse allegations were made against him. Rabbi Tendler and his brother-in-law Rabbi Dovid Feinstein have worked to damage the RCA in any way possible. Could these two issues be linked? After all, Rabbi Feinstein was a leader of the ban (start from bottom of page and read upward) against Rabbi Slifkin and Rabbi Tendler did not speak up in Rabbi Slifkin’s behalf. Perhaps we have a kind of quid-pro-quo here.

Rabbi Tendler did not answer my earlier request for comment on Intelligent Design and his participation in this conference.

RCA: Evolution Compatible With Judaism

The Rabbinical Council of America, the largest Orthodox rabbinic organization in America, has issued a statement saying that Judaism and evolution are compatible:

Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design:
The View of the Rabbinical Council of America

December 22nd 2005
21 Kislev 5766

In light of the ongoing public controversy about Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent Design, the RCA notes that significant Jewish authorities have maintained that evolutionary theory, properly understood, is not incompatible with belief in a Divine Creator, nor with the first 2 chapters of Genesis.

There are authentic, respected voices in the Jewish community that take a literalist position with regard to these issues; at the same time, Judaism has a history of diverse approaches to the understanding of the biblical account of creation. As Rabbi Joseph Hertz wrote, "While the fact of creation has to this day remained the first of the articles of the Jewish creed, there is no uniform and binding belief as to the manner of creation, i.e. as to the process whereby the universe came into existence. The manner of the Divine creative activity is presented in varying forms and under differing metaphors by Prophet, Psalmist and Sage; by the Rabbis in Talmudic times, as well as by our medieval Jewish thinkers." Some refer to the Midrash (Koheleth Rabbah 3:13) which speaks of God "developing and destroying many worlds" before our current epoch. Others explain that the word "yom" in Biblical Hebrew, usually translated as "day," can also refer to an undefined period of time, as in Isaiah 11:10-11. Maimonides stated that "what the Torah writes about the Account of Creation is not all to be taken literally, as believed by the masses" (Guide to the Perplexed II:29), and recent Rabbinic leaders who have discussed the topic of creation, such as Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch and Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, saw no difficulty in explaining Genesis as a theological text rather than a scientific account.

Judaism affirms the idea that God is the Creator of the Universe and the Being responsible for the presence of human beings in this world.
Nonetheless, there have long been different schools of thought within Judaism regarding the extent of divine intervention in natural processes. One respected view was expressed by Maimonides who wrote that "we should endeavor to integrate the Torah with rational thought, affirming that events take place in accordance with the natural order wherever possible.” (Letter to the Jews of Yemen) All schools concur that God is the ultimate cause and that humanity was an intended end result of Creation.

For us, these fundamental beliefs do not rest on the purported weaknesses of Evolutionary Theory, and cannot be undermined by the elimination of gaps in scientific knowledge.

Judaism has always preferred to see science and Torah as two aspects of the "Mind of God" (to borrow Stephen Hawking’s phrase) that are ultimately unitary in the reality given to us by the Creator. As the Zohar says (Genesis 134a): "istakel be-‘oraita u-vara ‘alma," God looked into the Torah and used it as His blueprint for creating the Universe.

___________
For articles and sources on this subject, see Aryeh Carmel and Cyril Domb eds., "Challenge: Torah Views on Science and its Problems," Feldheim, N. Y. 1976; and Rabbi J. H. Hertz, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs (Soncino Press 1960), Additional Notes to Genesis.

The statement also supports a world far older than 6000 years. These were key points found to be heretical by the haredi ‘gedolim’ who banned Rabbi Nosson Slifkin and his works. Will these ‘gedolim’ ban the RCA as well, perhaps using the Tendler case as a starting point?

If the ‘gedolim’ do not do so, their silence will be further proof of their duplicity. If they do act, it will force many in the right wing Modern Orthodox and left wing haredi worlds to take sides. Neither of these outcomes bodes well for the haredi world and for those small men who lead it.

Yated Ne’eman On The Renewed Rabbi Slifkin Ban

Under a headline reading "Why We Censor," the Internet version of the Israeli Yated Ne’eman explains why it was necessary to ban Rabbi Nosson Slifkin:

…Many books include ideas mentioned by Slifkin, but only his were condemned. Why? Because of "the impudent and audacious spirit of throwing off the yoke (prikas ol) of the mesorah miSinai and our sages (rabboseinu hakedoshim) who are its bearers (maggidehoh)," that is not found in those others.

Are the rabbonim asking or telling us to stop thinking? Do they wish us to be intellectual wimps who cannot and do not evaluate critically what they hear?

What an absurd suggestion! If we close down our minds we will not even be able to understand the Torah that they transmit to us daily, not to mention the holy words of our Sages of previous generations back to Sinai. No intellectually honest person could say that our rabbonim do not want us to think! The often-heard response that pronouncements such as this one are anti-intellectual betray a desire to ridicule us and our rabbonim, not a serious charge.

Free, serious and deep inquiry is our goal, constantly pursued. But — yes there is a "but" — it must be within the spirit of Torah and not in the spirit of the secular world which is deeply, unremittingly hostile to Torah.…

When we faced the Greeks in the time of the Maccabim, the issues were clear and in the open. They said, "Write on the ox horn that you have no part in the G-d of Israel." You cannot get more direct than that. They did not let us learn Torah and do mitzvos. The violated our money and our daughters and our Sanctuary.

Now they leave our daughters alone (except for once-in-a- while attempts in the State of Israel). They shower us with wealth. They allow us to learn and to do mitzvos with hiddurim that were undreamed of by earlier generations.

Yet the spirit of the Western world, in its media, in its science, in its art, in its politics, is a challenge to the authentic Torah spirit from the floor to the rafters.

Just pick up a Mesillas Yeshorim and consider the catalogue of things that the Ramchal lists as inimical to the very first step of the Path of the Righteous (Chapter 5), and it is clear that modern society has raised the difficulty of overcoming them to new heights: 1] Dealing with distractions and necessities of the world; 2] Laughter and ridicule; 3] Pressures of an evil society.

The mass of modern media and communication make the temptations of excess in the first area stronger than they ever were, even as it has increased greatly the amount of information that we really have to deal with. The amount of comedy and ridicule has increased tremendously compared to any previous period, even as its prestige has grown, making it harder to dismiss. Finally, society is so intrusive, even as it is free, that it exerts tremendous pressure to conform to its increasingly decadent values.…

It is hard to know who is for us and who is against us. Our rabbonim do not reject modern society wholesale, but they draw lines for us: This is ok. Stay away from that.

Whoever wants to, is free to go it alone. He or she can plunge in to the treacherous waters of the modern world alone, and try to reach the truth heroically alone. It is a big task for an individual.

The rest of us will take shelter under the banner of gedolei Yisroel. As in the generation of Chanukah, so too in our generation — the gedolei veziknei hador cry out to us all: Mi laSheim eilai!

Whoever wants to reach Hashem should join them!

Rabbi Slifkin had rabbinic endorsement for his works, including the endorsement of at least one gadol who now bans him. But truth has never been an issue for haredim. Neither has decency or respect for the work of others. Rabbi Slifkin’s mistake was to try to make the haredi world fit with modern science. That cannot be done. Science is by definition an unrelenting search for truth. Harediism is a constant attempt at hiding from that truth, and is itself a lie.

The time has come to reject the haredi world, to stop "showering" them with money and respect. Do not fund their yeshivot and summer camps. Do not attend their dinners and fundraisers. Do not refer with honor to the men who banned Rabbi Slifkin, and do not follow their halakhic decisions.

Choose life.

Idiocy In The Name Of Torah

On The Main Line has posted a section of a fundrasing brochure from a Bnei Brak-based nonprofit describing the visit of a gadol (haredi rabbinic leader), a leading signer of the Rabbi Slifkin Ban, to the nonprofit’s offices:

Why are so many stations necessary?" he asked. The telephones at the stations of the steady operators were ringing non-stop…."But how is it that a person contributes over the phone? How does the money come in?" he asked. The gabbai [assistant] briefly explained how a credit card works.

"But the contributor doesn’t even sign anything… he’s contributing over the phone!" Harav Steinman asked again. "But what if he changes his mind?" he went on….It was astounding to see to what extent maran, shlit"a, who is immersed in Torah study day and night, is cut off from the financial nature of our daily lives in the modern world. At the same time, it was fascinating to see how quickly he caught on when the matter was outlined in the briefest detail.

The man did not know how a credit card works. Earth To Haredim: GET NEW LEADERS! YOUR SHIP IS SINKING!

Aish HaTorah On Creationism

Aish HaTorah’s Rabbi Yakov Salomon has made a short flash video on creationism in the classroom.  His basic thesis is as follows:

1. "Evolutionists" only allow one way of teaching – Darwinian evolution.
2. "Creationists" are flexible – teach evolution and other opinions like creationism side-by-side.
3. "Evolutionists" hold creationism in the classroom is unconstitutional.
4. "Benjamin Franklin" wrote in the Declaration of Independence that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights …" (He actually garbles the quote. See the video.) "Is the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional?" Rabbi Salomon asks.

Of course, Rabbi Salomon is very poorly informed (or he’s lying – take your pick). In order:

1. Scientists will allow any scientific, peer-reviewed theory to be taught as science.
2. Creationism and Intellegent Design are not peer-reviewed because they are not science.
3. Scientists hold Creationism is a religious teaching and not science, and therefore cannot be taught as science. (It could be taught in a compararative religion class, though.)
4. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration, not Benjamin Franklin. The Declaration is not now, nor was it at the time of its signing, science, and no one is attempting to have it taught in the classroom as such.

Stupidity and deceit seem to be dominating the outreach business in this post-Rabbi Slifkin ban era.

Toronto Orthodoxy In “Uproar” Over New R. Slifkin Ban

The Canadian Jewish Tribune reports:

Toronto’s Orthodox community was in uproar this week following the circulation of a letter by one of the city’s leading Rabbinic authorities, Rabbi Shlomoh Eliyahu Miller, head of the Kollel Avreichim (an advanced institute of Talmud study for married men).

The letter condemned the books of Rabbi Noson Slifkin, the ‘Zoo Rabbi’ as “words of heresy and denial…and ignorance,” for apparently suggesting that scientific knowledge could ever take precedence over rabbinic lore in explaining the origin of the world, astronomy or the laws of nature. Rabbi Slifkin lectured to capacity audiences in the city this weekend as a guest of the ‘Torah in Motion’ program.

Rabbi Slifkin’s books, which discuss various aspects of zoology, evolution and the animal kingdom in the light of rabbinic tradition, stress the rabbinic authorities through the ages who have welcomed scientific thought as illuminating – not contradicting – traditional Judaism. As such, he has been under sustained attack for more than a year by ultra-Orthodox leaders in Israel and the United States.

The attempt to ban his books and ostracise him, further fanned by what have been identified as clumsy attempts to attack modern science, provoked a huge crisis of confidence in Orthodox circles. The attacks on Slifkin were criticized as attempted ‘thought control’ in the Orthodox community, aimed at enforcing one interpretation of tradition, and intimidating anyone holding – or approving – alternative views. The Internet, and particularly the ‘blogs,’ were major forums in publicizing and discussing the unfolding of events.

Local orthodox leaders expressed concern regarding both the content and the tone of Rabbi Miller’s letter. Rabbi Miller criticizes Rabbi Slifkin’s views, defines him as a heretic, compares him to the ‘wicked son’ of the Pesach Haggadah, and explains that it is obligatory for Jews to believe in Rabbinic traditions, giving as an example the belief that Cain and Abel were born on the sixth day of creation, without any gestation period.

He then says that he will “strengthen the hearts of those who may have heard the words of denial (divrei kefirah)” by giving examples (apparently unrelated to Slifkin) of how the Torah has proven astronomy wrong, and how the Talmudic rabbis knew advanced science from biblical exegesis.

He further points out that in discussing the nature of light, the rabbis define darkness not as the absence of light, but as a real substance, and that in this “scientists are wrong.” In the letter he refers to Galileo, Quantum Mechanics, ‘Non-local reality’ and Bell’s Theorem as perhaps offering confirmation of his views. A local Orthodox Jewish scientist termed the scientific content of the letter “perplexing.”

Rabbi Elyashiv Opposes Rabbis Who Banned Book Without Reading It – The Same Thing Rabbi Elyashiv And His Henchmen Did To Rabbi Slifkin

In a bizarre move, Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv criticizes other rabbis for banning a book on marriage without first reading it. Does that mean Rabbi Elyashiv apologized to Rabbi Slifkin for banning him and the books he wrote on Torah and Science – books Rabbi Elyashiv did not read before banning them? No chance.

Krum  reports:

As reported in this letter by R’ Aharon Feldman printed in the Israeli papers, R’ Elyashiv criticized rabbonim for opposing a book regarding marriage because they hadn’t read it. Isn’t this precisely the conduct he is reported to have engaged in with respect to R’ Slifkin?

Note also the striking contrast between the "book review" process described in the letter and the process that Slifkin’s writings were subject to. R’ Feldman reports that:

1. R’ Elyashiv rendered an opinion only after the book was checked by a bes din of experts

2. The writer was given an opportunity to correct the errors that were found.

Of course, Rabbi Slifkin was given no such courtesy by Rabbi Elyashiv or any other so-called gadol.

Gil Student Thanks God For Modern Orthodoxy

R. Gil Student, exasperated with pronouncements of gedolim disparaging science, thanks God for Modern Orthodoxy. The crux of Gil’s journey begins in high school with a question: Was the entire text of the Talmuds and Mishna given to Moses at Mount Sinai, or were the principals of the Oral Law given without the text itself, a much more tenable proposition. Gil notes that he has been told in the name of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, that the entire text of the Mishna and the Talmuds were given by God to Moses at Mount Sinai. Perhaps Chabad would like to discuss this point at their upcoming conference on Torah and Science.

To A Fool His Due – Quackery In The Name Of God

A Montreal-based rabbi has written a new book of Torah "codes":

… Rabbi Mordechai Bulua attempts to demonstrate that verses in the Torah allude to major events in Jewish and world history that occurred in the corresponding year of the Hebrew calendar.

Rabbi Bulua claims that his method is unique. By comparison, “equidistant letter sequence” (ELS), the usual method of deciphering supposed secret messages, involves taking letters from the text at equal intervals. It was the basis of Michael Drosnin’s best-selling 1997 book The Bible Code, which popularized a computer-aided technique discovered by Israeli mathematician Eliyahu Rips.

According to Rabbi Bulua, almost every significant event will have some hint or connection to it – some more vague than others, he concedes – in the Torah verse that corresponds to the Jewish year.

Rabbi Bulua says each verse corresponds to a Jewish year in a straight linear order, a notion ascribed to by the Kabbalists of Safed, Israel. He learned about it from Rabbi Benjamin Blech, his professor of Talmud at Yeshiva University, where he earned his undergraduate degree.

Using only a calculator, Rabbi Bulua begins with the Jewish year that an event occurred and counts that number of verses from the first verse of the Torah in Bereshit (Genesis), with year 0 being the days before the creation of Adam and Eve in year one. It works most reliably in a Torah in the original Hebrew, although English translations often produce the same results.

He uses the timeline of Jewish history contained in Rabbi Zechariah Fendel’s book The Legacy of Sinai to date the biblical events. With major Jewish events, he said he has found his method to be at least 95 per cent accurate.

In some instances, he has had to turn to Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki) or other traditional commentators on a particular verse to find the allusion.

Here are some examples Rabbi Bulua shared with the Canadian Jewish News:

For example, the founding of the State of Israel occurred in 1948 – 5708 on the Hebrew calendar. The 5,708th verse of the Torah is Deuteronomy chapter 30, verse 2, which reads: “You shall return to the Lord your God.”

Rabin’s murder in 1995 (or 5756) corresponds to Deuteronomy chapter 31, verse 30: “Moses spoke the words of this song into the ears of the congregation of Israel until the end.”

“The last thing that Rabin did is sing a song for peace on stage,” Rabbi Bulua said. More eerily, the Aramaic for “until the end” is “shlimu,” which has the same letters as “shalom,” he adds.

Another striking example, according to Rabbi Bulua, is the birth of Maimonides in 1138 (or 4898), which corresponds to Deuteronomy chapter 1, verse 5: “On the other side of the Jordan, in the land of Moav, Moses began explaining this Torah,” referring to the commandments in that Book.

“Maimonides’s magnum opus was the Book of Commandments, explaining the 613 commandments,” Rabbi Bulua said. “Deuteronomy is also called the Mishna Torah, which is the name of another of Maimonides’s great books. Moses was also Maimonides’s first name.”

Using this standard of "proof," one could "prove" anything to be true. So who is this rabbi who has "revealed" these secrets for us all?

Rabbi Bulua studied at the Yeshivat Sha’alvim in Israel, under Rabbi Meir Schlesinger, and received smichah from the late Rabbi Pinchas Hirschprung, who was chief rabbi of Montreal. He has been a teacher at Jewish day schools and currently gives classes in Judaism to lawyers and other professionals.

Ah! But fear not, dear readers – the book has an approbation from a rosh yeshiva:

The Secret Code of Jewish Years, published by Machon Beer HaTorah
Publications of New Jersey, includes a blessing from Rabbi Menachem
Katz, dean of Bais Medrash l’Horah of Montreal.

The Roots Of Anti-Modernity?

Do the roots of the Rabbi Slifkin Book Ban and the anti-modernity views of haredim (ultra-Orthodoxy) go back to the dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai? Perhaps they do.

The Observant Astronomer has a post reviewing Menachem Fisch’s book Rational Rabbis. He sums up Fisch’s work as follows:

…
Fisch is a philosopher of science, which has led him to what I find to
be fascinating reflections on the methodology and intentions of the
Babylonian amoraim.

The first part of his book explains what he means by "rational
inquiry". It is a process characterized by testing and troubleshooting
both the subject matter of field of study and its methodology. As an
example, he gives the field of science which endeavours to understand
and explain the functioning of the world. Certain problems present
themselves, and science produces theories to resolve these problems. In
turn, these theories make predictions, and should the predictions be
born out, the theory is strengthened. On the other hand, theories whose
predictions are contradicted by observation are rejected. But, more
than this, a rational study is one where the standards themselves by
which success in solving problems are measured, are themselves subject
to such troubleshooting.

It is Fisch’s thesis that the Talmudic sages were engaged on just
such a rational endeavour. This is not to say that they were doing
science. Far from it. Rather, they applied the rational approach to
Torah.

In the Tannaitic material recorded in the Bavli, especially the
material relating to the Yeshiva in Yavne, Fisch discerns a dispute
between two schools of thought, or attitudes, towards the development
of Torah shel b’al peh. The first, exemplified, or stereotyped, by R.
Eliezer ben Hyrqanus, is what he calls traditionalist. The
traditionalist holds that the strongest support for a viewpoint is that
it was learned from one’s teachers extending back to Moshe b’Sinai. In
the traditionalist’s view, precedent is absolute.

Opposing the traditionalist, is the anti-traditionalist who, in
Fisch’s view, is a rational actor. Tradition must be tested against new
cases and more developed thoughts, and, where necessary, refuted and
overturned. For the anti-traditionalist, everything is open to question.

In Fisch’s reading, the Bavli’s version of the Yavne stories clearly
supports the anti-traditionalists, most tellingly in the famous dispute
regarding the tanuro shel acknai (Bava Metzia 59a-b), the story where
we learn Lo be shamaim he, that the Torah is not in heaven, but decided
by the Beis Din in this world.

This strikes me as a
workable theory. It becomes even stronger when one realizes that
Eliezer ben Hyrkanus was a member of Beit Shammai known for refusing to
adopt the halakha as determined by the majority, Beit Hillel. He would
eventually be excommunicated for this.

The Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 1:4 tells a story of those times. The
sages were meeting at the home of a prominent supporter, on the roof of
his house. Beit Shammai appeared armed, murdered several members of
Beit Hillel, and blocked the exit from the roof. No member of Beit
Hillel was allowed to leave until he agreed to uphold the halakha of
Beit Shammai, the minority. Beit Hillel – fearing for their lives –
gave in. The sages then passed 18 gezerot (decrees) proposed by Beit
Shammai. Most were aimed at separating Jews from Gentiles, and included
kashrut gezerot that exist to this day. The Jerusalem Talmud calls this
day the blackest day ever to befall the Jewish people since the day the Golden Calf was made and worshipped.

Beit Shammai was traditionalist. Its halakhot (laws) were
restrictive. Its worldview was anti-modern and anti-rational. We carry
the effects of Beit Shammai’s intransigence to this day.

If Beit Shammai had been met with arms, if Beit Shammai had been
expelled from normative Judaism, our halakhot would be less strict and
our reaction to the Gentile world – and its science – would be more
open.

But on a Jerusalem day 2000 years ago, fanaticism won, crushing the
democracy the sages used to guide the Jewish people in the process. The
18 gezerot were left in place – removing them meant more violence, more
terror, more death.

With the destruction of the 2nd Temple, caused largely by the
fractured polity of the Jewish people – it is not surprising that many
zealots and sicariim appear to be from families associated with Beit
Shammai – it became clear that Jewish unity must take precedence over
doctrinal disputes. It was in that atmosphere that Eliezer ben Hyrqanus
was excommunicated and the mantra "The Torah is NOT in Heaven!" entered
Jewish discourse as a response to his zealotry.

Fast forward 2000 years.

Today’s ultra-Orthodox rabbis are traditionalists. The historical lessons
of the Beit Hillel / Beit Shammai dispute are largely lost on them.
Their version of unity means caving in to the most extremist of traditionalists’
halakhic and theological views. Moderates are pushed out of the debate;
liberals, out of Orthodoxy all together. Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, the leader of today’s ultra-Orthodoxy and his
supporters may not use arms to enforce their views – although threats
and physical violence are not unheard of in that world – but their
methods of operation mirror those of Beit Shammai, who 2000 years ago
proved that in Judaism the sword is in fact more mighty than the pen,
and terrorist acts and threats more persuasive than democracy and the
rule of law.

2000 years ago we lost the Temple as a result of this type of thuggish behavior. What will we lose today?

[Reprinted from July.]

Gerald Schroeder Interviewed On Dennis Prager’s Show

Gerald Schroeder was on Dennis Prager‘s radio show (third hour) today and I caught the final 2/3 of the interview. Schroeder’s understanding (under questioning from listeners) is that everything post Big Bang is explainable without God. Only the Big Bang itself – creation of matter from nothing, in Schroeder’s parlance – cannot be explained naturally and that allows for belief in God.

Schroeder was unable to forcefully address the cogent argument that we do not know what we will know 50 years from now. Just as it was absurd to man living 300 years ago that devices like the telephone, television, computers and the Internet would ever or could ever exist, we simply do not know what advances in technology and science will be made in the future, and how much light those advances will shed on what we call creation of something from nothing.

In short, God is not provable or disprovable until He is proved or disproved. That is how we have free will. If either happens, the world as we now know it will cease to exist.

Schroeder was asked when the dinosaurs lived and if they lived with man or before man. Schroeder answered "65 million years ago," but hastened to add his spin on that – it all depends on what perspective you view that time from, ours or God’s. Schroeder’s theory is nothing more than a dressed up and spun version of Shitat Sefer Temunah as publicized and explained by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, zzt"l, who was Schroeder’s better in both physics and Torah. As usual, Schroeder did not credit Rabbi Kaplan or admit that there is an old Jewish concept of an ancient universe, far older than 6000 years. I believe Schroeder does not do so for two reasons: 1) Most of his books are sold to Christian fundamentalists, who would not in any way be happy to learn that the universe and this world really are far older than 6000 years, no matter whose perspective it is being viewed from. 2) Today’s gedolim (ultra-Orthodox Orthodox rabbinic leaders) follow the lead of Christian fundamentalists with regard to this question. These gedolim ban books and authors far too easily and could put Schroeder out of business in moments.

But the bottom line is this: Past believing that God created the world at the beginning, the Big Bang, (and perhaps coded into the world its specific development – and, perhaps not), and still watches over us today, nothing else must be believed. Evolution and other scientific advances do not need to be rejected.

God does not demand our stupidity, He demands or fidelity. Sadly, today’s ultra-Orthodox rabbinic leaders have a hard time dealing with that fact.

Chabad Conference On Torah And Science To Feature Discredited Christian Proponent Of Intellegent Design

Chabad becomes more and more ‘Christ-like’ every day. The latest proof of this is Chabad’s upcoming conference on Torah and Science, sponsored by Professor Herman Branover’s B’Or HaTorah and the Chabad’s Shul of Bal Harbor (Florida).

Branover is a very public messianist. But he won’t be the most Christian presenter at the conference. According to this article on Chabad’s official PR site, Lubavitch.com, a featured speaker at the conference will be William A. Dembski, the leading Christian proponent of Intellegent Design:

Day two of the conference will be devoted to the discussion of teaching
the origins of the universe, an issue still under fierce debate,
particularly among those whose scientific background is significantly
at odds with their biblical beliefs. Conference organizers expect a
large turnout of teachers, educators, and students from both Jewish and
non-Jewish schools for this day’s sessions in particular. Addressing
the theme will be Rabbi Professor Moshe D. Tendler, one of today’s most
respected voices in Jewish medical ethics, Professor Eliezer Zeiger,
Biology Professor at University of California in L.A., Rabbi Shalom
Lipskar, Professor Branover, and others. Professor Dembski, considered
by many to be the most articulate advocate of Intelligent Design, will
address the place of intelligent design in the natural sciences,
followed by an interactive question and answer period with the audience.

So who is William A. Dembski? Wikipedia reports:

Peer-review controversy

Critics of the intelligent design movement frequently object that ID proponents have published no papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature in support of the conjectures of intelligent design. The same criticism has been levelled at Dembski’s Design Inference. However, Dembski claims that the book has in fact been peer reviewed [3]. Dembski states: "this book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory". In fact, The Design Inference was reviewed by mathematicians and philosophers; the book does not apply Dembski’s argument to biology and evolution, the battleground in which ID stakes its claim. The book’s content is limited to examining the question of how to recognize intelligent design, Dembski’s "explanatory filter"; it does not provide scientific evidence or justification for concluding that life was designed. Thus, while it is true to say that The Design Inference has been published in a peer-reviewed journal for mathematics and philosophy, it is false to claim that any work actually providing specific and detailed evidence for the existence of intelligent design has been so published in the arena of scientific press in which the topic is debated, which is what Dembski implies.
[edit]

Baylor University controversy

In 1999, Dembski was invited by Robert Sloan, President of Baylor University, to establish the Michael Polanyi Center at the university. Named after the Hungarian theologian and scientist Michael Polanyi (1891–1976), Dembski described it as "the first intelligent design think tank at a research university". Dembski had known Sloan for about three years, having taught Sloan’s daughter at a Christian study summer camp not far from Waco, Texas. Sloan was the first Baptist minister to serve as Baylor’s president in over 30 years, had read some of Dembski’s work and liked it; according to Dembski, Sloan "made it clear that he wanted to get me on the faculty in some way."

The Polanyi Center was established without much publicity in October 1999, initially consisting of two people — Dembski and a like-minded colleague, Bruce L. Gordon, who were hired directly by Sloan without going through the usual channels of a search committee and departmental consultation. The vast majority of Baylor staff did not know of the center’s existence until its website went online, and the center stood outside of the existing religion, science, and philosophy departments.

The center’s mission, and the lack of consultation with the Baylor faculty, became the immediate subject of controversy. The faculty feared for the university’s reputation – it has historically been well-regarded for its contributions to mainstream science – and scientists outside the university questioned whether Baylor had "gone fundamentalist". Faculty members pointed out that the university’s existing interdisciplinary Institute for Faith and Learning was already addressing questions about the relationship between science and religion, making the existence of the Polanyi Center somewhat redundant. In April 2000, Dembski hosted a conference on "naturalism in science" sponsored by the broadly theistic Templeton Foundation and the pro-ID Discovery Institute, seeking to address the question "Is there anything beyond nature?". Most of the Baylor faculty boycotted the conference.

A few days later, the Baylor faculty senate voted by a margin of 27–2 to ask the administration to dissolve the center and merge it with the Institute for Faith and Learning. President Sloan refused, citing issues of censorship and academic integrity, but agreed to convene an outside committee to review the center. The committee recommended setting up a faculty advisory panel to oversee the science and religion components of the program, dropping the name "Michael Polanyi" and reconstituting the center as part of the Institute for Faith and Learning. [4] These recommendations were accepted in full by the university administration. The committee also considered the legitimacy of research into intelligent design and gave it a lukewarm endorsement: "research on the logical structure of mathematical arguments for intelligent design have a legitimate claim to a place in the current discussions of the relations of religion and science."

In a subsequent press release, Dembski asserted that the committee had given an "unqualified affirmation of my own work on intelligent design", that its report "marks the triumph of intelligent design as a legitimate form of academic inquiry" and that "dogmatic opponents of design who demanded that the Center be shut down have met their Waterloo. Baylor University is to be commended for remaining strong in the face of intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression." [5]

Dembski’s remarks were criticized by other members of the Baylor faculty, who protested that they were both an unjustified attack on his critics at Baylor and a false assertion that the university endorsed Dembski’s controversial views on intelligent design. Charles Weaver, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Baylor and one of the most vocal critics of the Polanyi Center, commented: "In academic arguments we don’t seek utter destruction and defeat of our opponents. We don’t talk about Waterloos."

President Sloan asked Dembski to withdraw his press release, but Dembski refused, accusing the university of "intellectual McCarthyism" (borrowing a phrase that Sloan himself had used when they first tried to dissolve the center). He declared that the university’s action had been taken "in the utmost of bad faith … thereby providing the fig leaf of justification for my removal." [6] Professor Michael Beaty, director of the Institute for Faith and Learning, said that Dembski’s remarks violated the spirit of cooperation that the committee had advocated and stated that "Dr. Dembski’s actions after the release of the report compromised his ability to serve as director." [7] Dembski was removed as the center’s director, although he remained an associate research professor until May 2005. He was not asked to teach any courses in that time and instead worked from home, writing books and speaking around the country.…

Dembski became the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky in June 2005, and also plans to establish a new Center for Science and Theology. According to Russell Moore, dean of the seminary’s School of Theology, Dembski will help train ministers to counter the idea that "human beings are accidents of nature" with no spiritual character and no purpose other than to seek sex and power. The seminary teaches creationism but its professors vary on the details, with most adhering to the Young Earth creationist viewpoint of a relatively recent creation which occurred literally as described in Genesis; Dembski does not hold to Young Earth creationism. Despite such "acceptable" differences, Dembski noted in a statement when he was hired that "this is really an opportunity to mobilize a new generation of scholars and pastors not just to equip the saints but also to engage the culture and reclaim it for Christ."

Of course, Chabad is being very open-minded here. The late Rebbe was a big proponent of Young Earth Creationism, a view recently adopted by many ‘gedolim,’ and a theory Dembski claims to reject.

But both Dembski and the late Rebbe share a common educational background. Both were trained primarily as philosophers of science, not as actual scientists. (In the Rebbe’s case, this training consisted of a couple of audited classes at the University of Berlin and an EE degree from a small tech school, somewhat like a vocational school in America. The Rebbe was never enrolled in the Sorbonne. In Dembski’s case, no peer-reviewed is very telling.) Chabad’s endorsement of Dembski at a conference on Torah and Science is troubling.

[Footnote: Does Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler have any idea who he is sharing a stage with?]