1) A comment by Michael Remson got this thread going.
2) My response to Michael and his position on intelligent design
3) Rav Solof who took issue with my comment.
4) My response to Rav Solof
-----------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:46:09 -0800
From: Michael Remson
Subject: Gellman's statement
Some comments on the Gellman statement and the following debate:
1. As one who would have supported a war in Iraq but opposed this war in
Iraq (without adequate troops, international support, careful planning and
an exit strategy) I agree with some, but not all of the URJ resolution.
2. Thank you to Walter Zanger for the comments on "prophetic Judaism."
3. The URJ and CCAR publicize their/our resolutions, and rightly so. Our colleagues frequently write op-ed pieces and letters to the editor citing or agreeing with those resolutions, and rightly so. Many of our colleagues regularly write columns in local papers, if not Newsweek, and they would write for the national media if they could. If Gellman disagrees with the URJ, he has every right to say so in his column.
4. On the other hand, I am offended by Gellman's statement "to see this war that toppled one of Israel's fiercest enemies... opposed by Jews is more than an act of ingratitude to this country and this president." It is naive to think that we are in Iraq for any reasons other that what the administration thinks is our national interest.
5. I stopped reading Gellman when he defended "intelligent design" as a theory equal to evolution in his "God Squad" column. When a Reform rabbi and a Catholic priest write that, I can not take them seriously.
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 07:15:23 -0800
From: rogsonl
Subject: Michael Remson -- Intelligent Design
I read with interest Michael's comments about the war, and have no comments on that. What struck me is his comment: I stopped reading Gellman when he defended "intelligent design" I honestly don't know whether the theory of intelligent design is sound or not, but I have believed for most of my life that there is intelligent design in the Universe. In philosophy we learn about Occam's razor. When there are multiple explanations for a phenomenon, pick the simplest. I look at the sky, the universe, the complexity of our own bodies, and have problem with random chance being the prime mover of these things. I have studied the theory of evolution and it is both exciting, and convincing. But it is a theory because we cannot reproduce it in a lab, and because there are many unexplained holes in it. Intelligent design may be religiously motivated, and politically incorrect, but just as I don't throw the message of our prophets out the door because they may, in today's psychological terms be schizophrenic, I would not throw out the message of order provided by the heavens, Newton's laws of physics, and our increasing understanding of the human body.
Leon Rogson
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:07:50 -0500
From: ravsoloff
Subject: Intelligent
What does this adjective mean? What is the criterion for distinguishing between intelligent design and non-intelligent design? If intelligent means something compatible with human intelligence, surely it is blasphemous to suggest that the Creator of our universe designs all things in ways "compatible with human intelligence." It is ridiculous, in my opinion, to argue that the wonderful, unique designs of snowflakes are evidence of "intelligent design," that they could not come into existence by random concatenations of myriad, perfectly physical forces and conditions. As for the marvelous constructions of human cells that could not come into existence by random chance, no one ever said that they could. Every baby is a miracle, but its conception is the random meeting of a sperm and an egg, each of which carries DNA selected over billions of years, mutation by mutation.
I share the religious belief that there is Divine design and purpose within which I strive to live my life, but that is not a scientific theory related negatively to the theory of evolution (see THE BEAK OF THE FINCH, a case study of the evolution of species while scientists are watching it happen).
I pray because I feel the need to do so, not because I "know" that prayer is heard, or by Whom. And, while I try to learn what is demanded of me, I refuse to demand of anyone else that which I believe to be the Word of God.
Only that which society agrees (here, by legislation and judicial review) is for the common weal may be enacted as law, not the religious beliefs of any super-majority.
Happy Hanukkah,
Rav Soloff
This was my response to Rav Solof
This is in response to Rav Soloff whose statement is republished below.
Intelligence means planning, architecture, a non random source.
God’s intelligence is compatible with human intelligence because we are but a “little lower than the angels.” It is our crowning glory that we can understand God’s ways. If we couldn’t, how could we live ethical lives?
It is the meaning of Bereshit that there is order in the universe, that trees bring forth trees and not dryads. It is the demand of Abraham: “Shall not the judge of all the world do justly?” that informs us we can understand God's justice (although it is often despairingly obscure).
If we cannot understand God, if we cannot use the intelligence he gave us to find our path in the world, then indeed we may be descended from apes, and perhaps not much better than them.
Einstein’s whole life was spent trying to find a unifying formula to tie together gravity and electromagnetism. We are constantly advancing in our understanding of the Universe.
I find the charge that this is sacrilegious very peculiar.
One can argue that a snowflake came into existence as a random concatenation of physical forces, and one would be wrong. It is the crystalline nature of water, and the specific positioning of its atoms that creates a snowflake.
Lastly, I don’t remember attacking anyone for believing in the theory of evolution. In fact, I believe it may be correct. But if it is, it has profound impact on religion. One cannot separate religion from science. God instructs us through his works. If they are the results of random combinations, then this also instructs us. To quote Einstein, “God does not play dice with the universe” (Einstein believed that quantum could not be true, simply because it implied there was a limit to how much a scientist could know about a particle). I agree with him in this additional area. He has not been proven correct in his assertion. In fact, God may play dice with the Universe.
I pray he does not.
Happy Chanukah
Leon
No comments:
Post a Comment