Monday, August 28, 2006

The Heresy of Intelligent Design by Rabbi Natan Slifkin


Rabbi Slifkin arrived at Stern College for Women after the supposed session of "Meet and Greet" the students, but still before 7:00 PM, the official time for the start of the speech. He therefore had nine minutes in which to speak, and he commenced with a prelude to evolution, as evolution is (was) the main topic of the speech.

The prelude to evolution concerns the age of the universe. We have about 14 billions years to account for in the next nine minutes.

There are several mainstream approaches to the idea of the age of the universe. First, we have the Tiferet Yisrael, who talks about the previous worlds that God created and then destroyed. That's why we have fossils- because these are the creatures that were destroyed along with the previous worlds. However, this does not resolve contradictions, because these previous worlds take place BEFORE the six days of creation.

Therefore, the widespread approach is that the six days of creation may not be days as we know them. R' David Zvi Hoffman says it could have been billions of years- aeons- and this is a well-accepted approach, or at least it was until 2 years ago. R' Hoffman was willing to reconcile the Torah to that fact.

However, we still have the sequence of events that is described during the 6 days of creation which does NOT correlate to the sequence of events described by science.

For example, fossils show us that first there were fish, then land animals and then birds, but the Torah doesn't work in the same way. (He then asked us questions as to what, according to the Torah, was created when, and of course it's a different order- for example, birds before land animals.) So people try to reinterpret the Torah and psukim and suggest, for example that "rudimentary genetic matter was created in outer space" rather than grass/ plants when it says grass/plants in the Torah. The problem of course is we see no evidence for "rudimentary genetic matter" in the Torah. Some others will state, "No, of course the Torah doesn't mean birds- they mean flying INSECTS!" The problem is that the Torah has a specific word for flying insects (he might have said sheretz here) and these are not the same as the word for birds.

For those of us who accept science, the real issue to be dealt with is....the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim says that "ma'aseh Beraishis" is not all to be taken literally. There are 2 important points to be made here- 1. Ma'aseh Beraishis is not literal 2. The Rambam had a hard time selling that to people

The 6 days of Beraishis are not really time periods- they are a conceptual hierarchy of how God makes the world. Beraishis is teaching theology NOT science; teaching theological truths. The Torah has to be understood on many different levels, by the simplest audience and by the most sophisticated audience. If you're writing a book about Barney, it's meant for four-year-olds. If you're writing Harry Potter, you aim for a twenty-five year old audience. (*laughs*) The books you are writing depend upon your target audience. The Torah has a tremendously broad audience- so there are different layers of meaning, from simplest one to apply to the least sophisitcated audience to more difficult ones (remez, sod, etc)

R' Dessler states that the 6 days of creation refer to the Sefiros.

The Torah contains theological truths, spiritual truths. From a spiritual standpoint, the existence of dinosaurs is irrelevant. R' Kook goes even further to state that the point of the Torah is that it is addressed to man, and hence man must be made to feel significant. If the Torah HAD spoken about billions of years, man would have seen himself as a being who was completely insignificant in the scheme of things. Therefore the Torah actually had to DOWNPLAY this so man would feel himself to be significant.

This thing about "everything being in the Torah"- the commentary of the Seforno on Pirkei Avos on a verse which states that we are to "Turn it over and over again because everything is in it,"- the Seforno says that all theology/ philosophy is in the Torah as OPPOSED to things like medicine which is NOT in the Torah. People tend to have a very simplistic approach when understanding this kind of statement (referencing the verse from Pirkei Avos), however.

True, there are others- I think it's the Ramban who says everything is there but it's not of much practical use if we cannot extract it; even Shlomo HaMelech couldn't extract it.

Question was if this (what Rabbi Slifkin is saying) is Rambam, how can people fight against it so strongly?

1. It's in Moreh Nevuchim- not a yeshiva curriculum piece; most people, even the greatest Rabbanim, have not read it

2. Even if you HAVE read Moreh Nevuchim, you have to read the COMMENTARIES on Moreh Nevuchim. The Akeidas Yitzchak and the Abarbanel and others concur that this is what the Rambam is saying-they disagree/ don't understand, but they all concur that this is what he is saying.

3. They burnt the Rambam's books, after all

It's not an EASY approach to Torah; it's hard to grasp- many people personally object to this being taught/ or they oppose it strongly on behalf of others and how they think it will affect other people.

Now, on to the main topic of this speech- EVOLUTION.

I have called this speech "The Heresty of Intelligent Design." Now, the title is a bit tongue-in-cheek. Certainly I am not the one to accuse people of spouting heresy. However, to explain...people are defensive when they are trying to reconcile evolution to the Torah. Defending evolution, you have science on your side but are seen as being in a theologically shaky position. In truth, however, it's the other way around- to argue AGAINST evolution is theologically shaky.

The first point I want to make is we need to clarify what is meant by evolution. The word "evolution" has several different meanings.

1. Are different creatures related in one big family tree? In other words, is everything somehow related? This is not HOW did the species change into one another, but IS there a common ancestor for all life forms?

To this, I would say that there is a lot of evidence for that. (He now compares different animals) For example, the skeleton of a bat- it has wings like a bird but 5 fingers with grossly enlarged digits. General anatomical structure of animals suggests that they are descended from a common ancestor. We can tell this from residual parts that don't seem to make sense. An emu, for example, has short stumpy little wings that are of no use to it. However, that makes sense if it evolved from a bird that DOES have a use for wings. Or blind animals with tiny useless eyes- that makes sense if they evolved from animals WITH eyes.

The fossil record is also important. So some will say there are missing links. True, but the fact that it even exists, that there even ARE links should be recognized!

Whales evolved from land animals- this is suggestive by the fossil sequence. We DO have a sequence. We say that whales DID evovle from land animals, otherwise you are saying that God was constantly zapping more whalelike creatures that differed slightly from one another in the same general geographic area into existence. If common ancestry isn't true, God is certainly trying to fool us into thinking it's true!

2. So HOW did it happen?

The popular explanation is natural selection. (he gives an example here with a deer-like animal, natural selection, and evolving into a giraffe- grossly oversimplified, he says)

Does this suffice to explain how complex organs arise- eyes, for example? There is lots of scientific debate.

Now, when 2 people are arguing over evolution they are often using different meanings of the fact/ term "evolution." One of them is saying that it absolutely isn't true and is quoting scientific articles- he's talking about the MECHANISMS of evolution, the HOW it happened. The one who is saying it absolutely IS true is generally talking about the idea of common ancestry.

People will quote scientists completely out of context to try to prove evolution isn't true; when people are really arguing about the mechanisms involved.

Now, for the theological aspects of evolution:

Common Ancestry- The evidence is strongly in favor of that. It does seem to conflict with the literal meaning of Beraishis, but the Rambam deals with that, so that doesn't need to bother us. In fact, R' Kook says that the literal meaning of Beraishis is the LEAST we have to worry about- Beraishis is an esoteric book and should be understood as souch.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN: So, ideally this means that one sees a creator in nature. In practice, it means that there are certain aspects of biological organisms that cannot be accounted for by scientific explanation- therefore, some supernatural being, whether a weird green alien or God, must be involved. In a book called Darwin's Black Box it states that two things can absolutely not be explained by science and hence prove God is involved in the universe.

1. Bacterium Flagellum
2. Human Blood Clotting System

These systems exhibit irreduceable complexity- and there is not scientific explanation for how they could have evolved; that is what the Intelligent Designers claim. Therefore it must be, they hold, that they were designed.


1. Yes, we do have explanations
2. We will find good explanations- that is what science is all about; looking for answers

Now, this debate is often portrayed as being the religious intelligent design community versus the atheist evolutionists. So for nice frum Jews, intelligent design seems to be the way to go!

Now, there was a book published a few years ago about Torah and science that was supposed to give convincing evidence for a creator- for example, the author talked about bird migration, and he pokes fun at all kind of scientific explanations for it. For example, one scientific explanation suggested that birds use stars to find their way. So the author of this book made fun, saying, "How could this bird-brain" know how to use sophisticated techniquest to get there- the Little Dipper, the Big Dipper, etc...

First of all, the scientific explanations are pretty good (maybe this author didn't understand them, but...) but second of all, what you are saying here is that God can get a bird to hatch from an egg, but He's somehow incapable of giving a bird the ability to be guided by the stars!?

Do we see God in nature or only, merely in the things that science is unable to explain? The Intelligent Design camp is usually for all the things that "science is unable to explain." In Judaism, there's a train of thought, especially utilized by the Rishonim, that we can see God WITHIN nature. We try to minimize the miraculous- to ascribe greater intelligence to God.

What's wrong with a miracle? This is like comparing Microsoft to Apple. Microsoft is always coming up with new patches and updates, while Apple doesn't do that so much. The reason Microsoft has to do this is because it didn't design as good an operating system to begin with!

A miracle means the laws of nature are not accomplishing God's objectives, so He has to interfere in order to make them accomplish his objectives.

A miracle detracts from God- even the most famous miracles in the Torah are therefore presented in a naturalistic way. For example, the splitting of the Red Sea- we see that it says, "A wind blew all night." God can perform miracles THROUGH the laws of nature, still.

Now, paganism saw miracles everywhere. It is actually RELIGION that brings science into play! When Avraham uses monotheism/ science began WITH Judaism and monotheism. If there is a process to the world, to the laws of nature, then we must ask- where do they come from? Who makes the laws of science- who decrees them?

They are very fortutious laws. In order to have matter formed out of energy, they have to be very complex. The laws of nature themselves are incredible testimony to God- R' Hirsch has some beautiful quotes about this.

In order to understand the concept of spiritual laws, you need to start with/ understand physical laws. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction- this is Midah K'Neged Midah- that's not God's idea of a sense of humor! The laws of nature are testimony to God.

I used to be as anti-evolution as everyone else. In some of my earliest books, ten years ago, I was very against evolution. How did that change?

1. The Sefer Da'as Chachma U'Mussar saw this applied to animals/ natural law/ and based on what the sefarim teach, I realized that if evolution is NOT true then God was simply spending his time zapping creatures who were very similar to one another and deviated slightly into existence every few moments! And who is the better engineer- the engineer who makes 10 different robots, or the engineer who creates a PROGRAM (i.e. the laws of nature) to make the robots?

R' Hirsch actually says that if evolution is ever proven to be true it will attest to the creative wisdom of God.

Intelligent design says scientific explanations are not good enough. The implicit message of intelligent design is that you CANNOT see God in things that science CAN explain. Therefore, the Neviim (prophets) who spoke of seeing God in the majesty of the cosmos- they got it all wrong because science can explain that! Nope, instead, you need to look for God in the bacterium flagellum- this is theologically absurd! It is theologically absurd to be painting God into such a small corner.

They're so sure there's no scientific explanation for this- you think that God's incapable of creating laws to monitor the bacterium flagellum? That for some reason this is beyond God's power, so for this specific creatures He has to oversee and monitor and do it because the laws of nature- which He created- can't do it???!

Really, it's trivializing God- this movement that many people think is a friend of Jewish/ religious people. I find it theologically offensive.

We understand the science of metereology, astronomy- and yet we still see God's work in the cosmos, in the stars. We say 'Barchi Nafshi" every day- we have scientific explanations for thse things. Where is the source that differentiates biology from every other science? Why can't we see God in biology, too?

Some dislike evolution for its "randomness." We don't believed the world is random, they say. Well, hello, what about Purim- it seems like random fortuitous events, but in the end we see it's God behind the scenes! Or what about the idea of lottery in the Torah? The land of Israel is divided by a lottery, but God is in charge at the end- God works through SEEMINGLY random processes.

Evolution is not a contradiction to Judaism, but intelligent design and the claims of its members is.

Secular evolutionists also deserve blame, however. Stephen J. Gould tries to draw anti-religious statements/ conclusions from evolution. This doesn't make sense; everything depends on one's perspective. It's like history. To those who are religious, history demonstrates the will of God; to those who are not it may seem completely against religion.

Anti-theological conclusions drawn from evolution are wrong as well. It's no wonder that people feel strongly against evolution with secular evolutionists drawing these wrong conclusion sout there!

People have a tremendous desire to see everything in the's comforting but what about dinosaurs? you don't see dinosaurs in the Torah.



(I'm providing answers, not always the questions)

1. What about men coming from monkeys?

Okay, so say we disregard the literal problems with the literal account of creation. What do we dislike about men coming from monkeys? The idea that there is not much difference between us and them. We find it demeaning, degrading. What about evolving from toads, dogs? Also degrading? What about evolving from dirt? (Laughter) Why is it degrading to come from toads but not from dirt?

In truth, the problem is with saying we came from monkeys, is the idea that there isn't much difference between us and them. So what makes us different from monkeys?

1. Communication- our language skills
2. Freedom of choice, not instinctual responses

Rambam and Seforno say we were first created as humanoids WITHOUT a neshama (soul) and were no different from animals! In fact, why was man created on the same day as animals? Abarbanel says that it's to show that if you DON'T make free choices/ overcome your natural instincts, you are no different from an animal.

Rabbi Soloveitchik's "The Emergence of Ethical Man" is fundamentallyl based on evolution.

The popular conception is that Ramban says that everything is mystical miracles all the time. This is not true. Dr. David Berger writes about this. I'm trying to get this put up on my website- trying to get permission.


The idea of wastefulness seems to be a problem. However, we already have the idea of wastefulness in the idea that God created worlds and then destroyed them!

In fact, when evolution was first proposed, theologians of non-Jewish world saw it as solving problems, for example, of wisdom teeth or lower back pain. If jaws evolved into smaller teeth, that's why there are wisdom teeth- this makes the negative features of the world explainable. The negative features are the world are inevitable in this context- it's because of the system God used (Rambam.)

(Trying to illustrate his ideas) But it's the point that matters- say you go to Legoland and you see the Statue of Liberty made out of legos. So you might say it's not as smooth or as pretty- but the point is, it was made out of LEGOS and that's the genius of it! Similar with God- the genius of God is making and running the world out of natural laws.


It's nice to try to find as much support as possible, but I do try not to force meforshim to my approach.


So what I used to say is that's when Hashem put a neshama into man. But that's I'll tell you what Rav Gedalia Nadel the foremost disciple of the Chazon Ish, says. When God says, "Let us make man," does he mean man the individual or mankind? Mankind. Tehrefore, the year 5766 refers to the original evolution of homosapiens, the making of mankind. From then onward, Adam refers to that particular individual.

The Rambam also says that many sequences of events- for exmaple, the creation- is allegorical.


There are 2 approaches.

1. Just at this specific point in time in history, there had to be miracles and God had to break the laws to establish His mastery over them (from R' Yerucham Levovitz)
2. R' Soloveitchik says that even the miracles of the Exodus were performed in a naturalistic fashion- nature itself is a function of God, works to see God within nature



Not everything is "bashert." Rishonim say that. Quantum physics seems to open a way for God to interact with nature without having to break the laws of nature, or perhaps it is beyond our comprehension how God interacts with nature.


Nachum said...

Thanks so much! I wanted to make it and couldn't.

Welcome to YU! Always good to see someone entering it. Learn well!

Oh, and ignore the holier than thou stuff. I didn't go to Israel either, and got four years out of a college designed for three. You're gonna love your senior year, if Stern is arranged anything like YC.

Ezzie said...

Wow. Great, comprehensive summary. How did you get that all down while he was speaking?

I see my friends explained it well on Shabbos when they were discussing it... :)

The Hedyot said...

Pretty good summary. Didn't bother reading it all since I heard it a few hours ago. I wonder how many blogers were there. I know of at least two others besides myself (and Gil).

The Hedyot said...

You left out one very important part of the evening: At the part where he asked, "And who is the better engineer- the engineer who makes 10 different robots, or the engineer who creates a PROGRAM (i.e. the laws of nature) to make the robots?" there was a girl in the front who eagerly raised her hand to answer that.

I almost fell off my chair.

(Boy am I in trouble if that girl was you!)

Chana said...

Nope, but I was the girl who asked the Exodus question.

Anonymous said...

Great job.

Gedalish Natel (misheard, maybe?)

R' Gedaliah Nadel.

Steg (dos iz nit der šteg) said...

Chakira has two posts about R' Gedaliah Nadel.

And it looks like you missed my question at the end about the neshama evolving. But that's okay, R' Slifkin just suggested looking at The Emergence of Ethical Man.

There were 5 bloggers there that i knew about at the time, so not counting you, Chana (no offense).

Jewish Atheist said...

Chana, et al:

Please do the world -- and Orthodoxy -- a favor and take Orthodoxy back from the nuts. :-)

Anonymous said...

"If you're writing a book about *insert example*, it's meant for four-year-olds."

"In a book called Darwin's Black Box (I just heard the name; I might be mishearing that) it states that two things can absolutely not be explained by science and hence prove God is involved in the universe."

"(He said something like "Da'as and Chachma," maybe? The name of somebody)"
Sefer Da'as Chochma Umussar

"R' Dovid Berger (misheard, maybe?) writes about this."
Dr. David Berger

"Gedalish Natel (misheard, maybe?)"
Rav Gedaliah Nadel

"(from R' Yochanan Levovitz, I think)"
R' Yerucham Levovitz

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

Chana: On the topic of not everything being Bashert...I heard that when Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook was supposed to fly somewhere from Israel, his talmid picked him up very late and because of traffic on the way to the airport -- they missed the flight. The talmid said, "It's all 'min hashamayim' that we missed the flight". Rav Tzvi Yehuda answered, "You don't have to blame everything on the Rebono Shel Olam"...

The Hedyot said...

Jameel - great story! Can't wait to use that line!

Baal Habos said...

Curious Jew, excellent summary. Something along those lines is a book "the Language of God"> in addition to fossils, etc, he brings major proofs to evolution from Genetics and DNA. Really fascinating.
A big difference is thats written by a Christian believer, so that may bother some.

Nevertheless, he somes to same conclusion of Bashing ID.

Anonymous said...

Chana, will you marry me?

Kidding aside, we need to send you to all of Rabbi Slifkin's speeches. We should have offered to have paid you to go on his tour of the Bronx Zoo.

Knitter of shiny things said...


Great post!

Larry Lennhoff said...

I was there last night too - right in front of Steg and Brooklyn Wolf. Sorry we didn't get a chance to meet.

Welcome to NYC and to Stern!

Excellent summary - I'd happily pay towards getting you into Rabbi Slifkin's next zoo tour if you can make notes of that quality on the fly.

Irviner Chasid said...

"The land of Israel is divided by a lottery, but God is in charge at the end- God works through SEEMINGLY random processes."

This is a problem. Science does not say that the world works through "Seemingly random" process, it says Random process. Reality tells us otherwise, that you can't get function from random construction.

Halfnutcase said...

nothing in science is truely random. It's why it all forms in to science. (i mean if it all where random how'd you get things like the theory of relativity or thermodynamics?)

but awsome notes channa, thanks so much for bringing this to us.\

and btw, we really miss your long and thought out posts. hope to see them around again sometime.

Anonymous said...

He didn't say "seemingly" random. He said random.

Anonymous said...

Interesting talk. 3 comments:
1. long list of Rabbanim who support
ideas that lend themselves to evolution, but there are no quotes or sources. hmm. did he read from them in the talk?
2. I have a sneaky suspicion that when these early commentaries leave
room for looser interpretations of what happened in 6 days, it is for wont of our ability to fathom it, but is not their goal to minimize G-d's role in the creation of the world, as references to them suggests. To extrapolate their
views to support evolution sounds
incorrect to me.
3. If 6 days is metaphor, so is
Adam. What about Kain, Abel, Shes?
What about flood? Was Abraham a
metaphor too? I think the Palestinians say that Jews leaving
Egypt was a metaphor. get it?

Kylopod said...

I generally agree with R' Slifkin; here I must part company with him.

ID advocates do not necessarily argue for a violation of "natural law." Michael Behe discusses the different possibilities in his book.

On another note, I've just written a critique of Robert Pennock (a critic of ID) in my latest blog entry.

Charlie Hall said...

'This is a problem. Science does not say that the world works through "Seemingly random" process, it says Random process. Reality tells us otherwise, that you can't get function from random construction.'

Not a problem at all. I have a PhD in biostatistics, which is a discipline in which we develop methods to get structure from random processes (not seemingly random processes).

Charlie Hall said...

Chana, as YU faculty member (Albert Einstein College of Medicine) I would like to welcome you to New York and to wish you all the best in your studies.
It is an honor for my university to have a student such as you. I hope we eventually meet.

Mommy said...

It would seem from this interview that scientists have hijacked Darwin.

jewish philosopher said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
jewish philosopher said...

The fact is, that if we are descended from apes, then the Torah is simply false. Obviously it's author did not believe that.

If you want my opinion, click here.

Halfnutcase said...

actualy there is a midrash that at one point before the flood man had sullied his body so much that hashem gave him a new one

the skins of apes.

(and no i don't have a clue where said midrash is, but it is there)

the similarity was not lost at all on our rabbis.

Anonymous said...

Everyone thought that Slifkin was some harmless inspirational crap from Aish until Rabbi Tropper started trashing him with a letter writing campaign. Why? To exact revenge that a student in Tropper's yeshiva left to attend YU. What is the problem with that? The guy had a wealthy father and Tropper thought he was going to make some big money. How pathetic is that?

Hamasig said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hamasig said...

There's something here I don't follow.
Slifkin said:

And who is the better engineer- the engineer who makes 10 different robots, or the engineer who creates a PROGRAM (i.e. the laws of nature) to make the robots?

He has to oversee and monitor and do it because the laws of nature- which He created- can't do it???!

Really, it's trivializing God-..

It's insulting to suggest the God can't create laws of nature that can manage all life forms, perfect complex laws. Laws that should be capable of dealing with complete control of the development of the creature.
So how come there are bits left over? Why could these laws not handle bats 'fingers' ? Why do we have useless things like an appendix(?) or tonsils(?) ? Is it not 'trivializing' God's laws that emus have wings, or that
href=""> pandas can't use their thumbs
? Why couldn't He come up with something to take care of
href=""> DNA

Why can the failure of the rules be used as a proof to evolution, but not for anything else?

Anonymous said...

Just found your blog and wanted to post a comment which I hope you will see even though this is a very old post.

I too came from a bais yaakov background, rejected the anti-intellectualism and shallowness of the limudei kodesh classes there to come to Stern. I knew that Talmidei Chachamim were not idiots so they couldn't spend their whole lives learning something as simplistically as concepts were presented in Bais Yaakov. Students were expected to buy the party line no questions asked.

Stern/YU/any university prides itself on being a place of open debate and intellectual rigor. I found that the same lemming-like attitude was there but it had an intellectual overtone. People would swallow anything Dr. Shatz, Dr. Bacon, Rabbi Berman, Rav Shachter or Rav Tendler said because of the presentation and intellectual intimidation. It was hard to engage anyone in a real debate because people didn't think independently of their favorite professor or rabbi.

I eventually began to read the primary sources which the speaker quoted to see if the speaker was reading into the source, or misunderstanding the source or whether his source text was valid.

Your information is only as good as the person who said it. If, for example, Dr. A. explains what a Rambam is saying, you are not learning the Rambam's position, rather you learning Dr. A's position. If Rav B. quotes a Rav Moshe to support his claim, you are not relying on Rav Moshe, you are relying on Rav B. And who said he is right in his interpretation?

it requires a lot more work. Someone quotes a gemara - i need to look if that is the classic way that Rishonim and Achronim have understood the Gemara or is the Gemara being used for an agenda

Learning the text rather than learning ABOUT the text has made me much more respectful of Talmidei Chachamim and Gedolei Torah. When there is a consesus of opinion vs a minority opinion, I need to figure out what is the logic that the majority is using and why they reject the minority. Often it is because the majority are learning a piece of text in a way that is more faithful to its true meaning than the minority. Once I started learning the primary sources on my own, I can "hear" the opposition to Rabbi Slifkin in a non-emotional way. You can read academic journals and know who has it right and who doesn't.

You are very bright, analytical and independent. I hope you don't lose these qualities because you are finally meeting religious people whom you can respect intellectually. Just because others idolize them, doesn't mean you have to.

Chana said...

Dear Anonymous,

I want to thank you so much for your very-much appreciated advice. Everyone always has a slant, an angle, a personal bias, and I do take that into consideration when I learn from others.

I find that since I am meeting people I intellectually respect, it is better for me to keep quiet and research topics on my own rather than confront them, simply because I lack so much knowledge. This is unlike the way I dealt with Bais Yaakov teachers, in which case I felt capable to deal with them.

Therefore, even if I present other people's opinions, it does not mean I fully agree with them. I am still interested in looking for different angles.

Thanks so much!

Mordy said...

I'm amazed that Rabbi Slifkin would find the concept of Intelligent Design as being theologically offensive, and still consider himself a representative of orthodoxy. Slifkin claims that the implicit message of I.D. is that you cannot see G-d in things that science can explain. This is what he considers blasphemous . It is disingenuous for Rabbi Slifkin to make this extrapolation. There is no basis to attack I.D. proponents for something they never directly say. Furthermore, Rabbi Slifkin claims that there is much evidence (such as bone structure) to support 'common ancestry,' that all creatures descended from one progenitor. This is complete wishful thinking on Slifkin's part. Obviously, if G-d created the world and everything in it,(which faithful Jews believe), then it stands to reason that the bone structure of different species will have similarities, as the same Inventor created us all! Sorry, Rabbi Slifkin, there are too many "missing links" in your approach.

Glunker said...

the blogs need to discuss Slifkin's books more critically, not just defend it against haredi bans.
Important issues that have to be discussed:
What exactly is wrong with ID?
Could all living things have arisen randomly even with perfect laws of nature?
What are miracles?
I am trying to discuss some of these issues on my blog. (see ID, Evolution & Slifkhoffer and more posts on the side!)

Yitz said...

four years later and your post here still covers the issues quite nicely. Thanks.

Stephen said...

"If common ancestry isn't true, God is certainly trying to fool us into thinking it's true!"

I'm not sure of my overall stance on this subject but I do have one comment.

This is a mistake of logic. G-d is not trying to fool us because he told us in the Torah.