Talk:Jewish views on evolution

message: *Talmud Chagiga 13b states that there were 974 generations of humans before God created Adam.
*Many midrashim state that the "first week" of Creation lasted for extremely long periods of time.  See Anafim on Rabbenu Bachya's Sefer Ikkarim 2:18; Midrash Bereshit Rabba 9.  (I haven't read the Anafim on this discursus myself - RK)
* Midrash Bereshit Rabba 14 states that humans were created with tails!
* Midrash Tanchuma Genesis 6 states that people born before the time of Noah had webbed fingers!
* Breshit Rabba 23 states that in the days of Enosh the faces of men became ape like.
So given the above statements in classical rabbinic literature and the Kabbalistic literature, it is hard to say that the classical Jewish view demanded that people accept that the world was created as is some 6,000 years ago.  I think the text should stress that the literal understanding of creation in six days was one of a number of religious Jewish understandings, but was not the only one.  RK 20:39, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
:Do you know this for a fact, or are you just saying that "it is hard to say" Are you saying that Noah lived more than 5,000 years ago!? I don't think that anyone says that. Please be familiar with Rabbinic statements before you introduce your own interpretations. --DY1963 01:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rabbinic statements that are compatible with evolution

message: Please see . Mikeage 02:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nosson is Yiddish for Natan (Hebrew), or Nathan in English. --Metzenberg 07:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slifkin's First Name

message: Please see this. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 10:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote 

message: As a biologist, I am glad to see the many orthodox authorities who accept the concept of evolution--even  Hirsh in 1880 was willingto accept everything except the origin of life. 
But I would like to see some discussion of the current views that do not accept the theory. This article seems a little one-sided, as if it were trying to prove the POV that evolution is consistent with othodoxy. How about some discussion of the contrary? I would very much like to know how those who do not accept it justify their rejection of the secular evidence. Is it simply a matter that as it is inconsistent with Torah, it cannot be true & we will therefore ignore it, or is there an attempt at argumentation as is done by the Christian fundamentalists? DGG 04:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reverted RK's changes to R' Hirsch's views, because I believe that the original version more accurately reflected his views. I agree with you that there is not enough information in there about Haredi views. Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb (Audio Lectures - take a look at the ones on evolution and the age of the universe) offers one solution that accepts evolution and another that says that the world was created to look old. --Ezra Wax 05:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Haredi and other traditional views

message: The 2 main ways, at this point, to improve the article, are such:
1.) Expand the article content a bit, include as many basic viewpoints as possible from all the main denominations (quotes from movement leaders are always best), and make everything as concise as possible in the sentence and paragraph arrangement
and
2.) Add reliable citations. Lots of them. That always helps.
Noogster 03:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main ways to improve this article 

message: It is an inflammatory article, much of which simply quotes various Haredi texts out of context on subjects related to science or evolution. It presents the isolated opinions of a few Haredi decisors as if they represented all of Orthodox Judaism, and it fails to even mention that many Orthodox Jewish writers embrace scientific theories. (Kaplan, Schroeder, etc. are widely read and admired in Orthodox Jewish communities.) It generally equates Haredi views with all of Orthodoxy. 
It uses a gloss of social science language such as "empirical study," yet it does not follow any of the norms of social science research to present a study and methodology that is reproducible by others.  For example, the actual survey questions that were asked are not stated. Rather, they are summarized in graphs.  It does not tell how or where the subjects were selected.  It does not reproduce the survey or questions themselves. 
The authors of the Skeptic Magazine "study" could stand to learn more about evolution itself.  Their ignorance of science is revealed in some of the "questions" in their survey.  Some of their "questions" reveal that the designers of the this so-called study understand very little about science. Here are some examples: 
* Are humans descended from apes?  True or False?  No, according to evolutionary theory, humans and apes are descended from a common ancestor. 
* Evolution correctly explains the origin of life. True or False. Is somebody kidding me?  Evolution does not explain the origin of life.  It explains how life evolved once it originated.  The actual questions of how life originated (Did metabolism precede reproduction? Did RNA life precede DNA life? Did another nucleic acid precede RNA as the basis for life? What was the nature of the original metabolic process that sustained the first life forms? etc.) are it this point in time all unanswered. 
I personally happen to believe that scientific answers for these questions will eventually be found. I'm just amazed at the hubris of the Skeptic Magazine article in claiming to know as fact what what nobody really knows yet. The authors badly need to be skeptical of their own ideas.   
In short, this article in Skeptic Magazine is not an "empirical study" as it claims.  Rather, it is a sloppy hit-and-run piece that has been written to please readers of Skeptic Magazine. --Metzenberg 23:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  Your help is also needed in a couple of other articles.  For example, Religious perspective on dinosaurs.  It had a "Jewish" section which I deleted for being rather useless.  Maybe you can help.  Orangemarlin 00:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed the "Skeptic Magazine" article - here's why! 

message: * Cantor, Geoffrey and Marc Swetlitz, (editors). Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism. University of Chicago Press. 2006. ISBN: 9780226092768
PART 1: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON JEWISH RESPONSES TO EVOLUTION
* Introduction to Part 1
* Chapter 1. "Anglo-Jewish Responses to Evolution," by Geoffrey Cantor
* Chapter 2. "Responses to Evolution by Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist Rabbis in Twentieth-Century America," by Marc Swetlitz
* Chapter 3. "Practically, I Am a Fundamentalist: Twentieth-Century Orthodox Jews Contend with Evolution and Its Implications," by Ira Robinson
 
PART 2: SOCIAL USES OF EVOLUTION: ANTI-SEMITISM, RACISM, AND ZIONISM
* Introduction to Part 2
* Chapter 4. "The Impact of Social Darwinism on Anti-Semitic Ideology in Germany and Austria, 1860-1945," by Richard Weikart
* Chapter 5. "The Evolution of Jewish Identity: Ignaz Zollschan between Jewish and Aryan Race Theories, 1910-1945," by Paul Weindling
* Chapter 6. "Zionism, Race, and Eugenics," by Raphael Falk
 
PART 3: EVOLUTION AND CONTEMPORARY JUDAISM
* Introduction to Part 3
* Chapter 7. "Crisis Management via Biblical Interpretation: Fundamentalism, Modern Orthodoxy, and Genesis," by Shai Cherry
* Chapter 8. "Torah and Madda? Evolution in the Jewish Educational Context," by Rena Selya
* Chapter 9. "Modern Orthodoxy and Evolution: The Models of Rabbi J. B. Soloveitchik and Rabbi A. I. Kook," by Carl Feit
* Chapter 10. "The Order of Creation and the Emerging God: Evolution and Divine Action in the Natural World," by Lawrence Troster
I have reproduced the Table of Contents here. This book looks like it will help us out greatly in improving this article. --Metzenberg 03:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  University of Chicago Press, new book (November 2006) 

message: I have created a new page, Jewish opposition to evolution, and I put the "creationism" template box onto it instead, replacing it here with the "Jewish topics" box. From now on, Jewish opposition to evolution is the place for material and issues such as those arising out the the Slifkin controversy.  And we can focus here on mainstream views.  In addition, I eliminated the term "Jewish Creationism" from the "Creationism" infobox. "Creationism" is not a Jewish concept really. --Metzenberg 19:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish opposition to evolution 

message: My attention fell upon this article due to procedural concerns about a related article.  I have no axe to grind with either side here.
I realize it's a lot more work, but I think this article would benefit tremendously from inline citations.  That would make it much easier to weed out assertions that are not directly supported by a reliable source as required by WP:A.  The way it is now, with just one inline citation and seven sources listed at the very bottom of this lengthy article, it is practically impossible for the typical WP editor to verify anything.  That makes it easy for editors to insert unsupportable statements and almost guarantees that every point can be argued to death.
I suggest setting a time limit -- maybe two months -- for everybody to supply an inline citation for any factual assertion he or she would like to see retained.  After the time expires, any uncited statements can be excised.  It would keep editors (and the article) honest, and it might lead to this mishegas being eligible for GA or FA status.
--Butseriouslyfolks 20:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that citations are important, but don't go cutting anything out quite yet. The article is an oldie that I just got to working on this week. I don't think removing the citations because nobody cleaned them up is the answer.  For one thing, they are actually famous quotes that we wouldn't want to see stripped out of the article.  To those of us "in this field" (those who follow issues like this in the Jewish world) we already know who Norman Lamm or Samson Raphael Hirsch are and why what they said is important, and where to find it. The challenge is to write a good article and get everybody to use those citations. --Metzenberg 22:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get me wrong -- I'm not suggesting anything by excised just yet.  If the people currently editing here can at least reach consensus on a reasonable amount of time to cite everything, then it would be fair to remove uncited material after the deadline passes.  It would probably be helpful to notify anybody who has made significant contributions to the article.  Also I'm not just saying the quotations should be cited, I'm suggesting that any sentence that asserts a fact (other than something that is common knowledge to anybody stopping by) should be supported by a direct citation.  If that doesn't cut down on the squabbling, it should at least narrow it to the specific facts.  Good luck! --Butseriouslyfolks 01:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: But seriously, I think the squabbling is done for.  You can see for yourself what the "Skeptic Magazine" article was. Sometimes a page needs an posek, and I guess I've taken that on for now. But seriously, what we need to do now is read that brand new University of Chicago Press book, for which I added the Table of Contents above.  I have ordered it through Amazon. I think the fundamentals of who is quoted in this article are correct: Maimonides, Hirsch, Lamm, Schorsch. Really the article should be shorter, not longer. I am waiting for my new book to arrive from Amazon. If anyone else would like to join in writing this page, please order a copy of that book and lets all read it and talk about it here. --Metzenberg 07:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline Citations 

message: The citations for the Shai Cherry article were impossible to do with the inline style, at least on the templates that I was able to find. Anybody know how to do it?  Also, if you do, see if you can fix the Iggorot Moshe reference to make the volume/responsa number appear. That's Volume 3, Responsa 73.  I couldn't find a way to make it come out right in the inline citation style. --Metzenberg 07:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anybody good with reference tags? 

message: Here is the paragraph I inserted yesterday.
:: Intelligent design is a theory that claims that an intelligent creator is responsible for the origin of life and of humankind. Its proponents claim that their hypothesis is scientific, that it challenges the Darwinian view of evolution and its modern synthesis. Jewish theologians, organizations, and activists have maintained that intelligent design is not a scientific theory. Although some have expressed support for a theistic interpretation of evolution, they have generally rejected the tenets of the intelligent design movement itself. Jewish organizations have been steadfast in their opposition to the teaching of intelligent design in public schools as a valid scientific alternative to evolution.
Now I have changed the wording so that it is obvious that intelligent design is not a theory (I agree, it isn't, its proponents only claim that it is). 
:: The movement for intelligent design claims that an intelligent creator is responsible for the origin of life and of humankind. Its proponents claim that their hypothesis is a scientific theory, that it challenges the Darwinian view of evolution and its modern synthesis. Jewish theologians, organizations, and activists have maintained that intelligent design is not valid science, that it is a religious concept. Although some have expressed support for a theistic interpretation of evolution, they have generally rejected the tenets of the intelligent design movement itself. Jewish organizations in the United States have been steadfast in their opposition to the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, charging that to do so would violate the separation of church and state.
ZayZayEM. This is an article that is about evolution, not intelligent design, and the people who read it do need a lead in to what intelligent design is, not just a wikilink. This entire article may eventually be part of a "Jewish perspectives" box (which I am developing) that will contain Jewish perpsectives on issues such as organ donation, abortion, homosexuality, environment, stem cell research, etc. If you have some other way of wording it, so so here: --Metzenberg 15:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Metzenberg that some explanation of "intelligent design" is in order. Especially outside of the U.S., people are likely to be completely unfamiliar with the term. I'm not sure I like either "theory" or "movement" (both grant too much). I'd just say "view". - Jmabel | Talk 17:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with "view" or "viewpoint" or "idea" probably being better than theory or movement in terms of NPOV. I'd suggest it is more of movement personally (they have set goals).--ZayZayEM 00:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts to intelligent design (and use of defnitions of wiki'd terms)

message: This is posted for encouragement. Although I am still not in agreement with Metzenberg's comprehensive reversion/redaction of my earlier work; reactionary measures almost never result in a better Wikipedia article. But you've done a good job and this is looking like a nicely researched article. Thanks again. Noogster 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Progress to the Article, so far 

message: Shalom.  Under 'medieval rabbinic teachings', it claims that Maimonides wrote that if Science and Torah were misaligned ...  I've tried quite hard to locate the origin of the writing / commentary, but succeeded not. The editor of this part didn't indicate any reference to this meaningful interpretation, or maybe a real quotation. I'll be happy to be helped here.BentzyCo 07:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing [[Rambam]] 

message: :Image:Slifkin creation.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Slifkin creation.jpg

message: The article refers to Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan(zt"l) in the present tense. He died over twenty years ago. Grimlock613 14:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan 

message: I modified the tenses in certain parts of the article, to reflect that certain rabbis whose views are cited have been dead for some time (in the case of Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Chajes since the mid 19th century.) I also added the dates for the rabbis in question where I was able to find them. Grimlock613 14:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modified tenses in article 

message: Shouldn't the spelling "bilbical" which occurs several times in the article be "biblical"? 
by cantbebotheredtosignin  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.227.118 (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling Mistake 

message: Should we also add a blurb about Yitzhak ben Shmuel of Akko's estimation of the age of the universe as 15 billion years? Would probably be more relevant in an article about Judaism and Science but it does fit in here somewhat, he cites one of the quotes in this article as a source for that, and there's another mention of "billions of years". 216.15.63.39 (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  anecdote 

message: Shalom.  Under 'medieval rabbinic teachings', it claims that Maimonides wrote that if Science and Torah were misaligned ...  I've tried quite hard to locate the origin of the writing / commentary, but succeeded not. The editor of this part didn't indicate any reference to this meaningful interpretation, or maybe a real quotation. I'll be happy to be helped here. BentzyCo (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's o.k. already by now, assisted by Jon513. It's in The Guide for the Perplexed, book 2, chap 25. BentzyCo (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing [[Rambam]] - repeated 

message: The section on Maimonides and Nahmanides is filled with OR and irrelevancy. It says that Maimonides interprets the account of creation non-literally, as if to imply that he accepts darwin's idea of evolution. This is nonsense in the Guide 2:17, it speaks about CERTAIN THINGS in the account of creation as not being literal and that's explained elsewhere--in fact, in 2:30. See there, and you'll see that Maimonides just clarifies that certain aspects of the story shouldn't be interpreted literally, but the rest he interprets totally literally. He certainly doesn't subscribe to evolution. As for Nachmanides, 1. no source is mentioned for the claim that he interprets non-literally; 2. it's not enough to say that he offers a non-literal interpretation, because that's nothing new; many kabbalistic commentaries do so, but not because they reject the pshat, but rather because they're explaining it on a deeper level. As for Rabbi Isaac of Akko, he again said things in a kabbalistic context, so that doesn't prove that he rejected the pshat. That makes the quote from him also unacceptable OR. And the claim that "A literal interpretation of the biblical Creation story among classic rabbinic commentators is uncommon" is both absurd and OR. So unless anyone has any objections, I will remove this section.--Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  on Rambam and Ramban

message: That should be changed to the consensus of Haredi Rabbis. The Slifkin affair has basically demonstrated that by definition a Haredi is opposed to Evolution. --Ezra Wax (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  some Haredi rabbis have remained staunchly opposed 

message: This page is incomplete without at least one mention of Avigdor Miller. In his works he repeatedly provides arguments against random evolution and in favour of divine creation. His parallel (and related) writings on "the marvels of the Creator" (niflaos ha-Borei) has spawned an entire inspirational literature examining unusual natural phenomena. Most of the authors credit Miller for the method. An example is Tuvia Cohen (pseudonym of Avraham Katz). JFW | T@lk 10:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avigdor Miller 

message: Isaac of Akko's assertion comes from his "The Trove of Life" in which he states that man was created in the 42,000th divine year, with each divine year being a thousand times longer (id est, each day of the year was a thousand years, or 365,250 normal years according to the then current understanding of a year being 365 and a quarter days long — close, but not quite accurate). This lead Isaac to believe that man was created 15,340,500,000 years after the beginning of the Universe.
Bahya's commentary on the Torah is "Be'ur 'al ha-Torah" ("Commentary on the Torah") written 1291.— al-Shimoni (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cites Needed — Isaac of Akko and Bahya ben Asher 

message: http://www.chabadnews.us/Old%20Letters/RA000014.htm
Unchartered (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for Chabad 

message: The capitalization of Midrash and Kabbalistic are currently inconsistent in the article.  Should they be upper-case or lower-case?  --Amble (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midrash and Kabbalah capitalization 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Jewish views on evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://momentmag.com/features/oct05/slifkin.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I move to delete the entire "Moshe Feinstein" section and associated "Responses to Feinstein's ban" section.
Here are the problems I see in this section:
* R' Feinstein is described as "known for his opposition to evolution" without a citation to back this assertion up. I had never heard of this being something he's particularly known for. His WP entry says nothing about it.
* R' Feinstein's position regarding evolution is established on the basis of a citation of Iggorot Moshe, Yoreh De'ah 3:73, with the claim: "Rabbi Feinstein ruled that the reading of an evolutionary textbook is unequivocally forbidden, because belief in evolutionary history is tantamount to apikorsus (Hebrew, heresy)." This claim is entirely unsupported by the cited responsum. In fact, the portion of that responsum dealing with textbooks is a single-paragraph mini-responsum which does not mention evolution at all or equate it to heresy. The entire text of the mini-responsum, in my translation, is below. Using this to establish a position regarding evolution, per se, is untenable.
   "And secular-studies books that have in them matters of denial regarding the creation of the world are certainly books of heresy from which it is forbidden to study. And it's necessary to ensure that secular studies teachers don't teach from them to their students. And if it is impossible to procure other books, it's necessary to tear those pages out of the textbooks."
* R' Feinstein's position is expanded by quoting an argument by R' Avi Shafran in a cited blog post. That blog post does not mention R' Feinstein at all or claim to be establishing or interpreting his position.
* The "Responses to Feinstein's ban" section is entirely based on a newsletter article that's hard to consider notable in its own right in the world of Jewish ideas. The citation to that article consists solely of a link which is currently broken, so it's impossible to verify the content of the original article, anyway.
MOE37x3 (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire "Moshe Feinstein" section is very problematic 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jewish views on evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403043248/http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/create/creationism_QA.asp to http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/create/creationism_QA.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: So? 95.168.107.5 (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is for improving the article about Jewish views on evolution, not about discussions of where the ideas of racist shitheads come from. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory of evolution is a basis for Racial theory. Yes or no?