Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Jews clash over the intelligence of intelligent design

arroba Email

Fairly balanced reporting of the recent conference Dr. Dembski attended:

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.”

.... beervolcano is no longer with us. His crime was being stupid one too many times. -ds Well, actually not just stupid. That’s not a crime. He was belligerently stupid one too many times. -ds .... Dave, thanks for setting higher standards than some are used to. For me, this blog is like a graduate level seminar course. I take my seat in class. The professor comes in, presents a topic, makes comments, then invites comments from the students. I'm not sure a professor in such a course would suffer more than ONE such outburst of condescension as beervolcanos'. I guess, people think because this blog is on the internet and manners on the internet reflect in general manners in the general culture: rude, arrogant, bigoted, dishonest. But this is not "Beer's tavern" on the corner. To me, it's a graduate level seminar and higher standards apply. Red Reader
Maybe this is a better place to put this one. Darwinism logically entails, at best, hard agnosticism. Why? If Darwinian mechanisms can, in principle, generate the complex specified information (CSI) present in biological structures, then they also can, in principle, account for information gotten through the biological structures (eyes, ears, brains, so on). If God can be known, it is only through CSI. But Darwinism can, in principle (according to its proponents), account for CSI in biological structures. Hence, any information we think we have about anything, including religion, may indeed just be a subjective product of the Darwinian mechanism, and there is no principled way to treat firsthand experience of the divine as an experiential datum of anything beyond the material universe as opposed to explaning such an experience as hallucination or other epistemically subjective occurence if one is also a Darwinist. Therefore, for the Darwinist, knowledge of God is unassertible. jaredl
Your sarcasm is ill-placed. The flagellum is a finely tuned mechanism constructed out of 40 specially shaped pieces which in turn are precisely folded proteins molded into shape by other IC mechanisms using the blueprint of DNA and then fitted together into the final product. You might want to check out Unlocking the Mystery of Life which gives a visual presentation of the construction process (and covers the basics of ID so you'll comprehend it). Please have something constructive to say. Since you're obviously not very familiar with ID you've been given more leeway. But these comments based upon a misunderstanding of ID are starting to get tiresome. Patrick
{{"“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?”"}} Light travles at the speed of ...light, uh, and then when it hits a mirror it travels in another direction...at the speed of light. Planets the size of, uh...planets move at thousands of miles per hour relative to their suns and rotate at hundred to thousands of miles per hour on their axis. This truly must be evidence of intelligent design. beervolcano is no longer with us. His crime was being stupid one too many times. -ds Well, actually not just stupid. That's not a crime. He was belligerently stupid one too many times. -ds beervolcano
Is Judaism America's Established Religious Philosophy? What role does modernism have in it? beervolcano

Leave a Reply