Salomon Says: Creationism Vs. Evolution

R' Salomon distorts the issues. Others here have already pointed out that creationism/ID is not science, whereas the *theory* (not hypothesis) of evolution is. It was not just "Darwin" who had the last word in 1859 - it was thousands of scientists and dozens of Nobel prizes since, that we (scientists) continue to observe overwhelming factual evidence and confirmed predictions arising from evolutionary theories. This kind of selective ommision is a disservice to our religion.

I listened to your video. You misinterpret the problems that evolutionists have with teaching creationism is schools.

The problem is that creationism is not science in any possible sense. For example, it is not falsifiable. There is no single possible scientific discovery that would prove that creationism is wrong. Evolution has many such possible methods of falsification. For exanple, if a mammalian fossil was found in pre-cambrian rock, that would falsify evolution.

So I, like most evolutionists, feel that creationism should be taught in school. It just should not be taught in a science class.

My personal view is that Judge Jones's decision on the Intelligent Design controversy in Dover, Pa. should be taught in Social Studies classes.

Neither evolution nor creation are facts. They are both theories and should be taught that way. What I do not agree with is evolution taught as fact. Currently, that is the approach used. Debate on two theories would be healthy. It would allow the students to come to their own conclusions. We had these debates in high school, and they were great! It forced those who were die-hard evolutionists to consider creationism and vice-versa. I don't care whether creationism is discussed in a Religion/Philosophy class or science class. It should not be completely eliminated from the public schools.

This may be a fascinating debate to have in a classroom; it is not an appropriate debate to hold in a science classroom, as "creationism" is not scientific.

To believe that God created the universe is to believe that a being not subject to the constraints of time and space or the laws of physics acted to bring this whole shebang into being. Whether or not this is true is, almost by definition, not a question on which the precepts of science can have any foothold.

Let's not diminish our religion by pretending that it's a science, and let's not poison our science by forbidding it from contradicting our current understanding of the Torah.

While I enjoyed your message, it's tough to put a lot of stock in it with its glaring misrepresentation of evolutionary theory and the citation of Benjamin Franklin as the author of the Declaration of Independence. It's not that people don't want the issue debated at all (do it in a debate class!) but that they don't want ID taught unconstitutionally in a science classroom.

In Scotland I was given the tools in Philosophy/religion to go out into life and enter dialogue with people of different cultures and beliefs. To put ID in science basket limits it's potential to being an all embracing concept that includes all human of human life and not simply origin of man.

education of the mind on a secular level should remain free of religious/spiritual teaching. spirit and belief are best taught at home. teach & study comparative religions yes, but on an objective matter of fact basis. to function in the world at large we need the three "R's". to live in the world of ideas and beliefs I would not want the 'Establishment' to decide on what and how religion should be taught.

Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism or intelligent design is a religious belief. Evolution should and needs to be taught in a science class; ID/creationism should not - it is not science! However I see no reason to, and have no objection against, discussing evolution and creationism/ID in an English, Social Studies, or religious studies class. These would be valid places to "debate" these different ideas!

I have no problem with intelligent design or creationism being presented to students, provided that it's presented in an appropriate forum, and science class is not that forum. Science explains natural occurrences in the natural world using natural means. As soon as a supernatural (meaning existing outside of and independent of nature)element is presented in an attempt to make a scientific argument, it disqualifies it from being science. Intelligent design is a belief system, not a scientific theory. Including it in a class on world or comparative religion, philosophy, or even a world history class with a comprehensive section on world religion would be a more appropriate setting to discuss it.

Doesn't every piece of American currency state this very same information, IN GOD WE TRUST? Not allowing God into the classroom is absurd!

The current Intelligent Design movement is really stating that Science does not back up the antiquated 18th Century science of Charles Darwin.

The fact that the original Darwinists also promoted racism and became the scientific backbone for Hiltler's final solluton points out the danger of scienct without a soul, without the guidance of Torah values.

Over 250,000 fossils have been found and there is no conclusive evidence of fossils presenting transformations. Scientists find a fossil somewhere in Africa that presents reptile and birdlike features and they are in a ecstatic frenzy, "See, here is the proof!" If species really evolved from one specie to a more complex one the fossil finds should be replete with such evidence. We should still be seeing living transforming species.
It doesn't exist. Scientific evidence proves it did not happen.

The Big Bang Theory and the complex formation of one amino acid, the basic building block of life, were both random events according to Evolutionists. Mathematicians have calculated that the probability for these events to happen randomly to be beyond impossible.

Darwinians like Richard Dawkins acknowledge all of thes facts but state that one day science will figure this all out.
So isn't Evolution also hanging on faith? If you had to chose believing in something, would you rather believe in Evolultion, which has no proof, or believ in Creation where the evidence of Intelligent Design is everywher you look?

Your comments exactly mirror my own thoughts. I work in a public middle school as a teaching assistant. Since coming here 3 years ago, I've revisited our American roots through social studies. And I feel as you do - The Declaration of Independence forthrightly speaks of our Creator who alone has endowed us with inalienable rights. The Bill of Rights gives us the freedom of speech. Yet that freedom is outrighted denied by the exclusion of creationism which is not proven wrong by science. As of yet, scientists have not found that "missing link" purported to prove evolution. I also believe that, by shutting out the idea of a Creator-God, all students are affected. What is life about? What is the use of education? To what purpose should they apply themselves? We stuff their heads with knowledge but deny them wisdom and understanding. This is my opinion.

I read Bruce Martin's post and I was wondering...how do we know that it was the result of intelligence? Perhaps he was simply playing around with the keyboard one day and it's just a big coincidence that it just happens to look like English words and sentences? If you believe in evolution, then you are really saying that your brain is the result of evolution and everything you say or do is merely a survival strategy to pass on your genes.
No, there is no evidence of evolution. All we have are a bunch of just-so stories and some before and after pictures (with a bit of fraud and manipulation thrown in). If someone came up with a diet drug, with no working testable mechanism to test against the data and said "but it works! It's all natural and look at all these before and after pictures!" nobody would take it seriously. So why should we take evolution seriously if evolutionists can't take themselves seriously by their own "logic"?
So while I don't believe Chumash should be taught in the public schools (that's why we believe in sending kids to yeshiva!), evolution shouldn't be taught as science either. It is not science and indeed very harmful if followed to its logical conclusion.

Science is an active process. It is the process of using thinking analytical skills to develop proof along with experiments to actively find proof or disprove theories and processes.

Creationism is a statement of belief. You cannot prove it, you cannot do anything but accept or dismiss it.

That is not science. Teach Creationism in Philosophy, not Science!

As an observant jew and a member of science/engineering community here is my 2 shekels worth:

In science classes from kindergarden through about junior year in college the cirriculum is heavily focused on scientific theories and models that are "textbook", meaning supported by the bulk of the available physical evidence. Evolution is a theory with some predictive capability and a lot of supporting physical evidence. Thus it is taught in high school and college courses as a well established theory. About on par with the Krebs cycle, acid/base chemistry, and classical gravitation.

Kind of like Newtonian mechanics.

Notice how nobody disputes the teaching of newtonian mechanics in high school ? Why not, it posits a totally deterministic, causal, non-relativistic model of the universe that we know now is flawed... the reason is that students are not prepared to learn relativity and quantum mechanics at the high-school and early college level. Also a solid grounding in newtonian mechanics is still useful for many applications in real life engineering problems.

This situation is analogous to the debate over evolution. Students need a solid grounding in chemistry and biology before they can engage in learning about the new ideas in evolutionary biology, especially the cutting edge critiques of darwinian evolution from withing the evolution camp. Even understanding "ID Theory" requires some serious background. "ID Theory" should also try to amass the amount of evidence that evolution has along with being able to explain phenonmenon that evolution cannot explain before it is put in the classroom. Until then classical evolutionary biology is going to be the norm.

As Jews we only have a theological problem with the aspect of "Randomness" in evolutionary theory. But a reminder, what is random to the human mind is ultimately deterministic to the almighty creator of the universe.

In my opinion this whole issue is just not relevant or a challenge to the Jewish understanding of G-d.

Chag Sameyach,
Mike

ANYONE WHO IS OF THE THINKING THAT THIS WORLD OF OURS JUST CAME ABOUT BY ITSELF ,ARE FOOLING THEMSELVES .WE HUMAN BEINGS MADE IN THE LIKENESS OF OUR CREATOR WERE PUT ON THIS PLANET FOR A PURPOSE. (LA AHOV LREACHA CAMOCHA)TO LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF .WHEN ALL PEOPLES OF ALL NATIONS LEARN THIS WE WILL LIVE IN PEACE .ALL MUST TEACH THERE OFFSPRING THIS AND THEN THERE WILL BE HARMONY IN OUR WORLD. 0

The problem is not with the theories. I think all theories should be discused. The problem is how they are debated. I am a lone Jew living in the bible belt. Most activities (school functions, county fairs, town picnics, etc.) begin with a prayer to Jesus. If one can talk about creationism but leave Jesus out of it that is fine with me but it doesn't seem possible around here. But then we get to the next problem. There are many different theories of creationism. A Jew, a Hindu, a Wiccan may all have different theories, whoes do we teach? How do we tell people their theory isn't good enough? This is why it is best to keep God out of the classroom. Teach my kid evolution, the scientific explination. Tell her that there are other views and give other resourses for thoes views (books, movies, etc.). Invite classroom discusion on the subject but don't teach my kid about 'your' God(s), this is my job. I think we ask too much of our schools. Schools should be teaching the basics, home is where the heart and soul is. I would never assume that my kid is getting a well rounded education from school and always supliment at home. When she comes home with what she has learned about evoulution I use it as a base for our talk on creationism. She will, however, have an understanding of both b4 the school gets this far.

Although I dutifully studied evolution, it was never particularly persuasive to me. Since every question is explained away with "millions and millions and millions of years", it isn't exactly reproducible. The more I study physiology, the less plausible evolution appears.

Although Benjamin Franklin signed the Declaration of Independence, it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote it. Otherwise, I found Rabbi Salomon's thoughts very thought-provoking.

Evolution is intellectually and morally bankrupt. It is quite aparent that living things are far too complex to have evolved anywhere. They have a vested interest that there be no discussion. They will lie cheat and steal to hold the high ground that we, in our ignorance, have given them politically and accedemically.A great battle is just ahead.

The concept for concept to verse another concept is not education, but a war of words. A field to be defended by the different participants. Ones ego is then involved rather than concepts. Your worn, church and state and I am right.

A basic education is a broad scope of all conepts known to man.

Formal education is where a norm group agrees to a standard of concepts, but these standards should be modified with the passing of time eg. anotamy and surgery etc. cardic, lungs .. Physicians no longer allow instruments to be used if dropped on the floor as had been a practice at one time.

The advanced education, if one is not careful, tends to be more and more about a narrow concept..so called expert.

I trust God. Not my feelings, but his promises and the physical elements around man eg. earth, universe, mico/maco study. All things/concepts created by God can be studied.

It might be better to have an unbeliever who is ethical, honest and compassionate than an evil believer who contridicts God by his daily life practices.

God gave man the capacity to reason and use emotions. With God it does not matter what I feel is right, but his commandments to accept or reject.

The rain is dropped on the believer and unbeliever alike. Why not lets reason together to attempt to understand what God has done as best we mortals can due.
God bless
Joel

I teach the book "Inherit the Wind" in my 10th grade English Literature class... this opens the door for such discussion, and it boggles the mind to hear my students' opinions on the matter. And then, in the course of discussing, set the record straight.

Despite what Max Rambow says evolution is alive and well. There is proof that it exists while there is none for intelligent design only a belief that it exists. However,if intelligent design does exist evolution is not an alternative to it but part of it.

The political reality is that in open debate, Darwinists would be humiliated -- not per se because of their opinions, but because the nature of their attack on intelligent design has been misleading to fraudulent from day one, and this fact would likely become pretty obvious to their students in the course of open debate. What is generally done as "compromise" is for an evolutionist to "fairly present" intelligent design as a straw man that by the nature of his presentation, is framed for the plucking. And unfortunately, apparantly we need not look further than the biology department of Yeshivah University in New York, to find this methodology in action.

If evolutionistic in theory...did God evolve?
In intelligent design in theory...is the power of God limited?
If God is neither an evolution nor limited what is so strange about mere creation of a speck of the universe on which a speck exists?

Rabbi Yaakov Salomon presents the issue as if evolutionists want to exclude creationism from debate. This is not an honest representation. Evolutionists want to exclude creationism from the science classroom, but don't object its discussion in the framework of religion. The difference is significant. Creationism is based on religious belief, not science. It should not be presented as science. It is welcome when it is presented for what it is - a point of view based on honest belief whose basis is in Torah.

Since we have never understood the concept of what a day's length of time meant as expressed in Beresheet (Genesis)the concept of evolution that took billions of years rather than 7 days is not far fetched at all. In other words, the billion year evolution was spearheaded and directed by G-D Him/Herself... That is not difficult to understand... is it?

One idea does not need to be seen as mutually exclusive of the other when we express G-D's day as being equivalent to our billion or so years. Science knows full well that a "year" on different planets is not necessarily 365 of our earth days.

Mori Goldlist
Toronto Canada

The Declaration of Independence does not say "the creator" but rather "their creator." This opens the way for the separation of church and state and religious freedom. If you believe that you were created by Ha Shem, wonderful. If you believe you were created by another being, fine. If you believe we just happened, that's great too. Should it be discussed in a classroom? Sure, except those who want it discussed have an agenda: they want to have their beliefs imposed on everyone else. I have visions of teachers who express they are more inclined towards evolution being fired left and right.

Let's just leave it that everyone has the right to believe their own creation stories.

Since when do we debate in the classroom to impressionable children? I thought the purpose of the classroom was to teach. Evolution has basis in scientific fact, where is the fact in creationism? Creationism is based purely on conjecture and faith with nothing else to back it up, is'nt faith supposed to be taught in the home and house of worship? I'm not against teaching new theories but the classroom is no place for empty foolish ideas. The classroom was also once the place to teach the theory of the inferiority of some races, see where that got us?

Dear Sir:
It was NOT Benjamin Franklin, but Thomas Jefferson who wrote those words. Those young children are very impressionable, I would hate to think they go around quoting Franklin when it sahould be Jefferson or quoting the bible when they should look at the facts that explains evolution. The Torah is nice but it never mentions bacteria etc, that is its problem it is a book of history not science.
Alan Levitt

Evolution is an necessity of life that all races need to survive.
That goes for humans too. But the common misconception of humans evolving from primates is obscured.
Its says in the torah that G-D made man in his image, and breathed in his nostrils the breath of life.
And man became a living soul. This physical form, that we posses now is not only a holy image but it is also the beginning of our evolution state of being.
Who knows what we may look like come the distant future. I know is that we have yet to evolve further, towards a state of perfection with our heavenly father.
We did not come from primates. But from the hand of Hashem. And think of this, why did evolution stop?
Evolution does not per say stop but keeps going towards a state of perfection.
The primates are no where near a state of perfection.
If evolution did not stop and kept going the missing links would not in fact be missing but common knowledge, and would not be open to debate.
“We need evolution.”
“ We did not evolve from primates”
We came from G-D.

It might belong in a class on religion or comparative religion. NOT in a science class

Teach a mandatory compartative religion class and debate creationism and evolution there. Bereshit is not science it's ethics. It makes us look like fools tohold the position that the TNK is meant to be taken literally!
Just study the Hebrew Adam's rib?? Side?? please...

On your final point, technically, since the Declaration of Independence was written prior to the Constitution, it could have been unconstitutional.

I went to my trusty friend Google, and did some research. Thousands of sites appear when Declaration of Independence is searched with Unconstitutional. And there is even a federal court case, Stephen J. Williams v. Cupertino Union School District, et al , on the matter.

The question though is what is worse, that there is so much literature on this subject, or that I took out a few minutes of my valuable life to find this out?

Needless to say, "something to think about."

If there is to be progress by trial and error, you have to be at least minimally preprogrammed to learn from your mistakes, otherwise there is no progress. So, there has to be at least this setting in motion of progress for it to occur at all.

Dear Rabbi Salomon,

Creationism should not be part of secular education in this country for several reasons. First of all, although many people believe in the religious explanation of the origin on life, it is not a scientific viewpoint, and there is virtually no scientific evidence to back it up. It is pretty clear that the world is not 6000 years old, and it is also very clear that man did not just appear in his current state at that time. Evidence for evolution is so enormous, and the lack of evidence for creation is so striking, that it becomes obvious that creationism is a philosophical belief system which is not based in reality. One might recommend teaching it as one of the religious beliefs in the world, in a class on philosophy, but certainly not as an alternative to evolution, which is based in science and evidence.

Secondly, creationism is a story that is arbitrary. In other words, since there is no real, tangable evidence to back it up, it could be considered only one of many explanations of life's origin. If I wrote a book stating that mankind was deposited here by aliens from another galaxy, would one also have to teach that? If not, why not? I could probably come up with some loose, circumstantial evidence to back it up. One could claim that it deserves equal time with evolotion.

The bottom line is that children must be taught unified, logical and scientific facts as we understand them, not beliefs. There is a BIG difference between scientific theories and beliefs. The biggest difference is that science starts with observation and then builts its understanding and theories slowly, carefully, with changes and adjustments made along the way to accommodate for new findings and new evidence. Religion, on the other hand, starts at the end, that is, with the final belief already fully formed, and only then tries to fit the observations of the world around it into its already-made conclusions. It's obvious to me which approach makes more sense. If you think about it objectively, I'm sure you will agree. I believe that a child's education should be based in scientific logic, not based on dogmatic and unbendable beliefs that have no room for the clarity of science.

Bruce Martin

Who do you think will be teaching about Intelligent Design if it is taught in Public Schools? Either Secularists who will use the opportunity to ridicule religion or Fundamentalist Christians whose viewpoint does not represent Torah. (All religions are not created equal.)
This is a lose-lose situation for Torah Judaism.
It would be better to encourage the teaching of some of the scientific and statistical flaws in the Theory as it is currently taught.

ID or Creationism is metaphysics and has no place in the SCIENCE classroom. Religion and Science are orthogonal. Creationism (or ID, which is the same thing spiffed up in a fancy suit) cannot be verified in a lab, is a matter of faith, and cannot lead to verifiable experiments. Do not confuse the issues. I do not care if 90% of the population believes it. Science is not something you vote on. Around 1903, a state legislature decided to legislate that the value of PI should be a more convenient value of 3.14. That did not make it so. Faith says WHY things happen. Science says how. Faith tells about how man should relate to G-d and fellow man. That is not the realm of science, which is ultimately amoral.Faith defines and explains morality. We need both. There is no conflict.

absolutely not.

first, creationsim, and its more sophisticated outgrowth, intelligent design, is at best philosophy or theology - not science. unless you think scientists conspire against religion, you ought to wonder why an overwhelmingly large percentage of them, even the minority who are theists, feel that creationism doews not belong in science class. alternatively, you can become scientifically literate yourself and, even if your faith in god is unshaken, you will understand why creationism does not qualify as science.

second, as philosophy, it is flimsy. this is not the forum for a discussion, but those who feel it is important to really consider an issue before forming strong opinions should read hume's "dialogues concerning natural religion," probably the most important piece of literature regarding this issue.

finally, as jews we should really be wary of allowing material with obvious religious content, but questionable secular content, into the public sphere. it may seem farfetched now, but what if someone introduces evidence he claims demonstrates that that judaism was a political fabrication, or that christians are genetically more moral than others, or that jesus was the son of god? unless the evidence is scientifically valid without a doubt, and even perhaps if it is, would you want that taught in classrooms. furthermore, do not be comforted even if what is taught affirms what is common to jews and christians alike, as so much is. judeo-christian values have long been inculcated in the west, and yet the commonality of values has not protected jews from the most heinous of crimes at the hands of christian majorities. let what has religious import remain a private matter. no one stops you from teaching creationism at home. let the public sphere remain secular. we as jews should be particulary keen on such distinctions.

Evolution provides a useful way to understand how life forms develop over time, and in turn it helps us find answers to problems such as how to combat emerging influenza viruses. Faith in HaShem is perfectly consistent with this. It's ok to have two ideas in mind at one time, especially when one, faith, will always guide the ethical pursuit of ways to make the world better.

The problem with placing the debate in the schools is that it is not a debate. The main forces pushing for Creationism to enter the public school do not believe in tolerance of non-Christian belief. It is not an effor to open debate but a subtle effort to convert others to their beliefs.

We cannot subject our children to these efforts to convert them, especially while we live in a society dominated by a set of Christian-based religions. Admitting this kind of discussion would give the majority culture a green light to put pressure on our children, to try to lead them away.

It is our responsibility to educate our children about our beliefs, and to help them understand that science is a useful tool, that it must be used in the service of good, and that it is ok to use scientific ideas while knowing that, well beyond our understanding, HaShem always knows how everything will play out, from evolutionary change to our every momentary choice.