Reaction to “Letter From Dark Light�
As some of you may be aware, there has been a lot of feedback for the guest post series series by “Seth” that I published, “Letter From Dark Light.â€? My blog needs to be fixed to pickup trackbacks, but here are a few of them:
The Forward weighs in, with Daniel Treiman noting on the Bintel Blog that,
This week The Kvetcher has a series of guest posts from someone who used to study at Ohr Somayach’s Jerusalem yeshiva — and it doesn’t sound like a pleasant place.
Failed Messiah asks, “Is Ohr Somayach a Cult?�
Cult News lists the Forward post on their January 4th links section.
Dov Bear offers a link and discussion thread.
So does Thoughts of a Secular Jew.
And Baalbatish.
And Shalom Bayit:
Man, I have to have more guest posts!
As for “Seth,” well, Cipher and others want to know what he is doing now, and how he is doing, but I don’t want to bore you guys with more if you don’t want an epilogue, so let me know either way.
And thanks to everyone for publicizing Seth’s story. The only way to fight Ohr Somayach is to educate the liberal and Jewish community, and that means bearing witness to what you saw if you were there.
Obviously, there is only so much that can be done. All Rabbi Nota Schiller (Israel) or Rabbi Rakowsky (Monsey) 
need to do is scam one secular Jew they meet while flying first class on a plane, selling their nonsense as “saving American Jewry� and yet another 1/2 a million is sunk into these pits of misery, and they expand still further. The best we can do is slow their growth, and warn others, and…hey, wait a minute. It seems that the Philadelphia branch of Ohr Somayach has…failed. It has closed.
The Jewish Exponent reports,
For a time, the building housed Ohr Somayach Philadelphia, a Jewish outreach organization geared toward youth, but that closed earlier this year.
Indeed, the number rings and rings, and the website Dark Light International directs you to for Philly leads to nothing.
Ohr Somayach can be contained.
Related:
South African chief rabbi connected to OS protects serial philander (no judgments!), Ohr Somayach’s South African FOUNDER
The [Most Dubious] Power of a Rebbe’s Blessing –Another supernatural rabbi tale that never happened.
81 comments
Somehow I got here from the Forward.
I learned in Ohr Somayach in Jerusalem from 2003-2005, and had a fantastic experience. Most of the guys I learned with are now either a) learning full time in some of the top yeshivas in the world or b) in law school or medical school or starting careers in business. Many are married and some already have beautiful children.
I’m currently in medical school, a decision supported by the rabbis at Ohr Somayach, who are wonderful people.
I saw certain people (a tiny minority) who didn’t get a good experience at Ohr Somayach, but this was usually because they either came in with their own personal baggage, either psychological problems or emotional problems or just a chip on their shoulder against the world. It’s a shame that your readers don’t get the perspective of the 99% for whom Ohr Somayach changed their life radically for the better.
Another living hell.
But you can be contained, too, AJ! You live in Philly, maybe?
My cousin has a great “moifes” from R’ Chaim Kanievsky.
Someone asked him if they should operate on his mother in law and he said to operate. she died.
Mohammed, that is such a meaningful story. Really advances the discussion.
It sounds like R’ Chaim gave the same advice the doctors did.
AJ wrote,
“It’s a shame that your readers don’t get the perspective of the 99% for whom Ohr Somayach changed their life radically for the better.”
Oh, sure. Not only 99%. Why sell Dark Light short? I bet it is 99.9999999999%. In fact, besides Seth and myself, I bet everyone had a truly wonderful experience, and most are exceptionally successful now. Especially the ones who stayed. Their careers must really be something to watch closely.
Oh, and in the off chance that there was ANYONE else who didn’t have a great experiecne, CLEARLY they had psychological problems “before they became frum.”
Obviously.
DK, sarcasm aside, his anecdotal experience isn’t any less statistically valid than yours and “Seth”’s, is it?
Or are you holding by ketanim stories?
Ron,
He claimed 99%. That is such an over the top number, I question this man’s perception abilities. And his typical haredi line about other BTs having “psychological problems or emotional problems” if they didn’t become haredi like he did? Such a hack. All the kiruvniks say the same lie. You have any problem with their hashkafa or outlook, you must be psychologically.emotionally disturbed.
I am not out to convince AJ or the Beyond BT crowd they are wrong. I want to point out to all the non-haredi Jews reading that this is traditionally how they answer criticism. Read it again. Read AJ’s point. If you don’t see things the way Dark Light does, you are psychologically or emotionally disturbed.
Hey Ron
Apparently you have no sense of humor or you never heard a mother in law joke. I happen to be chareidi, but I don’t belong to the group that idolizes Kanievsky. I think his chance of getting it right is as good as the average shamans’ in Africa.
I studied at OS in 1997 (as well as Aish, Isralight, etc). And I recall stimulating conversation and sweet people. Sorry to disapoint DK.
The excuse that any disagreements, disappointments, etc. are the result of psychological issues is the occupational hazard of people seeking G-d. G-d is eternal, trans-infinite, never wrong, etc. Man is anything but. On the way from the latter to the former, people tend to confuse *their way* with *THE way* and this results: the idea that one’s ways and beliefs are unquestionable since they are in accordance with the accepted word of G-d.
A phrase for it is “holy effrontery”. It never served the Christian churches well, it cannot serve anyone well.
Cult behavior serves no one and certainly not G-d whose righteousness must be accepted with a clear mind of free will for it to have meaning beyond us being robots running on His program. Without it, our relationship can be no better than machine to engineer and if you think about it, G-d could have stopped during creation with bacteria if He wanted nothing more than that out of us.
Ohr Somayach “THE OTHER LIGHT” of the story!
Ohr Somayach “THE OTHER LIGHT” of the story!
In this letter I would like to address some of the points that “Seth” raised, presenting a distorted picture of the Ohr Somayach Yeshiva in the article calledthe “Dark Light.” Let me tell you a little about myself, since I think it is crucial for the reader to understand my point of view. I am not here to argue with “Seth” about how he feels about Ohr Somayach. To be honest, I felt that a lot of the statements made were not only not true, but quite silly in nature. (as will be explained below)
My name is “Emit Pinchus”, although this is not my real name, if anyone wants to contact me they may do so via email, or they can ask the administration who I am. and I am currently attending Ohr Somayach Yeshiva in Jerusalem. I have been here for 2 years. I recently got married and am living in Jerusalem. Prior to coming to Ohr Somayach, I earned my BS in Commerce, and then went on to complete my J.D. Every summer between the academic years at law school, I would go to Ohr Somayach to learn more about my Jewish heritage. I found the classes to be intellectually stimulating and informative. During each summer the Rabbis made it a point to express their positive feelings about my goals, referring to my desire to become a lawyer and yet taking the time to learn about our Jewish tradition. Never, and I mean never, did a Rabbi tell me or even hint to me that I should leave law school to pursue solely Jewish studies. After I came back the second time, I really felt that I wanted to set aside time after the completion of law school to study the Torah on a serious level. When I got to Ohr Somayach after taking the Bar exam, which I passed, I was pleased to find beautiful living arrangements in a Maalot Dafna apartment, with 8 other guys. Let me tell you the make up of the guys: an investment banker; an accountant; a security analyst for a major mutual fund; a professor of German-Jewish studies; a trader for another major mutual fund; a political science graduate on his way to law school; and a biomedical engineer. (I don’t remember the last one’s occupation.) They had all been religious for a few years, and decided to come to Ohr Somayach to strengthen their skills in learning as well as build their connection to Judaism. All were very lively guys, with upbeat personalities and were a real joy to live with. That first year gave us a chance to become friends and grow in our observance of Torah. Some people were more religious then others, and the Rabbis made it a point to have a lecture about how students should never tell other students how to live their life or keep mitzvoth. They said that theses are all personal decisions, which should be left up the individual.
When someone asked the Rabbinic head of our department, about whether he encourages the students to leave Universities and their careers, he said and I quote, “Absolutely not, staying in Yeshiva and learning is a completely personal decision, where many factors have be taken into account, like financial stability, family, potential job and the like.â€?
He advised one of my friends, who had a sick father, to go back home and help his mother to take care of his father.
In my case, I really wanted to stay and learn because I felt a need to acquire the skills to learn Jewish texts independently.
We learn in an intensive program dedicated to getting the student on his feet in terms of his learning and observance level. The Yeshiva never told me what type of kippa I had to wear, or whether I should wear blue shirts, or white shirts. That type of stuff is not within their scope of education. They are teaching us how to grow in our religious observance, like keeping Sabbath, wearing Tzizit, and being able to learn from a Gemara.
My Rabbis never mentioned anything bad about any other type of Jew, whether it is secular or modern orthodox, or chassidic. Their goal was to help us get a foundation in learning and keeping mitzvoth, and not to get into the political issues of our times. A student might ask aRrabbi his opinion on some political issue and the Rabbi would answer him privately, but, in my experience, each Rabbi has his own mind and answers accordingly. Never did I hear anyone mention anything against the Rav, J.B. Soloveitchik, Ztl; on the contrary, Rabbis were quick to say that he was a Gadol b’Torah…
In regards to Ulpan, we have an amazing teacher who’s name is Rabbi Gogak. He transformed my Hebrew from literally nothing into a level where I am able to read difficult Jewish texts by myself, a goal that I have always dreamed of attaining.
In regards to newspapers, I don’t know who reads newspapers and who doesn’t, but I know that there are students who subscribe to secular newspapers and receive delivery at the Yeshiva.
The statements made by Seth that the Yeshiva says that everything in the secular world is bad and wrong is both mistaken and silly. I have heard many Rabbis discuss the greatness of technology in the past 150 years. Many Rabbis ride buses, drive cars, use computers, use cell phones, etc. So, to imagine that they would say that nothing in the secular world has ever produced good is absurd.
In regards to the point that there is aRrabbi here who tries to disprove science, is even more laughable then the last statement. I think he is referring to Rabbi Dr. Gottlieb. Rabbi Gottleib prior to coming to Ohr Somayach was an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University. He has a Phd. in mathematical logic, and is well versed in Physics and all the Natural Sciences. One of his classes discusses the problems with the evolution theory. He never once said (and I have his lectures recorded) that evolution is wrong. He does maintain that there are scientific problems with it. He is not the only one. There are secular Biology professors at major universities who also raise questions about the theory. I am not a scientist by profession, I am a lawyer and I think that it is wrong to mention theories without also providing the problems to those theories. Some of the sources that Rabbi Gottlieb quotes are as follows:
–
Johnson. Phillip, Darwin on Trail, 2nd ed., Intervarsity Press, 1993.
Shapiro, Robert, Origins - A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Bantam, 1986
Behe, Michael, Darwin’s Black Box, Free Press, 1996
Raup, David, Extinction - Bad Genes or Bad Luck?, Norton, 1991
Stanley, Steven, The New Evolutioniariy Timetable, Basic Books, 1981
Crick, Francis, Life Itself - It’s Origin and Nature, Simon and Schuster, 1981
All of the sources stated above are of a secular nature.
No one at Ohr Somayach wants to make a person into some type of cookie cutter Jew; everyone is different, and the Rabbaim work hard to cater to all of the issues that each student has. It’s quite sad that a person like Seth had a bad experience, but it would be even sadder if people take his point of view as fact. I feel very grateful to have been a part of this Yeshiva. In a few months I will be moving to back to New York as an attorney. The one thing that I learned from this place was that each Jew has a lifetime full of mitzvoth to fulfill, and Ohr Somayach was the stepping-stone for me in terms of my Jewish observance.
As for my roommates from the first year, I can tell you that they were sad to leave the Yeshiva, but not because they were thrown a guilt trip by the Rabbis, but because they felt this place was a place of growth for them, a place where they met people and formed friendships. Out of the eight of us, two of us were the only ones to stay for an extra year. The others went back to their respective careers. Whenever there is a reunion in America, all the guys make it an effort to attend.
If anyone wants to contact me via email, please feel free to do so. My email is emitpinchus {at} gmail(.)com.
All the best,
Emit
DK, his 99% is as meaningful as your “Seth percent.” Won’t the Forward or someone else sponsor a study on Ohr Someach dysfunction syndrome to find out the actual incidence of wigging out? I mean, in all seriousness, it’s just dueling (unsourced, anonymous) anecdotes?
Mohammed, perhaps I don’t have a sense of humor, so I don’t “get” you nor how someone can claim to be “haredi” but refer to one of the gedolei hador by his last name without even his rabbinic title. So excuse me while I call BS on you.
Hey Emit,
All the sources you listed are AT LEAST 10 years old. Why is that, Emit? Nothing to bolster your kashyas on macro-evolution from the past ten years? I wonder why not…
“The Yeshiva never told me what type of kippa I had to wear, or whether I should wear blue shirts, or white shirts.”
Wow! They allow blue shirts ALSO? How open-minded of them. Real individualistic of them.
“There are secular Biology professors at major universities who also raise questions about the theory.”
Name some. From today. Not from the 80s. And not fellow fundamentalists.
“I was pleased to find beautiful living arrangements in a Maalot Dafna apartment, with 8 other guys.”
If you find living with eight other guys a beautiful experience, that is a most subjective understanding of “beautiful.”
“When someone asked the Rabbinic head of our department, about whether he encourages the students to leave Universities and their careers, he said and I quote, “Absolutely not, staying in Yeshiva and learning is a completely personal decision, where many factors have be taken into account, like financial stability, family, potential job and the like.â€?”
Usually, the rabbis advise that these “completely personal decisions” and “many factors” point to “stay in yeshiva.” Who are you kidding?
“Won’t the Forward or someone else sponsor a study on Ohr Someach dysfunction syndrome to find out the actual incidence of wigging out?”
From your mouth to God’s ears.
Hey DK,
When you finish going through the notes down below and prove to me how each one is wrong , then tell me there are no problems with evolution.
Than I will think you have some sort of credibilty in the field of science, until then you some self hating Jew, which is pretty pathetic.
The central claim: (1)-(4) suffice to explain the existence and history of life.
c. G-d could have created the same sequence of life-forms, so there is no contradiction between that sequence and Judaism, but if the central claim is true then the existence of life is not evidence for G-d.
6. Problems with the theory of evolution
a. originally adopted against both the best current age of the earth and the conception of inheritance as blending, and missing its own crucial fossil evidence - this shows the bias of the scientific community in favor of the theory [better any naturalistic explanation than scientific bankruptcy!]
b. the theory asserts that life is the result of unguided, accidental, “random,� processes without providing an estimate of the probability of success - the theory is not precise enough to be evaluated for credibility
c. misuse of data - black/white moths - no new forms implies no support for evolution; persistence of white form implies (extremely weak) evidence against evolution
d. misuse of data - “evolution� of bacteria resistant to antibiotics, insects resistant to insecticides- can be explained without evolution if a subpopulation were already resistant
e. misuse of data - the gap between micro-evolution and macro-evolution
f. homology [def. limbs or organs with similar structure serving different purposes]
- the claim: evolution (common descent) and nothing else can explain homology - both parts of the claim are false: (1) evolution cannot explain homology since homologous structures have dissimilar genetic coding (due to pleiotropy) and embryological development; (2) usefulness and “parallel evolution� are alternative explanations
g. fossil record lacks intermediary forms - theory of “punctuated equilibria� explains why we will not find evidence of its truth [!] - does nothing for big gaps
(fox-like mammal to whale; insects; flowering plants; etc.)
h. most extinctions due to catastrophes - no evidence of any extinctions due to competition
i. no credible (even hypothetical) account of the origin of the first self-replicator,
DNA/proteins, the cell, human intelligence
j. the best available theory should be accepted only if it has enough evidence to be credible
k. CONCLUSION: The theory of evolution is too poorly defined and supported at present to be accepted as true. [It is NOT claimed that the theory is disproved, and NO SUPPORT IS CLAIMED FOR “SCIENTIFIC� CREATIONISM]
Also, my dear DK. Darwinism is a bit older than 10 years old, and you don’t have any problems with that. YOu also don’t have any problems with the fact that the scientific community thought the the universe was not expanding, but was constant, just until the 1960. Maybe tomorrow they will say the oppositve.
You should be embarrased of yourself. How disrespectful you are of your fellow Jews. People at these institutions give up their lives to provide ignorant people like you a Jewish education.
Stop trying to stop people from learning about their Jewish roots!!!
Emit,
How old is the universe? Is it less than 6,000 years old?
“People at these institutions give up their lives”
Oh, many of the students most certainly do. No questioning that one.
DK, You asked for some sources about people having scientific problems with the Evolutionary theory, here are some sources.
Let us start with Darwin himself. Charles Darwin himself made this statement in ‘the origin of species’: “Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day, I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered…” Towards the end of his life, Darwin confessed: “Not one change of species into another is on record…we cannot prove that a single species has changed (into another )”.
Opinion of Thomas Huxley: Thomas Huxley, who was perhaps, the most vigorous supporter of Darwin, admitted that “evolution was not an established theory but a tentative hypothesis, an extremely valuable and even probable hypothesis but an hypothesis nonetheless. It is not universally accepted.”
Professor Theodosius dobzhansky, a leading evolutionary spokesman, has admitted that “it would be wrong to say that the biological theory of evolution has gained universal acceptance among biologists or even among geneticists”.
Dr. Austin H. Clark, noted biologist of the Smithsonian Institution, states bluntly: “There is no evidence which would show man developing step by step from lower forms of life. There is nothing to show that man was in any way connected with monkeys… he appeared suddenly and in substantially the same form as he is today …there is no such things as missing links. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other, each is a special animal complex, related more or less closely to all the rest, and appearing therefore as a special and distinct creation”.
Professor J. Doyle, president of the Botany section of the British Association for the advancement of science, said : “since we cannot prove the evolution of a single organism, it is intellectual presumption to talk of the universe in a thousand million years.”
Dr. D’Arcy Thompson says,” In the study of evolution and in our attempts to trace the decent of the animal kingdom, 80 years of study of the origin of species, has had a disappointing result. It has not taught us how birds descended from reptiles, mammals from other quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from the invertebrate stock. We do not know the origin of the echinoderms, of the molluscs, of the coelenterates, nor one group of protozoa from another… this failure to solve the cardinal problems of evolutionary biology is a very curious thing.”
Professor G.A. Kerkut, an evolutionist, states, “…there is the theory that all living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General theory of evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.”
When John T. Bonner reviewed Kerkut’s book, he said: “this is a book with a disturbing message: it points to some unseemly cracks in the foundations. One is disturbed because what is said gives us the uneasy feeling that we knew it for a long time deep down but were never willing to admit this even to ourselves. It is another one of those cold and uncompromising situations where the naked truth and human nature travel in different directions. The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence of invertebrate phyla. We do not know what group arose from what group or whether, for instance, the transition from protozoa occurred once or twice, or many times…; we have all been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence; and therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our sound advice.”
Professor Albert Fleishman, professor of comparative anatomy at Earlangan university, said: “the theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts. The Darwinian theory of decent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific re-search, but purely the product of imagination.”
The late Sir William Dawsaon, Canada’s great geologist, said of evolution: “it is one of the strangest phenomena of humanity; yet it is utterly destitute of proof “.
Dr. Robert A. Millikan, famous physicist and Nobel prize-winner, said in an address, a few years ago, to the American chemical society, “The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no scientists can do.” Dr. Millikan is an evolutionist; but he is honest enough to admit it as a theory that cannot be proved.
Loren Eisley, a leading evolutionist, says: “with the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins what it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own.”
Dr. D.M.S. Watson writes “…the theory of evolution itself is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative is “special creation”, which is clearly incredible.”
Dr. W.R. Thompson, a world-renowned entomologist, was for many years the director of the commonwealth institute of Biological control at Ottawa, Canada and was selected to write the foreword to the new edition of Darwin’s origin of the species. In that foreword, he made the following very significant statement: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the cause of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation, where men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science”.
Dr. George Wald, a noble prize winner, chooses to believe in evolution even though he regards it as a scientific impossibility. He says, “The only alternative to a spontaneous generation is a belief in supernatural creation…” He has also said, “I am convinced that the only way to prevent the total chaos that we are headed for and probably within the next ten years, is to return to God”. Many others also believe in evolution for the same reasons.
Sir Ambrose Fleming, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S., president of the British association for the advancement of science, stated, “Evolution is baseless and quite incredible”.
Nicholas Berdyaev, one of our great modern thinkers, wrote, “The naturalistic view of man as a product of evolution in the animal world is the feeblest of all anthropological theories…”
Dr. Arthur I Brown writes: “let me assure you that evolution is not a necessary induction from known facts; it is a creed held in spite of facts. It has had the benefit of shrewd and persistent and widespread propaganda in books, magazines and newspapers. Pictures of imaginary pre-historic scenes and ‘reconstruction’ have deluded the general public and influenced the thinking of those who have been willing to take these assertions at their face value without investigation”.
Professor Leander S. Keyser made this statement, “To my mind, there are enough counts against the theory of evolution to make it impossible to accept it as a scientific truth or even as a reasonable hypothesis.”
Herbert lee williams, chairman of the department of journalism, Memphis state university, writes, “It is at this point that we pass from what might be just innocent observation of similar appearances into the fantasy sphere, for hominid is a coined word, meaning ‘manlike’. You have seen hundreds of drawings and three-dimensional reproductions of creatures which were half-man and half-ape. But you’ve never seen a hominid, because it exists only in theory. All you have seen up to this point are monkeys, apes and men- and a few hundred conjectures built about the imaginary hominid.”
“Believable? I suppose that depends on who you are. Before you accept such hypothesis as facts, you should amass as much scientific knowledge as Von Braun, the recognised technological genius of the twentieth century, who dismisses the theory with a comment: “There are those who argue that universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?” “When a man of science is a man of faith, he doesn’t become an inferior scientist. He simply becomes a superior man. The scientific method demands far more than the theory of biological evolution has been able to supply.”
Fred John Meldau wrote, “In nature, we find endless variety within the species or genus: but absolutely no change from one family to another. Summed up in four words, the laws, governing all life prove there are mutations but no transmutation, which simply means that there are many varieties within any group, but there can never be one ‘kind’ of life mutating (changing) into another family.”
Dr. Etheride, speaking of the great British museum, said, “In all this great museum there is not a particle of evidence of transmutation of species.”
Professor T.H. Morgan says, “within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another.”
“Darwin’s Theory never had any proof’: Richard Goldschmidt, ph. D.,D.Sc., professor of zoology, university of california, says, “Geographic variation as a model of species formation will not stand under thorough scientific investigation. Darwin’s theory of natural selection has never had any proof… yet it has been universally accepted. Here may be wide diversification within the species… but the gap (between species) cannot be bridged… sub-species do not merge into the species either actually or ideally. Nowhere have the limits of any Species been transgressed, and these limits are separated from the limits of the next good species by the unbridged gap, which also includes sterility.”
“There is not the slightest evidence”… Dr. Austin H. Clark, F.R.G.S., who is recognized as one of the world’s greatest biologists and, at one time, biologist of the United States national museum, bluntly stated that Darwin, Lamarck and all their followers were wrong on almost all vital points. “so far as concern the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any of the major group arose from any other. Each is a special animal-complex… appearing as a special and distinct creation–the greatest groups of animals in life do not merge into another. They are and have been fixed from the beginning… back-boned animal is always unmistakably a back-boned animal, a starfish is always a starfish, and insect is always an insect, no matter whether we find it as a fossil or catch it alive at the present day… If we are willing to accept the facts, we must believe that there were never such intermediates,… That these major group, from the very first, bore the same relation to each other that do at the present.”
“If you find living with eight other guys a beautiful experience, that is a most subjective understanding of “beautiful.â€? ”
how many rooms is it? If its a 4 bedroom apartment whats so bad about that?
“Usually, the rabbis advise that these “completely personal decisionsâ€? and “many factorsâ€? point to “stay in yeshiva.â€? Who are you kidding?”
Who are you kidding? I love how Seth’s word is fact but someone else who is telling from their personal experience must have an agenda. Im willing to accept that Emit has one, but you must accept that Seth has one too (as well you and myself)
Emit, you are really out of control. Typical OS dishonesty. Darwin didn’t have the proof, but later generations do. Theodosius Dobzhansky died in 1975!
Austin H. Clark died in 1954!
WHO ARE YOU KIDDING? ARE YOU EVEN KIDDING YOURSELVES???!!!
Listen, I have been in Ohr SOmayach for two plus years. IF you think some Rabbi is there to tell you what to do, you are off your rocker. People speak to Rabbaim for guidance, but they don’t go to them so the Rabbi will make the decision for them.
ALso, I lived in a two story five bedroom apartment, with a person who would come once a week and clean our entire place provided by the Yeshiva.
Listen, I came on to explain that perhaps, Seth has some skewed views. I am not telling you to not listen to him, thats your perogative, I am telling you what my experience is and If you were to spend one day here, you would feel the way that I do.
My friend just had his bris in the Yeshiva, all of his friends came. People at Ohr Somayach feel that the time they spent here was great. I loved every single second. I came here with an optomistic attitude, and am finishing with one. No one told me I couldn’t read “Sport Illustrated” or some other sports magezine. I just either don’t believe that Seth’s roomates “had a meeting” and banned him from reading this stuff. Such balogny, This stuff does not happen. People give you space. I lived with 24-27 year olds. No one like their business intruded upon. So alot of these claims sound so spiced up and false.
Ambrose Fleming died in 1945! These are your contemporary sources?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“I am telling you what my experience is and If you were to spend one day here, you would feel the way that I do. ”
Oh, I spent time there. I most certainly spent time there.
DK HERE ARE THE PROFESSORS YOU ASKED FOR, atleast have the integrity to look through it before you spill your nonsense.
I just don’t understand what you want. You dont want to be Jewish? You dont want other people to be Jewish? What do achieve by making a place like Ohr SOmayach or Aish look bad. Its for sure Loshon Hora, hey but that is one your own Heshbon.
Opinion of Thomas Huxley: Thomas Huxley, who was perhaps, the most vigorous supporter of Darwin, admitted that “evolution was not an established theory but a tentative hypothesis, an extremely valuable and even probable hypothesis but an hypothesis nonetheless. It is not universally accepted.�
Professor Theodosius dobzhansky, a leading evolutionary spokesman, has admitted that “it would be wrong to say that the biological theory of evolution has gained universal acceptance among biologists or even among geneticists�.
Dr. Austin H. Clark, noted biologist of the Smithsonian Institution, states bluntly: “There is no evidence which would show man developing step by step from lower forms of life. There is nothing to show that man was in any way connected with monkeys… he appeared suddenly and in substantially the same form as he is today …there is no such things as missing links. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other, each is a special animal complex, related more or less closely to all the rest, and appearing therefore as a special and distinct creation�.
Professor J. Doyle, president of the Botany section of the British Association for the advancement of science, said : “since we cannot prove the evolution of a single organism, it is intellectual presumption to talk of the universe in a thousand million years.�
Dr. D’Arcy Thompson says,� In the study of evolution and in our attempts to trace the decent of the animal kingdom, 80 years of study of the origin of species, has had a disappointing result. It has not taught us how birds descended from reptiles, mammals from other quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from the invertebrate stock. We do not know the origin of the echinoderms, of the molluscs, of the coelenterates, nor one group of protozoa from another… this failure to solve the cardinal problems of evolutionary biology is a very curious thing.�
Professor G.A. Kerkut, an evolutionist, states, “…there is the theory that all living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General theory of evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.�
When John T. Bonner reviewed Kerkut’s book, he said: “this is a book with a disturbing message: it points to some unseemly cracks in the foundations. One is disturbed because what is said gives us the uneasy feeling that we knew it for a long time deep down but were never willing to admit this even to ourselves. It is another one of those cold and uncompromising situations where the naked truth and human nature travel in different directions. The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence of invertebrate phyla. We do not know what group arose from what group or whether, for instance, the transition from protozoa occurred once or twice, or many times…; we have all been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence; and therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our sound advice.�
Professor Albert Fleishman, professor of comparative anatomy at Earlangan university, said: “the theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts. The Darwinian theory of decent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific re-search, but purely the product of imagination.�
The late Sir William Dawsaon, Canada’s great geologist, said of evolution: “it is one of the strangest phenomena of humanity; yet it is utterly destitute of proof “.
Dr. Robert A. Millikan, famous physicist and Nobel prize-winner, said in an address, a few years ago, to the American chemical society, “The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no scientists can do.� Dr. Millikan is an evolutionist; but he is honest enough to admit it as a theory that cannot be proved.
Loren Eisley, a leading evolutionist, says: “with the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins what it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own.�
Dr. D.M.S. Watson writes “…the theory of evolution itself is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative is “special creation�, which is clearly incredible.�
Dr. W.R. Thompson, a world-renowned entomologist, was for many years the director of the commonwealth institute of Biological control at Ottawa, Canada and was selected to write the foreword to the new edition of Darwin’s origin of the species. In that foreword, he made the following very significant statement: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the cause of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation, where men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science�.
Dr. George Wald, a noble prize winner, chooses to believe in evolution even though he regards it as a scientific impossibility. He says, “The only alternative to a spontaneous generation is a belief in supernatural creation…� He has also said, “I am convinced that the only way to prevent the total chaos that we are headed for and probably within the next ten years, is to return to God�. Many others also believe in evolution for the same reasons.
Sir Ambrose Fleming, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S., president of the British association for the advancement of science, stated, “Evolution is baseless and quite incredible�.
Nicholas Berdyaev, one of our great modern thinkers, wrote, “The naturalistic view of man as a product of evolution in the animal world is the feeblest of all anthropological theories…�
Dr. Arthur I Brown writes: “let me assure you that evolution is not a necessary induction from known facts; it is a creed held in spite of facts. It has had the benefit of shrewd and persistent and widespread propaganda in books, magazines and newspapers. Pictures of imaginary pre-historic scenes and ‘reconstruction’ have deluded the general public and influenced the thinking of those who have been willing to take these assertions at their face value without investigation�.
Professor Leander S. Keyser made this statement, “To my mind, there are enough counts against the theory of evolution to make it impossible to accept it as a scientific truth or even as a reasonable hypothesis.�
Herbert lee williams, chairman of the department of journalism, Memphis state university, writes, “It is at this point that we pass from what might be just innocent observation of similar appearances into the fantasy sphere, for hominid is a coined word, meaning ‘manlike’. You have seen hundreds of drawings and three-dimensional reproductions of creatures which were half-man and half-ape. But you’ve never seen a hominid, because it exists only in theory. All you have seen up to this point are monkeys, apes and men- and a few hundred conjectures built about the imaginary hominid.�
“Believable? I suppose that depends on who you are. Before you accept such hypothesis as facts, you should amass as much scientific knowledge as Von Braun, the recognised technological genius of the twentieth century, who dismisses the theory with a comment: “There are those who argue that universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?� “When a man of science is a man of faith, he doesn’t become an inferior scientist. He simply becomes a superior man. The scientific method demands far more than the theory of biological evolution has been able to supply.�
Fred John Meldau wrote, “In nature, we find endless variety within the species or genus: but absolutely no change from one family to another. Summed up in four words, the laws, governing all life prove there are mutations but no transmutation, which simply means that there are many varieties within any group, but there can never be one ‘kind’ of life mutating (changing) into another family.�
Dr. Etheride, speaking of the great British museum, said, “In all this great museum there is not a particle of evidence of transmutation of species.�
Professor T.H. Morgan says, “within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another.�
“Darwin’s Theory never had any proof’: Richard Goldschmidt, ph. D.,D.Sc., professor of zoology, university of california, says, “Geographic variation as a model of species formation will not stand under thorough scientific investigation. Darwin’s theory of natural selection has never had any proof… yet it has been universally accepted. Here may be wide diversification within the species… but the gap (between species) cannot be bridged… sub-species do not merge into the species either actually or ideally. Nowhere have the limits of any Species been transgressed, and these limits are separated from the limits of the next good species by the unbridged gap, which also includes sterility.�
“There is not the slightest evidence�… Dr. Austin H. Clark, F.R.G.S., who is recognized as one of the world’s greatest biologists and, at one time, biologist of the United States national museum, bluntly stated that Darwin, Lamarck and all their followers were wrong on almost all vital points. “so far as concern the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any of the major group arose from any other. Each is a special animal-complex… appearing as a special and distinct creation–the greatest groups of animals in life do not merge into another. They are and have been fixed from the beginning… back-boned animal is always unmistakably a back-boned animal, a starfish is always a starfish, and insect is always an insect, no matter whether we find it as a fossil or catch it alive at the present day… If we are willing to accept the facts, we must believe that there were never such intermediates,… That these major group, from the very first, bore the same relation to each other that do at the present
You continue to bring sources out of date for decades. Stop it. This is dishonest. Only bring contemporary scientific sources, not the ones Rabbi Avigdor Miller relied upon in the 70s, some of them even then out of date.
Do you have a problem with other people believing something that you don’t– Judasim?
Emit,
I have a problem with dishonest people who use out of date science as relevant when it is not. Now go back to your studies, and complain about how “self-hating Jews” don’t want to listen to your science “proofs” from 1890 or 1921 because they hate Judaism.
im sure u have them DK, but at the very least can u provide of the sources that evolution is a concrete fact? THat will emphisize your point
Fran, I am relying on the mainstream scientific community. Emit is not. Emit is relying on sources from decades ago.
Why do I have to bring you proofs that the theory is correct. You prove that it is! I am not against the fact that it could be true, but please do not ignore the legimate points made by scientiest stated above. Einstein leaved 50 years ago, maybe I should bring him as a proof because its not in the last five years. YOur debate skills are so immature. I have provided you with a list of credible scientist in their fields, who themselves have problems witht the theory, but you being the GENIUS, can assert with your 4 year diploma that EVOLUTION IS A FACT OF LIFE. Interesting.
“mainstream scientific community”
such as…
Show me three modern scientiest that say that Evolution is not a theory, but fact!!!
If you cannot do this, you have lost this debate.
Here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.....opic_id=46
sorry emit, the theory of relativity isnt right because einstein died so long ago.
Show me three modern scientiest that say that Evolution is not a theory, but fact!!!
Fran we must discredit Einstein becuase he died in 1955..
sorry emit, the theory of relativity isnt right because einstein died so long ago.
When new evidence emerges that changes our understanding, we update accordingly. We have found out a lot since 1945 or the 19th century. We will continue to find out more.
Fran, I am surprised you need me to explain this to you. You choose to be a smart-ass when you really know better. That’s a shame, because Rabbi Weinreb and Rabbi Student and Rabbi Slifkin have all defended macro-evolution, and you should know that.
Please see the link I provided in comment 34, and let current scientists explain why macro-evolution is accepted, what is fact, and what remains theory.
DK, (also known DUll KNOB)
Thinks Einstein is not a credible source because he died in 1955. We can no longer use the theory of relativety. This argument is so stupid, that I think you should retract and say the following:
I, Dull Knob, have been proven beyong a shadow of a doubt that the Evolution theory is just exactly what it is, “A theory,” which means that it’s not proven that it is true or false.
And, I also, will stop trying to prevent other people from trying to get closer to their Jewish roots.
I will stop speaking loshon hora about institutions that help students attain knowledge in Jewish Studies, as well as help them establish closer relationships with Hashem.
Pinchus
fact is i am a smart-ass
but realistically its not a fact, its a well respected and accepted theory, but not a fact.
Einstein’s theory is accepted science. Gottlieb’s sources are not. They passed no peer review process, etc. You are comparing fruit to inedible chaff and stubble.
And now you are spamming. Submitting the same comment over and over again. Next time you go on moderation.
Emit, this is your warning.
and i seem to remember the earth being flat was a fact…and yet that was disproved when they had more evidence.
i think evolution is the answer to how g-d did things not why (to quote south park)
“i think evolution is the answer to how G-d did things not why”
I don’t remember dismissing that idea, Fran.
Let me ask you a questin? Can G-d creat a tree from nothing?
i know, just giving my viewpoint…we cant all have a well read blog to express our views
DK
Let me ask you a questin? Can G-d creat a tree from nothing?
Another question I have for you. Are you a Torah observant Jew? Because if you are, you really should take into consideration about the fact that you are speaking loshon hora about other Jewish people as a serious thing.
Which is a direct issur (Transgression) from the Torah.
And even if you are not speaking yourself, you are providing a forum for people to constantly be transgressing Loshon Hora.
emit….he will respond to your questions, just because he doesnt respond right away, dont repost the question, he will put u in moderation. Trust me you dont want this, do then doesnt allow comments he disagrees with or when u prove him wrong. So just leave him time to answer.
DK- PLEASE Dont put in moderation
“Are you a Torah observant Jew?”
No. I am a secular Jew, like the community Ohr Somayach is targeting.
“Because if you are, you really should take into consideration about the fact that you are speaking loshon hora about other Jewish people as a serious thing.”
Speaking out against leaders, institutions, and deviant movements has always been permitted. This is such a case. Haredism is NOT the Jewish heritage of pre-War American Jewry. We were NOT haredi, but closer to Modern Orthodox.
People need to be educated about what Ohr Somayach is, and what its leadership stands for, and their methods and their historical revisionism as part of their sale of haredism. I was there, I know how radical they are, despite your protests to the contrary, but never the less revealed by your dishonest “proofs” against macro-evolutionary theory which is based on a prominent OS rabbi and speaker, and dictated the will of the Right-wing ultra-Orthodox leaders in Israel.
actually DK on the contrary institutions SPECIFICALLY are loshon hara. See the chafetz chayim, where do u get that its permitted?
I appologize for posting more then once. I don’t blog that often. But I really wonder what is his agenda? What exactly is bothering him. Why can is he so quick to accept an opinion of some guy as fact. Take all opinions for what they are, opinions. Believe me, the fact that one person had a bad time at Ohr SOmayach does not represent the entire story. On the contrary, Ohr Somayach is very special place, the Rabbis there give their hearts and souls to the students.
I could give you million of examples.
DK,
Honestly, you scare me a bit. You seem a bit like a fanatic. Did someone hurt you in the past?I am sorry, but I don’t think Ohr Somayach is the place to put your anger.
I can be your friend if you like.
Come on, DK. The one almost entirely universal “heritage” of postwar American Jewry is assimilation. The “kosher style” Judaism so write so warmly about didn’t cut it.
Fran, I am not really concerned whether religious Jews would approve of what I am doing. They consistently spoke out against movements and ideologies and leaders they had issues with, whether the Kaarites, the Chassidim, and of course, in Israel, constantly against the Modern Orthodox. I heard more diatribes against the Modern Orthodox when at OS than I care to remember, and when I announced I was going to YU, they trashed Rabbi Soloveitchik. It was quite the Loshan Hora fest. Whatever, I don’t seek their approval for speaking out against OS/Neve/Aish or whomever.
I know their suggested format. Leave everything to them to decide.
That’s not happening.
Speaking loshon Hora against institutions is one of the categories mentioned by the Chafetz Chaim specifically.
Chafetz Chaim, Rav Shach, Rav Aurbach, Rav Wasserman, Chazzon Ish, Rav Kook, are all people I would not classify as Modern Orthodox. I think you must have been joking.
Ron,
Assimilation was not universal, and what existed before assimilation was not secularism, but traditional Judaism.
You want to preach that since MO didn’t work for the masses in the past, now everyone should be Left-wing Ultra-Orthodox instead.
First of all, that isn’t what OS is preaching. They are preaching RIGHT-WING ultra-Orthodoxy, with all of its dysfunction and contempt for everything western.
Secondly, all ultra-Orthodoxies are NOT the religion of our ancestors, or we would have listened to the Gedolim, and not come here in the first place. It just isn’t our tradition. This is conversion masquerading as “your heritage.” It ain’t our heritage. You know that. So stop defending those who sell it as such.
“Chafetz Chaim, Rav Shach, Rav Aurbach, Rav Wasserman, Chazzon Ish, are all people I would not classify as Modern Orthodox.”
No, they are certainly not. I said the haredim spend time lashing out and spitting on the Modern Orthodox.
My Rav graduated from YU. And he doesnt bash it like you said.
My Rav encouraged me to practice law. So I am not sure what you mean. I think you are completely mistaken to say that you can speak out against Ohr somayach as jews spoke about the Karaites, a sect that did not believe in the Oral Torah. Which Gedolim do you subsribe to. Do you have a Rav at all. I think you need to catch up on your laws of loshon horah. Chafetz Chaim says that a person does not get punished until he opens his mouth and speaks loshon Hora.
so i just want to get this straight…if someone else did something wrong you can do it too? Ah i see, two wrongs do make a right! They will pay in shamayim for their lashon hara just as much as you
You are right Rambam, Rif, Beis Yosef, all were modern orthodox and much accepting of the ways of the gentile. I doubt.
“My Rav graduated from YU. And he doesnt bash it like you said. ”
Check with the rabbis at Ohr Somayach who did not attend YU.
“Which Gedolim do you subsribe to.”
There is no such thing as Gedolim the way you have been taught to understand it in Ohr Somayach. There is no such thing. It is a 20th century invention in many ways, at least in terms of emphasis.
Fran,
I am not saying what they did was ALWAYS wrong. Obviously, I hold the disrespect Modern Orthodoxy is treated is problematic, but other issues might be warranted.
OS is predatory, and this isn’t really your fight, Fran. Emit is giving a very, very sanitized version of OS. But read between the lines, read his dishonest war against macro-evolution. Does OS really sound reasonable to you? Does it sound honest?
Read between the lines.
DK, you cannot admit that Evolution is just a theory it is not fact. Please don’t tell me that you can base Ohr Somayach’s integrity because one Rabbi said this. I doven that you should do chuva, and that you spend some time in Yeshiva where ever it be.
Of course there is Gedolim. I am sorry that you had a bad experience at OS. If you really had intellectual integrity you would invite people to write in about their experiences. But you won’t, instead you will use some phony guy named Seth for your own personal agenda of having reasons why you dont have to be a Torah observant Jew.
Emit,
Some things about Evolution are theory, and some are fact. You don’t distinguish, because you don’t want to accept macro-evolution AT ALL, because your “Gedolim” said you can’t.
The proper thing to do is to look to the scientific community of today, not to Rabbi Gottlieb. Rabbi Gottlieb’s ideas are not representative of the scientific community. They are representative of the right-wing Ultra-Orthodox.
Note (this isn’t really for you, but for others) that I allowed your posting of your experience, when most haredim would not even allow a link of dissent. I see no reason to publish it when your position is all too clear, and there is absolutely nothing in it that even suggests where improvement could be made. Rabbi Akiva Tatz will publish your story perhaps. Go preach to the choir.
Seth’s story is not “phony,” and your absurd suggestion that it is reveals just how hard-line you truly are, and how unable to consider criticism without resorting to conspiracy theory.
I did more than enough time in yeshiva, thank you very much, and have no intent on ever returning to the ultra-Orthodox world in any capacity.
Ron
Maybe you’re living in a cocoon, or you only read the yated, but a large percentage of chasidim and a smaller percentage of litvaks don’t accept your shamans as the recognized gedoilei hador. As a matter of fact,you can hear Kanievsky being referred to by his last name in Bnei Brak, Jerusalem, Boro Park or Williamsburg.
DK can confirm that I am chareidi.
Ron, I can absolutely confirm that mohammed is a haredi religious fanatic. Any time I am looking for someone who actually buys into a completely bogus or intolerant idea in the Talmud, I go to mohammed, and he explains how someone (like say, him) actually believes such nonsense. It’s amazing.
“…the fact that you are speaking loshon hora…”
Ah, finally - the last refuge of the guilty. I hope that means this debate is over - the issue isn’t evolution, it’s the quality of education THIS generation of bochurim are receiving and whether such a saturated market of “Torah scholars” can ever lead to gainful employment that will support a family without resorting to welfare fraud, charity, or ponzi schemes.
DK
But you’ll admit I do a fairly decent job of explaining.
oh, definitely, mohammed. I wouldn’t say it…makes sense…but it is definitely helpful for understanding the thought process within that paradigm.
Nah, I wouldn’t expect you to admit it actually makes sense. I suppose “helpful for understanding the thought process within that paradigm” is as close as I’ll get.
Oh, man. I’m away for a little while & y’all go weird and ballistic.
Emit, as a molecular (and evolutionary) biologist and an observant Jew, I can say with confidence that you know not a smidgen of what you write about science. Your citations are carefully chosen remarks, taken tragically out of context- aka “propaganda”. This same tripe can be found on any two-bit anti-evolution site and posting it proves only that some people will believe anything if they want to badly enough.
Just to point out a few ridiculous tidbits you presented:
Dr. Robert A. Millikan, famous physicist and Nobel prize-winner, said in an address, a few years ago
A few years ago? Dr. Millikan died in 1953. You obviously lifted this info from… somewhere.
also… Dr. Austin H. Clark wrote his book on “The New Evolution” in 1930. Ideas have “evolved” a bit since then.
G.A. Kerkut’s work is likewise dated and is nowadays considered most suitable for house training a puppy.
There are many Torah-observant Jews in my field- I know some of them. They have no problem reconciling their research with their beliefs. They feel no need to lie to themselves or to assign bizarre explanations to what is right in front of their eyes.
Looking with fascination at how DNA sequences in wildly disparate organisms’ genomes match up for great, long stretches is to experience awe at the similarities while marveling at the differences. To suggest that this is false is to cheapen God’s creation, in my view.
Just a note about the citation of Behe’s 1996 work.
Prof Ken Miller has written a book that responds to Behe’s claims, and argues that Behe is factually incorrect.
DK- congradulations on the number of comments that you’ve been getting on the Letter from Dark Light thing.
>> I doven that you should do chuva
hey Emit- the word is either teshuva or charata. Perhaps you should ask Ohr Somayach for a refund.
And I would like to add to what Ichabod said - Ken Miller, a biology prof. at Brown, is a practicing Catholic, and has no “anti-theist” agenda, whereas Behe and Johnson, although not fundamentalists, do have theist agendas.
The fact that someone wrote a book claiming Behe is wrong does not mean Behe is wrong. DK, once again your skepticism seems to cut only in one direction.
Mohammed, I’ve been to Bnei Brak, I’ve been to Jerusalem, I’ve been to Lakewood and Passaic and Monsey and Boro Park and Flatbush, and I have never heard anyone refer to R’ Chaim by his last name. Never.
For that mater, there is no cottage industry in R’ Chaim “moifes” stories. He is a known tzaddik and phenomenal talmid chachom and masmid and it is fundamental to Jewish thinking that a Jew who cleaves so close to his maker has an elevated soul, but he is not a rebbe, and his father was not either. The closest you can get to the sort of thing you’re talking about was the Chazon Ish, or, as I’m sure you and all your “haredi” friends call him, “Karelitz.”
I trust DK’s pesonal sincerity, but not his evaluation of who or what is “haredi” — not for my life, in this world or the next.
Ron
You’re obviously hanging around with the wrong crowd.
And no,the chazon ish was an ehrlicher yid.
But to quote one of the Brisker Rosh Yeshivos, Kanievsky isn’t a lightbulb, that when one burns out you just screw in another one. (it sounds better in yiddish) Known tzadik? Well yeah, if you read pravda/yated and you actually believe it, then I guess it’s known.
Ron, Behe and Miller have publicly debated several times.
I believe, although I can’t quote you chapter and verse, that Behe no longer takes quite the same position that he argued in his 1996 book. I’m not saying that he agrees with the Darwinian theory of evolution, only that he’s now not going as far as he did in that book.
For a recent review of Behe’s last book see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07.....ref=slogin
Behe doesn’t come off looking good.
Yeah, there are a lot of opinions out there. I would hardly expect a positive review from the Times. I studied hominid evolution in particular at college and continue to have something of an amateur interest in the topic. But I find the debate to be so ideological that it’s almost impossible to follow. In the light of the way global warming and fetal stem cell research have been reported both in the popular and scientific press, I have very little confidence in the gatekeepers of big science, though I am sure grateful that from time to time they utter great stuff that works. Where the evolution debate goes will have no effect whatsoever on my religious beliefs, but I understand that for some people this is a big deal.
Ron, of course one book doesn’t disprove Behe’s claims, but I think the fact that most respectable scientists, including many theists who both accept evolution and believe in God, disagree with him, does.
Our point has been that Miller isn’t disagreeing with Behe out of anti-theistic bias. He feels that Behe is doing poor science.
BT Archipelago at it’s best!!!
99.9999% was the pesentage of votes for that J.V.Stalin received when he ran(only candidate) for the Supreme Council(”Legislature”)in a constituency in Downtown Moscow.
Isn’t it like, in some reverse postmodernist virtual way of marriages between “BT” and “FFB”…
Leave a Comment