Talk:Jewish reactions to intelligent design/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] American Jewish Committee

I think it's appropriate to acknowledge one's biases and affiliations. I included the American Jewish Committee quote in my first version of this article. I am a member of that organization and a regular volunteer and participant in their programs, and I make a modest annual contribution. --Metzenberg 03:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember, we don't own the articles, so once you write it, it now belongs to everyone. We'll edit it to the point that your original work may not resemble it's edited version. I appreciate your disclaimer, but it doesn't really matter. Orangemarlin 21:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article lead needs wording

This lead needs work. It sounds like a lead to intelligent design not to Jewish reactions to intelligent design. It should clearly explain the scope of this article.--ZayZayEM 15:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Very good point. As you probably guessed, I wrote it with the perspective that it is linked from both Jewish and Intelligent Design topics. Maybe we give somebody else a chance to work on it. --Metzenberg 04:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
My main beef is that the lead doesn't even contain the word "Jewish reaction" or any attempt to make it clear that this article is about Jewish reactions. It should include a short summary, who the major players are, and why Jewish reactions are significant.--ZayZayEM 05:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I changed the introduction for now. Again, I'll let somebody else go at it. --Metzenberg 08:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
ZayZayEM. I have restored the first paragraph giving an explanation of what intelligent design is. Don't forget that this article is not only referenced from pages about intelligent design. It is also referenced from pages about Judaism, Jewish political organizations, Jewish rabbis, etc. Remember that people who click into this article come here from different places. Indeed, some will come directly off the Internet, from Google. --Metzenberg 20:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
That is why this is wiki. Peopleb can click on intelligent design and find all the information they want. Yes that article is long. But it has a lead. That is why leads should remain On Topic and succinct. It is superfluos.--ZayZayEM 00:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The entire second paragraph of the lead doesn't belong. The article is about Jewish reactions to intelligent design, not a general description of it, or what various other bodies have said about it. If the reader wants to know more about intelligent design in general, they can click on the link. Jayjg (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree whole heartedly (BTW I've shifted your comment up to the discussion on lead paragraph). Previous editors have lobbied for its inclusion so that readers coming from Judaism articles know what ID is.--ZayZayEM 00:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep to topic

In the same vein, I deleted a segment of text from the middle section because it did not seem to relate to Jewish reactions of any kind. --ZayZayEM 15:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't realise tha Anti-Defamation League was a primarily Jewish protection agency.--ZayZayEM 00:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Boychik is it ever! I'll try to figure out how to make that more clear. I think most Jews would probably agree that the two leading Jewish political organizations in the USA, not counting AIPAC (which is concerned with foreign affairs primarily), are the AJC and the ADL. So my choice of the two of them, as representing the mainstream of American Jewish opinion, is purposeful. I would call the AJC the "liberal wing" and the ADL the "conservative wing" as mainstream Jewish political organizations. --Metzenberg 04:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Does this make this article leaning towards Americentrism? Why not an article on International Jewish responses to Creationism (ala the RCC one)--ZayZayEM 08:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Americentricism? Well can you think of any other country where the President or Prime Minister is mixed up with intelligent design theorists? I can't think of anyplace else in the world where it is taken seriously enough that we have to fight against its inclusion in the public school curriculum. One more point ... most Jews in the world who do not live in Israel live in anglophone countries, and most anglophone Jews live in the United States. So bascially, it is an American political controversy. --Metzenberg 09:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Your current comments betray your bias. Similar debacles involving politicians have arised in Australia, the UK, northern Europe, the Middle East and Africa. I think I have heard it mentioned in Japanese news as well.--ZayZayEM 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
A brief survey of the magazine rack at my local newsagent here in the suburbs of Canberra suggests that ID excites less interest, and occupies less rack-space, than, say UFOs. I think it's fair to say that the ID debate is exclusively for Americans. PiCo 08:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Not exclusively, primarily. I do not dispute this. I dispute that international views are irrelevant. Particularly when dealing with Jewish opinion - I would expect input from Israeli sources or reasons for lack of interest by Israeli parties. c.f statement regarding Islam/Turkey and ID.--ZayZayEM 09:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The Jewish communities in those places are much smaller and less influential. Can you give me some examples of organizations in these countries, and what they have said? I think we would still be violating undue weight. The United States and Canada are the only two countries in the world, besides Israel, with large and influential Jewish populations (more than 2%, with significant participation of elected officials as well). --Metzenberg 04:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that "intelligent design" advocacy is prevalent mostly in America and that over a third of the world's Jews are in America, Americentricism is inevitable. The only other country with comparably many Jews is Israel, where, as far as I know, the teaching of "intelligent design" is not on anyone's agenda. If you can find "intelligent design" advocates in Israel, then that almost certainly belongs in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 04:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey of doctors

I'd like to find survey data of Jews in general, or of other Jewish professional organizations. Anybody know where to find one? --Metzenberg 04:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Klinghoffer

These two links were on the original Judaism and evolution page, where this material was located before I started to develop it. I decided to remove the link, although I do think that David Klinghoffer is noteworthy enough for a wikipedia biography.

David Klinghoffer is a columnist for the National Review (a conservative U.S. publication which is very noteworthy and respectable), and he is also the author of a book, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus, as well as a spiritual memoir, The Lord Will Gather Me In. David Klinghoffer works for the Discovery Institute. To the best of my knowledge, he is a paid employee of the Discovery Institute, which is known to be funded by large Christian donors. His job with the Discovery Institute is to make it look like there are a lot of Jews out there that support Intelligent design, as well as to influence Jewish opinion. It's called public relations. They pay him, and he writes stuff. --Metzenberg 05:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of ID

I changed the lead to bring it into line with the main intelligent design article - the original lead reported DI talking points as if they were "true". The current description is more factually accurate, and is based on secondary and tertiary sources, as a Wikipedia article should be. Guettarda 05:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This defining of terms is not needed. This is a wiki. Intelligent design merely needs to be wikilinked. Take a look at Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church's lead:

The position of the Roman Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has changed over the last two centuries from a large period of no official mention, to a statement of neutrality in the 1950s, to a more explicit acceptance in recent years. Today, the official Church's position remains a focus of controversy and is fairly non-specific, stating only that faith and scientific findings regarding the evolution of man's material body are not in conflict, and that the existence of God is required to explain the spiritual component of man's origins. This view falls into the spectrum of viewpoints that are grouped under the concept of theistic evolution.

It does not define evolution. It does not define The RCC. It starts off a discussion about RCC opinions on evolution and its history.--ZayZayEM 06:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem, but describing it as opposition to "Darwinism and evolution" is, again, POV, and characterising it as a "theory" . Guettarda 15:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Huh?--ZayZayEM 00:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
"Darwinism" is evolution before the modern synthesis, 19th century evolution. However, creationists refer to modern evolution as "Darwinism"...it's a marketing ploy. In addition, in a scientific context, a "theory" is a very well-supported hypothesis. Since ID purports to be science, calling is a "theory" is wildly inaccurate, since it's an untestable hypothesis with no experimental support. Guettarda 02:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I see whjat you are talking about now. I did not write that paragraph. Metzenberg did. I merely deleted superfluos definition that is not needed. If you'd like to reword the lead go ahead. I agree it's still not very good. But as I don't feel comfortable with my knowledge of this specific (if ill-defined) topic I'm not rewording it. BTW for future reference I do know my Evolution-Creationism-Darwinism-Intelligent Design stuff.
The lead as it stands is true; DI is propising "to include intelligent design in the public school curriculum as a rival scientific hypothesis to modern evolutionary theory." It's just a woefully flawed and invalid proposal. I am not convinced that here is the place to point that out (or to point out that is the opinion of well credited science).--ZayZayEM 02:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship of Jewish and evolution/creationism articles

Please reply to these statements at This entry to prevent parralell discussions on the same topic.

Re:

These three need direction, focus and agreemment. What purpose do these articles serve? Are they titled to accurately represent their topic? Are they able to be Neutral and Appropriately sourced encyclopedic articles.

Judaism and evolution in particular seems as much about Judaic creationism and Judaic philosophy on the origin of life and the universe.--ZayZayEM 09:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

ZayZayEM. All of them are explained on the talk pages, respectively. Creationism is a fundamentalist Christian religious philosophy, one which only a fundamentalist segment of the Chrstian world seems to agree with. The majority of liberal Christian churches in the United States share the mainstream Jewish view, which is that Darwinian evolution and religion are compatible. There is a long tradition in Judaism, going way back before Darwin, of accepting the results of rational speculation and scientific inquiry and trying to use them to better understand Judaism. There is no such thing as Jewish creationism. The idea that there exists something like Jewish creationism is as absurd as a Jewish crucifix.
  • Judaism and evolution is about the theological positions that mainstream Jews, both Orthdox and non-Orthodox, take with respect to evolution. It is not appropriate for the infobox "creationism" to appear on this page, as it formerly did, because creationism is a Christian philosophy. Because the vast majority of Jews and the overwhelming weight of Jewish opinion says that scientific theories of evolution and the Torah (Jewish law) are compatible, to have more than a footnote about Jewish opponents of evolution on the Judaism and evolution page would violate Wikipedia's policy on undue weight. As this article now stands, it is a mess of quotations, but they are the right quotations of the right persons. They need to be stripped down and ordered differently, turned into a real article. In other words, the article needs to be written better. I'll be working on it.
  • Jewish opposition to evolution is about a small segment of the Orthodox world, the haredi Jews, among whom there is controversy about evolution. While it is appropriate for the creationism box to appear there, this segment of Jewish opinion looks at creation very differently than Christians do. For one thing, Jews interpret creation through Jewish oral tradition and mysticism as well as through the exact words that you see written in Genesis. Indeed, to a haredi Jew, to take the fundamentalist Christian literalist position on evolution would be apikorsus (Hebrew, heresy). In other words, while there are Jews who oppose evolution, they are not creationists. To understand more about controversy in the haredi world, read about Natan Slifkin.
  • Jewish reactions to intelligent design is specifically about the intelligent design controversy and how Jews have reacted to it. As far as most Jews are concerned, intelligent design is a Christian religious philosophy which some people are trying to force into schools, with slogans like "Teach the Controversy". Within the Orthodox world, scientists themselves tend to reject ID just as strongly as scientists in general, but there is sympathy for the ID point of view among the less informed public. However, most Orthodox students attend Jewish schools (in Israel, religious schools). Thus, they are not as interested in what goes on in American public schools. However, the Discovery Institute has a paid lobbyist who is Jewish named David Klinghoffer. They pay him, he writes articles. He writes for the Jewish Daily Forward, which is a (formerly) Yiddish weekly in New York City. He also writes for the Catholic oriented conservative journal National Review, which is quite a respectable publication, with a definite political slant. --Metzenberg 20:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
All three read like Essays of OR WP:ATT. Particularly Jewish opposition to evolution. Which by it's very nature (in its title) is POV to presentonly the opposing views of a group (whether this is to the detriment of evolution, or to lambast those silly jews who don't trust science). This article series is rather unencyclopedic and definitely needs a coollabarative effort that treats these articles together for the time being as as they stand now they have significant overlap and unclear motives and directions.--ZayZayEM 01:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
ZayZayEM. Would you do me a favor and back off from here for about a week or so. I'm not sure why you removed the "stub" tag on that article, but as you can see from its history, it is less than three days old, and is under development. You have been trying to edit content out of the article even as I have been adding content in, and we keep getting edit conflicts as a result. Since you apparently did not know that the Anti-Defamation League is a Jewish organization, I think we would be better served by getting some editors who are knowledgeable about Judaism in here to look at this material before we determine whether or not it is in violation of Wikipedia policies. Since I have been adding reference tags and new materials, I am going to remove the unbalanced tags you put at the top of the article for the time being. Please come back in a few days. G'day mate. --Metzenberg 01:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing that says that another editor cannot edit an article while you are in the middle of editing it. If you are in the middle of a major change, you can ask others not to edit the article by adding an {{inuse}} tag, but obviously you should only leave that tag in place while you are actually editing the article. As for the removal of the stub tag - the article wasn't a stub, why shouldn't he have unstubbed it? Guettarda 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me Guettarda. The stub was actually on the other article I was working on. ZayZayEM was actively trying to work on more than one article at the same time I was working on them. My message actually referred to the other one. --Metzenberg 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I realise that. But the article wasn't a stub, so why should he not remove the stub notice? Guettarda 07:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:IAC. Please do not make arguments from authority in editting disputes. I do not need knowledge about Jewish organisations to point out simple matters of article design (lead should be clear and on topic) and attribution of sources and [hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ATT#Unpublished_synthesis_of_published_material avoidance of original synthesis of material]. You appear very opinionated on these matters. And that's fine. But please do not push your opinions into creating POV articles. I most certainly won't back here for "a week or two". Wiki is Live. That means for that week I'm away people aren't getting a proper wiki.--ZayZayEM 02:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
ZayXayEM. Why don't you try actually clicking on sources themselves and seeing what they are. Earlier today, you removed the section on the views of the Anti-Defamation League because you said it was irrelevant. All you had to do was click on the tab and you would have discovered that it was a Jewish organization. Go one step further and Google the phrase "Anti-Defamation League Jewish" on Google and you get 681,000 hits. WOW. All I am saying is, if somebody else is actively working on an article, its very hard for them to work while you are acctively deleting content they are working on. So I have asked you to stay away from this entire series of articles for a couple of days, while I ask some persons who are knowledgeable about Jewish organizations to comment. How about you stay away until Thursday. Since you're in Australia, that really means Wednesday. Now, as to your claim that this is an unsourced article, every single paragraph or section is sourced to a source you can find on the web. Why don't you read the sources and then tell me what you object to. --Metzenberg 02:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:ATT now also covers WP:OR. This article and related articles read like essays. they are well referenced but seem to be pushing an agenda and/or utilising unpublished synthesis of data. Please take a look at What wikipedia is not--ZayZayEM 03:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally think this article is fine, for a starter article. Yes, it is a topic where some synthesis is inevitable, unless we can find a book or scholarly article precisely on this topic. There are thousands of such articles for which that is the case; I don't see it as problematic here. And I don't see any sign that anyone is "editing with an agenda".

On ADL, I presume that is clear: they are emphatically, and proudly, a Jewish organization.

I was asked (by Metzenberg) to give my opinion on this; I don't have a lot to say beyond what I just said, but someone might want to post a note eliciting comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, and possibly other related projects of which I may not be aware. - Jmabel | Talk 04:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • If this article is "ineviteble" to break one of wikipedia's only two absolute guidelines (WP:ATT by virtue of original synthesis/research based on sourced data) in what way is this acceptable?--ZayZayEM 12:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    The only part of WP:ATT that is even marginally at issue here is WP:ATT#Unpublished synthesis of published material, which—in my view, at least—has a lot of gray zone. For example, every time a source gives only the last name of a historical figure and an editor fills in the full name, there is some synthesis involved. Every time there is a topic where no overview article is available externally to Wikipedia, there is some synthesis involved. Almost every list on Wikipedia is a synthesis. Similarly, something at least very akin to synthesis is involved whenever we decide whether a fact is important enough to belong in a particular article.
    This is, inevitably, a judgment call. A lot of Wikipedians seem not to like judgment calls and think there should be an algorithm for producing an encyclopedia. There is not. At some point, to write a good article, you need knowledge of the topic.
    The original intent of WP:NOR was to eliminate crackpot "science". The original intent of what has evolved into WP:ATT was to make sure that editors represent accurately what sources say. Both have become very elaborated in two ways, which we can analogize to statute law and case law. In this case, the statute law is instantiated in the policy pages themselves and the case law in the encyclopedia content and the debates in areas like WP:AFD. Again, because writing an encyclopedia is not a purely deductive, rules-based process, the "statute law" cannot stand alone, and must be understood with some deference to precedent. A very small number of people are involved in debating formal policy compared to the number who sort out what it actually means "on the ground". - Jmabel | Talk 17:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Based on Shira's point of view, I have now proposed that we merge the article Jewish opposition to evolution into the main article Judaism and evolution. See Talk:Jewish opposition to evolution I think there are some advantages to that approach, and the creationism box is now well down the page. I have already moved the material from that page (currently locked) to a new location at the bottom of the Judaism and evolution page, so the merger is now complete. One thing I haven't done is switch all the links elsewhere on Wikipedia or pick up the source materials list at the bottom of Jewish opposition to evolution. As of right now, the Judaism and evolution is a bit too strongly weighted to opponents of Darwinism, but that's because I worked on that section a lot last week. (I edited on another page while the article was locked up.) --Metzenberg 07:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership of articles

While it is perfectly reasonable for editors to agree to stop editing an article for a while to allow them to cool down, instructing another editor to leave the article alone, and reverting their edits on this basis with a "no tampering" comment is not acceptable. See WP:OWN. Guettarda 07:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda. I revereted edits because this editor (ZayZayEM) was deleting materials at the very point that I was writing them and rearranging them. How can two people possible write the same article at the same time? I wrote to him on his talk page (go look and see for yourself) and asked him to hold off, and he persisted in doing it. I am frankly baffled as to who User:ZayZayEM is or why he is even interested in this topic. I would suggest that instead of trying to rewrite the article for three days, he explain his comments and objections to it on the Talk page here, and allow others to look at his objections to the article.
I've been working carefully through the materials, making sure that all the important sources are cited and that the every paragraph or section is referenced appropriately. How can I do such work at the very same time that somebody else is trying to delete my work? Now, let me ask some questions, in the next section, to give ZayZayEM a forum to answer. --Metzenberg 08:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Will others who come here to decide on this article please look at the version that I had saved as of 04:21, 20 March 2007. --Metzenberg 08:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ok ZayZayEM (from user Metzenberg)

ZayZayEM, since you claim the article is biased and POV, show me other materials that I have missed, or other points of view that I should have considered? All of the sources are available online, and every paragraph or section is documented. This was an American news story, commented on very heavily in the North American press, and by American Jewish organizations. What is it that you as an Australian, apparently not even familiar with American Jewish organizations, would like to add to this article that is not here? Give me some examples! Or if you think that my sources are incorrect, or that I have interpreted them incorrectly, then show me how? Give me something substantial here, and we can then submit whatever your objections are to a request for comment. --Metzenberg 08:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I added new material (three more reference sources). The new version is 11:21, 20 March 2007. ZayZayEM, please state what your position is in detail, and we will to RFC! --Metzenberg 11:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Please keep in mind WP:Civil and Ass-u-me. I also think this disclaimer applies regardless of any real Conflict of Interest on your behalf. You do not own any wiki-articles. Wiki is live. If you are planning on making any edits which you wish not to be live (and therefore "tamperable") please make use of a Wikipedia:Sandbox. Any article must at any stage of its existence conform to wikipedia standards as enforced by its editors.--ZayZayEM 12:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have not been upset about any lack of sources or untruthfulness in content in this article. My two main oppositions to the inclusion of this article is that A) Contains Original Synthesis and B) is NOT encyclopedic. It is an essay. The other articles in this series also appear to fall into this danger grey zone. I look forward to comment and would welcome an RfC on this.--ZayZayEM 12:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you have stated your position and made a bunch of edits. I won't try to revert any of them. It says "virtually unanimous". I challenge you to find even one non-Orthodox rabbi who supported the teaching of intelligent design in 2005-2006 when it was an issue of contention in U.S. public schools, and in the U.S. elections and in Congress. ZayZayEM, let's go to RfC with this now. It's obvious that you and I are not going to agree on anything, and it appears to me you are here for no real reason other to pick a fight. You have now followed me to various pages on Judaism and evolution, undoing for no reason sourced materials that I have added. Let's go RfC. The relevant pages to look at are Natan Slifkin, Jewish opposition to evolution, and Jewish reactions to intelligent design. Can you give me any reason why we shouldn't go to RfC with this? I will ask some others to back up my RfC. --Metzenberg 15:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have stated above that a lead about intelligent design is needed, because this article is reference by Jewish articles as well as intelligent design articles. Users that are linking to here from a Jewish article may not be as familiar with intelligent design. The lead that you keep deleting was created by another person, not by me. If you have some better lead that defines intelligent design in one or two sentences, then please provide one. I am restoring the former one now. --Metzenberg 20:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't get this discussion. First of all, Intelligent design is a separate article from Creationism. Both of those articles were written from the Christian perspective, and this is written from the Jewish ones. I do not get the impression that Metzenberg thinks these articles are his. Orangemarlin 23:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
My point is because this is a wiki people can click on intelligent design. We should definitely avoid trying to some such a massive idea in two sentances. If we do that people will think that that is all there is to the matter and not click on the wikilink. You cannot some up a concept as convoluted as ID in two sentances and remain NPOV. Wiki aims to solve this problem by allowing people unfamiliar with topics to be instantly (if they don"t have crappy dial-up) able to access that page.--ZayZayEM 01:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, you don't follow Intelligent design too closely. I do. It's a purely Christian outlook on the myth. And a couple of times in the past when someone added something to any number of articles about Jewish views, it was written by a Christian (nothing wrong with that) who took one quote (and actually took that quote out of context) and used it to "prove" that all Jews believe in Intelligent design and Creationism. This article is great. It is a fork of more detail describing one of the Abrahamic religions viewpoint on Intelligent Design (and I suppose creationism). This article is well-written, and represents an outstanding source for Jewish thoughts on Evolution. To tell the truth, being Jewish, I never knew the "theology" (not really a word I'd use, but it's the best I can do) of Evolution and Creationism for Jews until I read these articles. I don't care who wrote it, but I"m glad I don't have to read the exclusively US-biased, right wing Christian version of these beliefs. Orangemarlin 15:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually as a young biomedicals cientist with interests in both education and ethics (i.e. scientific integrity) I do follow ID and do know that, in its primary form peddle by the DI, it is a Chrsitian outlook. I don't see what that has to do with my edits, the validity of this article or my concerns over this article's content. This article is not about Jewish thought on evolution (that article is Judaism and evolution and it's daughter Jewish opposition to evolution) this article is about Jewish reactions to intelligent design. I have learnt a lot from reading this article. But I can't help feeling a nagging suspicion of overrepresentation of certain views, geographical bias, and original synthesis (the latter I have withdrawn my concern about, on this article). Please look at the Jewish opposition to evolution and it's history, particularly prior to my visitation. I understand it may have been {{inuse}} but User:Metz' comments and reversions seem that had I not intevened a rather different (and IMO flawed, misleading and distracting) article may have ensued. I stand by all my editing decisions and invokation of Wikipedia Policy (aside from my ADL deletion).--ZayZayEM 06:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOR Issue

WP:NOR prohibits an article from synthesizing in a way that draws inferences from existing information, saying "X says A and Y says B, so C is true". But there's no problem creating syntheses that simply summarize and put different information together, saying "X says A, and Y says B" even if no one else in the world has ever put what X and Y said on the same page before. Similarly, there's no problem paraphrasing rather than using quotes. I'm having difficulty understanding which type of synthesis is occurring. If the article is drawing an inference, would it be possible to provide an example. a specific place in the article where this is done? Could you identify a specific "C" the article is reporting that isn't described in its sources? This would be an enormous help to understanding why you believe the article is Original research. Thanks, --Shirahadasha 17:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no original research here. The first author did not invent these comments out of hand. Since I'm done assuming good faith with certain critics on this page, I'm beginning to believe that some of these people have an agenda to eliminate anything but positive reactions to Intelligent design. This article, being one that follows WP:NPOV, probably offends someone, but then again, there's an article called Holocaust denial in Wikipedia, and as offensive as it is, it is still well written and informative. Orangemarlin 19:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Re WP:AGF -- You may be done, but I'm not. The page has been protected, so we might as well discuss things and see if that can get us somewhere. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
As the article stands now I have no problems with OR synthesis or Attribution. I regret my first edit to this page to impeteously delete ADL commentary on teh subject. I stand by all other comments reagrding concern over OR syntehsis, clarity, uncivilness of editors, conflict of interest, ownership of articles, and use of sandbox to "practice-edit" articles because wiki is live, and concerns over interelationship to this article.
I would still prefer no summary of ID than the one present. Any summary of ID should include it's well acknowledged status as pseudoscience as this is akey defning factor of the movement.
This article is great, could use some RELEVANT pictures.
If this article is unprotected I'm not going to make any immediate content changes (maybe a few extra wikilinks, I love wikilinks). But I will continue tow atch it for a while, as I still have concerns over it's propensity for gray area slippage.--ZayZayEM 01:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Regarding the WP:OR issue, could you provide a specific statement in the article which you believe to be OR? Would appreciate clarification on synthesis issue. Regarding encyclopedicness, I agree with you that the encyclopedic tone and depth of sourcing of this article could be improved. Best --Shirahadasha 02:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
OR regarding this page has been resolved. OR/Non-compliance regarding Jewish opposition to evolution is on that page's talk page.--ZayZayEM 06:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, regarding WP:COI, could you do me a favor and clarify the concern here? I believe the policy is very limited, it only applies to e.g. articles on oneself or key figures in an organization writing specifically on the organization, and it doesn't apply to simply writing on topics one is interested in or positions one agrees with. Are you suggesting that it would be a COI for scientists to edit an article related to science or religionists to edit an article related to religion? Best, --Shirahadasha 02:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
User MEtz has Talk:Jewish_reactions_to_intelligent_design#American_Jewish_Committee declared COI, so I'm not really invoking the policy. I am referring mostly to this disclaimer [1] (modified below - deletes concern targetting promotional material, look at the original if you like)
Unintended consequences.
If you write in Wikipedia ... once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, ... Any editor may add material to it within the terms of our content policies... more than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. Therefore, don't create ... articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about. Either edit neutrally or don't edit at all. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable.
User:Metz IMHO has acted as though he owns his edits in Wikipedia. He has been rude and inflammatory to independent third party attention to a subject he (apparently) cares much about. He has ridiculed me and claimed I have no business editing an article because I shouldn't have interest in its content. He has transformed casual objection to material to vast a wide conspiracy to personally attack him. To put it lightly It's insane. and I don't need this shit.--ZayZayEM 06:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


ZayZayEM,

Essentially, you have spent several days stalking me. The record of that is these talk pages, this one, and the ones that it is attached to, where you have been obsessively following me. Every time I made a change, you were there often just a few minutes later trying to modify it. If I wrote a caption for a picture, you would want to re-write it. If I put a picture on the left side, you would want it on the right side. I would write a paragraph, and immediately you would want to rearrange it, put it somewhere else. You followed me from one page that I was working on to another, to another. What you are doing is cyberstalking.[1]

I felt like you were looking over my shoulder constantly as I was writing. You are not here to contribute. You simply want somebody to squabble with. You constantly quote Wikipedia policies and procedures to me. Suddenly I am forced to spend all my time trying to answer ZayZayEM. We had edit conflicts (where I would try to save the page, and it would turn out I couldn't because he had just saved the page in the time since I had done it). Normally, that never happens to me. He clearly wanted to draw me into some kind of edit war or procedure war. I kept asking him to just leave, and come back later, if he felt that he had to edit my work. But somehow, ZayZayEM felt that that was not acceptable. He had to be there in real time editing and changing what I was doing while I was doing it.

ZayZayEM, you don't have the knowledge or ability to be editing in these areas. While Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit, that doesn't mean it is the encyclopedia that anybody should edit.

You are not here to work on substantive editorial changes. There are 1.7 million pages on the English wikipedia. Why do you have to be here to "improve" this page. You are not improving it. You've come here to fight and cause problems.

Stalking is a form of mental assault, in which the perpetrator repeatedly, unwantedly, and disruptively breaks into the life-world of the victim, with whom he has no relationship (or no longer has)....Moreover, the separated acts that make up the intrusion cannot by themselves cause the mental abuse, but do taken together (cumulative effect).[2]

Your behavior is stalking. I now feel uncomfortable on Wikipedia because of your behavior. I now understand the feelings that many women have online ... they report constant personal interference by men if they use a recognizable female identity. I feel what they feel. I don't want to be working on wikipedia when there is an editor who is obsessed with my work following me around.

Notes to above

  1. ^ Cyberstalking. National Center for Victims of Crime.
  2. ^ CyberStalking: menaced on the internet

--12.31.54.34 18:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC) The user formerly known as M_E_T_Z_E_N_B_E_R_G

Hello. Given what you have said, suggest reporting this to WP:ANI rather than using the article talk page for this sort of issue. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


ZayZayEM:

You have a selfish and narcissistic conception of what Wikipedia is about. I have contributed an enormous amount of time already to create this article, and I have done so under Wikipedia’s licensing terms. I am giving my time here freely for no reward. All you do is waste my time.

What is the meaning of WP:OWN that you keep harping on. It means that after I write the material I no longer have the right to control how it is edited, but that doesn’t somehow give you the right to control it. The real owner of this material is the public domain. I do not contribute to the public domain so that some immature Australian college student who knows absolutely nothing about the material can feel good about himself as a so-called "editor" after he imposes his vandalistic changes on an article that he would never have the capability to write on his own.

The public that owns Wikipedia has the right to see this material as it would be edited by qualified editors, and you’re not one of them. You have no sense of your personal limitations. You feel entitled to edit materials you don’t even understand, without ever looking at or using talk pages:

  • The first day this article was online, right after I created it, you brazenly walked in here and started deleting. (You thought that the Anti-Defamation League wasn’t Jewish!) Why didn’t you instead pose a question on the talk page?
  • In the Natan Slifkin article, you deleted material that I admit was somebody else's personal synthesis, and didn't have a citation. But that material had been there for months, and hundreds of people had presumably seen it, including people who are very knowledgeable about that material. None of them had deleted it or changed it. You should have presumed instead that the material was correct, though uncited, and asked for it to be cited by adding the [citation needed] tag to it.

Based on what you have done in this article and the other articles we are discussing, I can’t see how you’re ever going to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. You seem to have no conception that the persons (like myself) who actually write this material know much more about it than you do. We know what pictures, headings, introductory paragraphs, and such are required. The public that owns the public domain has an interest in seeing the material as a qualified editor would present it, and you are simply not a qualified editor.

As I have said above, Wikipedia may be the encyclopedia that anybody can edit, but that doesn’t mean that anybody should edit. Such a thing would be absurd. Where would you draw the line? Would you allow a 12-year-old to walk in and demand that the material look the way he wanted? Of course not. And it’s the same way with you.

You are not a qualified editor, at least on this page. You are qualified to wikify links perhaps, or clean up reference citations, but you have never read any of the material this article is based on. I welcome people who are qualified, and I invite them to edit. But for you to edit here is inappropriate.

Metzenberg --Metzenberg 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ZayZayEM, why are you rearranging Talk page?

ZayZayEM, Why are you rearranging and editing material on the Talk page. I have no idea which Wikipedia policy that violates, but surely you do. For example, you have moved User:jayjg's comment to a different position on the page. He's an Admin. Don't you think he knows where he wants to place his comments? --Metzenberg 01:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

User:MEtz. This is going to sound silly. But you are starting sound very paranoid. You keep making personal attacks on me. And I am really starting to feel uncomfortable discussing things with someone who doesn't seem to actually want to discuss anything (except about how right he is and how stupid I am). Please start acting maturely or I will repoprt you for wikistalking harrassment.--ZayZayEM 01:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There are few good reasons to substantially rearrange a talk page. The ones I can think of are:

  • undoing vandalism
  • archiving
  • moving inappropriately placed recent comments to the bottom
  • (Less frequently) dealing with a situation where someone has interspersed in the middle of someone else's post in a way that makes the original post very hard to follow.

Other than that, I might have done it two or three times in the 3-1/2 years I've been active on Wikipedia. And it is something to be particularly wary of when one is already in a conflict. - Jmabel | Talk 01:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible WP:OR issues regarding "Intelligent Design"

When Jews (Haredi or otherwise) who disagree with evolution discuss alternatives, are the alternatives they propose the same thing as what (largely Christian-influenced) thinkers mean by "intelligent design"? It's not clear to me that the article's current sourcing clearly establishes whether this is the case or not. People with strong views can sometimes be in danger of a false dichotomy situation where they can sometimes implicitly assume that all views opposed to their own or reaching superficially similar conclusions are completely the same. Similarly, it strikes me that views on the question of whether a topic should be taught in public schools may be a separate question, for some people, from whether they personally believe it, and it's possible these issues may be being conflated as well. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Shira, the article has been locked up now for days, but I already have a paragraph ready to add about Rabbi Avi Shafran and his views. I am choosing Shafran, because he appears to the be the most widely recognized spokesman for Agudath Israel. I think the quotation from him will broaden the articles perspective on this. BTW, I just finished creating a stub page for Shafran. Have a look. --Metzenberg 21:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Metz - you can utilise other wiki features to continue to provide information and possible versions of articles that are protected. Here are some suggestions of working space while this issue continues - User:Metzenberg/Sandbox, User:Metzenberg/Talk:Jewish reactions to intelligent design (proposed)--ZayZayEM 00:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here is my proposal for a compromise:

Both User:ZayZayEM and User:Guettarda (who appears not to be a neutral administrator to me) agree to leave this whole series of pages behind and not do further editing here. There are 1.7 million other Wikipedia pages for you to contribute to. There are thousands of capable editors on wikipedia, several of whom are now interested in this page, and they can make further editorial changes. There are people now involved here who understand this material, like User:Jayjg, User:Shirahadasha, User:jmabel, and User:orangemarlin.

  • Do you, User:ZayZayEM, agree to leave these pages and not edit further? (yes or no)
  • Do you, User:Guettarda, agree to leave these pages and not edit further? (yes or no)

Secondly, I ask ZayZayEM to agree from now on to use a different editorial style. From now on, you will not delete without first looking at the Talk for the page and the history of the page, to find out how long the material has been there, who added it, what it’s importance might be.

If you don’t understand material, but it has been on a page for a while and has already been viewed by others, will you assume that it is correct and that it belongs there. If the material is uncited or unsourced, will you tag it [citation needed] instead of deleting it.

If you have questions about material that you don’t have expertise with, address a question to editors who do understand it, on the Talk page. Will you promise to work this way, from now on, on every page on Wikipedia where you are not yourself an expert with the material?

Will you respect the opinions of those who actually author the material. They know what pictures, captions, headings, introductory text, and so forth really belong on the page. They are contributing it to the public domain, and they want other editors who work in and have expertise in the same area as themselves to be the ones that make comments and changes. Will you address questions to them on Talk pages, instead of acting without their permission? And if a writer requests that you leave a page for a period of time, so they can complete their work, will you do so?

If User: Guettarda answers yes to question #1 and User:ZayZayEM answers yes to all of the questions, then I agree to withdraw my request for arbitration, and I consider this matter resolved. I will respectfully work with User:Jayjg, User:Shirahadasha, and User:orangemarlin, User:jmabel, and others to improve the pages. Indeed, I am excited about further collaboration with them and I am happy they have shown interest here.

Obviously, I expect that I will have no further encounters with User:ZayZayEM on Wikipedia, since I am not interested in marsupials or Australia, and he is not interested in Judaism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metzenberg (talk • contribs)

Metzenberg, I'm not sure you have the right to ask these questions. I think you're getting a little hostile to ZayZayEM's own hostility. I'm supporting your efforts here, because I'm appalled at ZZM's edits, and flagrant violations of NPOV. But all editors, you and me included, can deal with ZZM if necessary. I'm not sure what his agenda might be, but tweaking you seems to be one of them. Not very mature on his part, but I'd ignore him if I were you. He's not worth the trouble. You are making yourself look really bad. Orangemarlin 15:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think ZayZayEM and I have resolved what we disagreed on here. --Metzenberg 21:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for improving the article

Not sure I want to get drawn into this war, but here's some suggestions that occur to me for the article:

1. The lead. Americancentrism is it's second name. The very first sentence reads: "The reaction of Jewish leaders and organizations to intelligent design has been primarily concerned with responding to proposals to include intelligent design in the public school curriculum as a rival scientific hypothesis to modern evolutionary theory." This is 100% Americana. It simply takes for granted that everyone will know that the Jewish leaders and organisations it mentions are American leaders and organisations; and proposals for the inclusion of ID in public school curriculum? Only in America, buddy. (The idea of including ID in school curricula in Australia was once raised by the Oz minister for education, a man notorious for having no beliefs, principles or loyalties of any description; he was immediately slapped down by his own Prime Minister). The next paragraph of the lead then goes on to discuss a court caase in the US, very important in that country, a non-event elsewhere.

Over 1/3 of the world's Jews are in the U.S., and advocacy of "intelligent design" is largely U.S.-based. But if you have something on Jewish views on this in Australia, that would be a fine addition. - Jmabel | Talk 01:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Intelligent design is almost as American as all other religious efforts in infiltrating schools. We can't help that Americans are obsessed with religion, but that's why this article exists. Australian rules football rates an article, yet no one outside of Australia cares. Orangemarlin 18:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Secular Jewish Organations: (What's an organation, by the way? Sounds kinky.) It's nice to be filled in on the thoughts of Jeff Sinensky, the ADL, and the JTS. Does anyone outside the US have anything to say? The Jewish doctors cited are, of course American Jewish doctors - is that worth mentioning? And anyway, what's so significant about doctors? Their opinions on my piles I'll listen to, but are their opinions on ID any more notable than those of my greengrocer?

Worldwide Jewish population: about 13-14 million. How many don't live in either the USA or Canada or Israel? Only about 3 million. Main countries that still have a few hundred thousand Jews are Russia, Ukraine, Argentina, France, United Kingdom. Jewish doctors are a professional group that is trained in evolutionary science. Would be nice to find other professional groups that this affects, like teachers, scientists, but there tends not to be any survery data, unless somebody goes out and collects it. --Metzenberg 21:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be interesting if there are non-U.S. views to be found, but there are few countries in which advocacy of "intelligent design" has emerged as an important movement; certainly not Israel, the only other country with a comparable number of Jews. - Jmabel | Talk 01:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Since Judaism isn't centralized like Catholicism, viewpoints of where most Jews live is probably critical. American Judaism is probably the only branch that has to deal with ID, so therefore it gets a lot more weight in this article. Orangemarlin 18:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

3. Non-Orthodox Movements: More Americanism. I think I'll stop mentioing this fact, it's getting repetitive. More seriously, this section needs to be drastically shortened: there are umpteen people quoted, all saying the same thing. I don't need to be beaten over the head with the message-stick.

Of the world's non-Orthodox, but practicing, Jews, over half are in the U.S., so U.S.-centrism is inevitable. - Jmabel | Talk 01:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

4. Orthodox Jewry: Why do the Orthodox get a section all to themselves? Because some of the Orthodox think DI is a good thing, of course, as the section makes clear. But I think it would strengthen the article if the two sections - non-Othodox and Orthodox - wee rolled into one, and the whole thing shortened, so that it could be made clear that the majority opinion among all 3 branches is that ID sucks; there could then be a final paragraph, no more, combining the present last 3 paragraphs.

The sharpest dividing line in the spectrum of Jewish opinion is between Orthodox and non-Orthodox. There are a substantial number of prominent Orthodox thinkers who oppose aspects of Darwinism, yet they generally oppose the concepts formulated by the Intelligent design movement in the USA. --Metzenberg 21:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Metzenberg. - Jmabel | Talk 01:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur. Orangemarlin 18:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

5. The anthropic principle: I don't think this has any part in the article, not unless Aviazar, or whatever his name is, is a towering figure who simply cannot be ignored - but I doubt that this is so.

It's a stub section right now. I was working on it when the article got locked. He is one of several mainstream Orthodox scientists who strongly opposes intelligent design yet has some non-Darwinian beliefs about evolution. --Metzenberg 21:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

6. Haredi Orthodox: Again, are these people erally important? If they are, put them in the body of the article, not in their own section - how much room they get, from a sentence to a paragraph, will depend on how important they are. (I've never heard of them, but then there's lots of things in the US that I've never heard of).

On the order of 5% of the Jewish population in the USA, 10% in Israel, and a few percent elsewhere, but with a disproportionate leverage and influence, because of their political unity. --Metzenberg 21:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Metzenberg. - Jmabel | Talk 01:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The American focus bothers me, as you will have gathered. It seems to be quite unconscious - the authors are American, and can't be blamed for that. But the article either needs to make clear that it's discussing an American issue, or else widen itself to show what's happening elsewhere. Ever heard of a place called Israel? PiCo 09:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not only that the issue is mostly an American one. The non-Orthodox Jewish world is dominated by and heavily influenced by the American Jewish community. Nowhere else (except perhaps in Canada, where the Jewish organizations are mostly affiliated with their larger American counterparts) is the Jewish community so large and influential. --Metzenberg 21:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Once again the problem isn't necessarily where the Jewish community is located, it is where it located that has to deal with this ID issue. Intelligent design is mostly a US issue. Orangemarlin 18:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The absence of these worldwide views is significant. Despite being necessary (you can't include information that isn't there), their absence should be explained somewhere in the article.--ZayZayEM 02:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection still needed?

Is protection still needed for this article, or do people think editing could resume calmly? - Jmabel | Talk 01:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be okay.--ZayZayEM 02:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting to hear from Metzenberg, who requested the protection. - Jmabel | Talk 23:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and unprotect. --Metzenberg 00:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science is lacking from the discussion

The article is more "sociological" and political than what it ought to be: legitimate and necessary scientific controversy. If the issue was purely scientific I would advocate a course/lessons on "alternate views of cosmology". One example of an alternate view is an intelligently designed "framework" designed to evolve within certain constraints and rules. Computer science includes a "genetic programming" and "artificial life" model, which are somewhat similar to intelligent design and can be rigorously and scientifically analyzed. Most if not all of the theologians, priests and rabbis mentioned in the articles are not familiar with man created systems (another example of intelligent design ...) sufficiently large and complex to sustain themselves thru long cycles of "evolution" or mutation. The systems and mental models most of us are familiar with to date have no capability to evolve. It is certainly not true that certain models of intelligent design with built-in evolutionary capability can't be studied scientifically. Computer science/technology is rapidly advancing and one important use of almost limitless computation/communication "energy" is likely to be "creation" of imaginary "worlds" where today's elementary avatar populated community "world" games are primitive precursors. Today's "virtual worlds" and its avatars are still limited and unable to evolve, yet that is certain to change over time - probably the next few decades. One would think that this model alone justifies including "intelligent design" in science education, rather than the current limited and "fundamentalist" view which excludes other than Big Bang etc. actual and potential designs. On the other hand, there is the important social and political issue of having in public schools (at all levels) a religion free environment, which served America well over time. Also, unfortunately, as soon as religion enters a school it tends to bring with it dogmatic views, which are difficult to filter and which tend to rapidly flavor discussion to become unscientific. Much wisdom is required to resolve the conflicting aims of encouraging healthy skepticism in science, including scepticism about certain aspects of science, having scientific rigor devoid of religion and ideology and avoiding divisive religious atmosphere in schools.Emesz 17:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you should read the article on Intelligent design. First of all, it is not a science. It is considered a pseudoscience, which means that it does not adhere to scientific theory or method. Intelligent design, but its very definition, requires a supreme being, a supernatural device or a G_d, all of which are in the realm of religion not science. Your argument that it should be taught because it is not a religion is disingenuous. Intelligent design is religion and therefore should not be taught in school. In fact, in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the Federal Court ruled that Intelligent design is in fact a religion and in fact violates the constitutional prohibition of religion being taught in public schools. The article as written here is fine. It is a sociological problem. Orangemarlin 18:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


The view of science in the article by the various liberal Jewish groups it mentions and the above comment may have been correct up to about a century or so ago. Modern physics, in part because of quantum mechanics and especially cosmology, developed a different flavor. Some important theories in cosmology, for example, are not verifiable by experiments - such as the theory of parallel universes. There ought to be room in science education for "speculative science" - imagining/modeling other worlds different than ours, for example having different fundamental constants physical rules, etc. Some of these "theoretical worlds" could be probed and experimented with in "theoretical laboratory" settings via computer models. The example I gave about world and life crafting using computation in the future suggests many important and educational "scientific" and "engineering" discussions/presentations, where powerful ideas can be learned with scientific and engineering rigor. Intelligent design definitely has an important place in such an education and research framework. On the other hand, it is IMMEDIATELY OUTSIDE the framework as soon as ideas are prefaced with "the Torah states", "According to the Kabbalah", "This can be inferred by gemmatria" ..., "Jesus said"... "According to Papal Edict" ..., "Mohammed exclaimed" - much as anything in the science class room would need to be placed "outside" if theorems are justified by exlaimiong "Newton believed", "Einstein said".
Whereas there are considerable intellectual and even "scientific" benefits in speculative science (one could argue that all science is to some extent speculative - so speculativeness is a matter of degree) there is a clear danger that once "intelligent design" enters classrooms it would tend to expand like rising dough and adherents would seek to pressure transforming science into religion, where instead of "QED" theorems would be punctuated by various forms of "Amen!". How this dilemma is resolved requires much wisdom. The deliberation should be by socially conscious scientists, with open and inquisitive minds. Theologians who would participate in deliberations must be "dogma free" and open to totally free discussions dominated more by questions than answers. Especially in Judaism, the model of Abraham the Questioner is a guiding principle along with powerful, clear statements by Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, such as "Halakhic man's greatest aspiration is to create worlds" (paraphrase from "Halakhic Man"). Within Judaism one person to approach to express an opinion on the issue is Rabbi/Dr Norman Lamm, current Chancellor of Yeshiva University, its past President, a student of the renowned Rabbi/Dr Joseph Soloveitchik and someone who seems to be a wise and clear thinker.
As I look back at my own scientific and Jewish education, a well designed science course based on "speculative science", including various models of "intelligent design", would have been very stimulating, could have opened for me many doors of inquiry and understanding and may have shaped my Jewish identity and personality in varied important ways.Emesz 13:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is about Jewish reactions to ID; primarily it will be about religious philosophy and sociological reactions to the phenomenom as Judaism is primarily a religious and social movement not a scientific one.--ZayZayEM 02:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This isn't a science article, and it isn't supposed to be. --Metzenberg 00:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
A strange comment in the context if teaching science ... The issue is precisely about BOTH science and social concerns - i.e. about complex reality. Discussions on the topic seem to miss the mark precisely because they don't take into account scientific concerns and are political turf battles. That is unfortunate.Emesz
That's why there is an article series about intelligent design. This article should be about Jewish reactions by Jews from their Jewish perspective. --ZayZayEM 00:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Having a "Jewish perspective" about how to teach or not to teach science, (math, etc.) without considering the related major scientific issues is ... unusual, mindless, dogmatic, political, "fundamentalist" .. especially surprising with "liberal" Jews who are supposedly liberal... That approach does not show Judaism at it best - quite the contrary. It is similar to the "Monkey trial" when religious groups tried to keep evolutionary theory out of science. Today "liberal" Jews apparently try to do the same with "intelligent design". One is also reminded of the Church trying to control science in the middle ages (e.g. censoring Copernicus and Galileo). Of course then too the issue was not science but the "Catholic view". Judaism has a different history regarding scientific and other inquiry. One of the most renowned Jews, Maimonides, was a scientist. The best in science and also in religion includes no boudaries to inquiry and learning. The only valued "Jewish perspective" is to leave scientific dicourse open, leave the discourse to scientists and anyone who is bright, open minded and inquisitive (including theologians), without any form or religious or anti-religious bigotry and attempt to control. As a Jew I am not proud of the shallow, politically motivated positions which the article exposes. There are dangers in letting "intellegent design" advocates trying to deform science into theology. I am connviced we can find the way to prevent that. Consequently I consider a bigoted approach to science teaching by forbidding directions of inquiry far more dangerous. Do we need a socond Monkey Trial - this time to explore "allowing" new scientific perspectives to enter the marketplace of ideas?Emesz 16:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Again. See article series.--ZayZayEM 04:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Many Jews tend to forget Judaism's start with Abraham the Questioner who even engaged even God in principled dialogue. We tend not to notice that the Study Hall (Beis Hamedresh) is also called the House of Questioning. It is true that many perceive Judaism only as a set of laws and social customs and consequently far too often the intellect is parked outside of Judaism. This seems to be even more so regarding Christianity (notably Catholicism, which doesn't encourage questioning) and these days even more so about Islam. Some (including I) would consider a Judaism not based on questioning and essence seeking (i.e. "science") idol worship (avodah zarahin Hebrew).Emesz 13:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Emesz, I don't even know where to start. You've written so much here, I am not even sure what to read and in what order! I'm glad you are so interested. Could you summarize in a sentence or two, what is it that you think we should change about this article. Give us the emes (Yiddish, truth). --Metzenberg 17:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure I can give "THE (?) Emesz", aside from the thoughts expressed above. I'll try to find some time to summarize the above points from fusion of three perspectives: science (first and foremost - after all the "Jewish perspective" discussion must primarily take into account science), Jewish thought and sociology. Seems to me that the "best Emesz" anyone can give is not more pat answers but questions which can illuminate the issue.Emesz 19:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Just a reminder that the article is supposed to reflect all notable views based on reliable sources its stated topic, agree with them or not. Please try and keep discussion on how to build the article -- this talk page isn't the place for personal opinions on the subject. Remember that the stated article topic is Jewish views, and Wikipedia classifies Judaism as a sociological/theological subject, not a scientific one. If you have a strong view, please try and find a source showing that it is notable before attempting to include it. Thanks! --Shirahadasha 19:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all, this is a TALK page. That means INFORMAL discussion related to the article, including critical comments on the way it was written and perhaps on the views it writes about. I have yet to find TALK pages where all or most is "noteworthy". I have seen that this criticism is often o\used to stifle differing views.
To borrow a phrase from critics of "intelligent design" incorporation in science, many of the Jewish views summarized seem to be "junk Judaism", not the Judaism I find meaningful or the Jewish thinkers I find stimulating to listen to and study. Whereas I am not impressed by the essentially "religious" mind set of many "intelligent design" advocates I equally "admire" many of the so called "liberal Jewish views" on science which aim to dictate or censor without understanding the potentially interesting scientific models. A "Jewish view" of this approach is that it is at best "chutzpah" often by ignoramuses (Am Ha'aretz) not knowledge either in science or Judaism.
Jews (including I) can legitimately have differing THEOLOGICAL views on science, geometry, art, sport and even basket weaving WITHOUT being experts in the subject or having deep intuitive insights. I as a Jews can, for example, state that a Jew is not allowed to travel (and even touch) a car on Shabbat (excepting emergencies). To express my view I don't have to be an expert in automobile engineering, pollution control, accident prevention, etc. I can just speak "theology" and "sociology". On the other hand if I lack deep understanding in these subjects my "Jewish views" on what should and should not be taught about vehicle engineering would not only be meaningless and possibly bigoted (e.g. if I said Judaism allows teaching only about six wheeled cars and a."resting" spare since the Torah writes about six days of creation and a day of rest... --- or, in contrast, saying that liberal Judaism demands engineering students to learn design of "pluralistic wheel sets" and they are not ALLOWED to hear in classrooms about other designs...) but should not be given the dignity of being heard.
Notable in the article is lack of familiarity with direction of thought of real Jewish thinkers, such as Rabbi Norman Lamm, etc. and instead focuses on seemingly petty and shallow political views by some who also happen to be Jewish. If I had to summarize, the article states/implies that Jews ("we" for me) are shallow and unimaginative thinkers on an important subject. I find that deeply offensive. Among Jews there many, many creative and deep thinkers. Seems the article prefers views of politicians rather that Jewish thinkers. Many of so called "Jewish views" are very similar, but opposite, to what we laughed at while watching the Monkey Trial.. Maybe a new movie like that is needed ....Emesz 20:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Emesz. I am not aware that Dr. Norman Lamm has expressed a viewpoint on intelligent design. Could you point one out for us? --Metzenberg 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I recommend(eD) contacting him - he is someone whose "Jewish point of view" I respect. As an example of his thinking ... he once said that he was invited to write an essay on the "Jewish point of view" regarding artificial intelligence and its implications. His response seemed thoughtful, enlightened and wise. Emesz 17:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It isn't the proper role of wikipedia to contact others and ask them their views. That's original research, of course, and it involves a normative judgment that somebody else's viewpoint that we haven't heard from ought to be here. That's journalism, not compiling an encyclopedia. "Jewish reaction of intelligent design" encompasses only the reactions of those who have actually reacted. It isn't our role to go out and ask those who haven't reacted to ID what their reactions are. --Metzenberg 18:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Emesz. Your characterization of the views expressed so far in this article as "petty and shallow political views" of persons who happen to be Jewish reflects a lack of familiarity with the great traditions in the philosophy of science. In the early 20th century, there was a discussion in philosophy about how to differentiate between scientific theory and a pseudo-science. Among the rabbis quoted in this article, Rabbi Brad Hirschfield (Modern Orthodox, President of CLAL) seems to be framing his argument in terms of an influential book by Karl Popper, Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. Rabbi Steve Morgen's sermon, also quoted here, is clearly framed in terms of another influential work in philosophy, Alfred Jules Ayer's monumental Language, Truth, and Logic, with its emphasis on verificationism.
Both Karl Popper and the logical positivists, of whom Ayer is representative, have formulated critiques of creationism (and by implication intelligent design) as scientific theories. Popper is especially interesting because he lived such a long life. Early in his career, before microbiology, he saw the theory of natural selection is useful but not objectively verifiable. However, later in his life, he changed his mind and declared that progress in biology had turned natural selection into an objective scientific theory.
If we're going to devote any more time to this discussion, would you please explain very briefly for us what philosophical concerns or important points of view are missing from the article as it now stands. --Metzenberg 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I have already written way too much on the subject and could only repeat points above. If you summarize the points I made to now and here I will be glad to view it, help sharpen them and enagnge in dialogue.
Brief PS to my prior comments .. Please note that probably none of the people you have referred to have any practical or intellectual experience with engineered systems exceeding "critical mass of complexity" - complex enough to evolve within (or even outside of) frameworks or "worlds" which were "engineered" - i.e. "created" - by "intelligent (human) design". Are they experts in "speculative science" - which I briefly alluded to earlier? Sometimes it is instructive to delve into the best in "science fiction", such as say Stanislaw Lem's or Olaf Stapledon's works, for insights into what rigorous, scientific, "speculative science" course(s) may look like - and alternate scientific and technological paradigms. Whereas I don't identify with the "intelligent design" proponents' vocabulary and perhaps mind set, neither do I find the anti-"intelligent design" "Jewish voices" enlightening or relevant to the way science itself is evolving these days - further and further from day to day, "concreate reality" - e.g. in particle physics, quantum theory, cosmology. I, as a Jew, certainly feel there is room for the "right" flavor "intelligent design" model(s) to be studied as a possible competitor or augmentation of cosmology - if for no other reason than to show pitfalls or missing elements in either model. I can see no reasoned argument for why an evolving, "intelligently designed" "virtual world" should not be studied in computer science - and perhaps in cosmology - at least as a basic model to possibly understand "intelligent design" of worlds in a scientifically/technologically rigorous sense. In computer science the discussion would be very concrete and technical - i.e. classifying potential world and "being" complexities as a function of computer/communication power and rendering time and fidelity/granularity, projected increases in "intelligence" as function of computer power, limitations and genres of evolution over "n" generation, criteria (critical mass) of engineered "Garden of Eden" complexity etc. as prerequisite substrate for "spontaneous: creation of new sub-systems, "constellations", "beings". Anyone who can't grapple with such issues at the intellectual and scientific and Jewish levels (and combined) is not qualified to decide for everyone that introduction of "intelligent design" in science education is not-Kosher. How would they know if they don't know? What is their "Jewish perspective" worth if the are in key areas of science they try to prevent teaching they are "amei ha aretz" (ignoramuses).
Furthermore, seems to me that trying to prevent teaching a scientifically sound theory of "intelligent design" (e.g. as I framed it in above paragraph) , at least at teacher discretion, is in principle reactionary, violation of freedom of speech, reminiscent of middle-age Vatican persecutions of scientists and of the bigots/ignoramuses in the Monkey Trial. Are we, Jews, now to be now the bigots/ignoramuses in Monkey Trial II?Emesz 17:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Emesz. I myself find the notion that the "engineered systems" you keep talking about (for examples simulations of life on a computer) bear any relation to the huge complexity of even a single microorganism to be almost preposterous. I don't see how it is the role of a page on "Jewish reactions to ID" to discuss them. Perhaps there is some other place in the collection of wikipedia articles on ID where this would be appropriate. I think your reference to others as "ignoramuses" only reflects badly on whatever message it is you are trying to bring to us. I'd like to close this discussion by saying thank you for confining your comments to the Talk page, rather than forcing the rest of us to "negotiate" with you the contents of the article itself. --Metzenberg 18:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll close this as follows:
  • Isn't this the Talk page?
  • It is risky and not responsible to term something requiring extrapolition in the future and an imaginary leap "preposterous". Just about 25 years ago personal computer, Internet, etc. seemed preposterous ... especially to the "professionals". That is what happens at paradigm shifts ... Failure of imagination in dynamic phenomena is a common pitfall.
  • To comment on the one potential model of intelligent design coupled with evolution (ID+E) I noted above (there are probably many others which are much more sophisticated) I advise imagining not today's computation/communication (CC) capabilities, but extrapolating "Moore's Law" +massive parallelism through nano super-computers - billions of computers "in vitro" in 1 cc, super-parallel quantum computation, blend of Von Neumann architecture computers with massive, nano-technology based neural nets, protein based super-parallel computers, "spontaneous" (evolutionary) emergence of new forms of (faster faster faster and other/better) computational capability, etc. We need to look way into the future and imagine what level of reality/complexity can be simulated/sustained in that time frame on a CC substrate OF THAT TIME. Our race is just getting started with CC - we need to imagine capabilities 100 1,000 10,000 etc years from now ... to be able to comment on what is possible. The reason for possibly STARTING with this or similar "simple" model is because it is a concrete/engineering example of what "intelligent design" coupled with post "creation" autonomous evolution can be like. At least the model provides a "non-religious" paradigm and associated vocabulary, symbology, "formulas", metrics, algorithms, theorems, etc. That is "science" and "engineering". Also advise reading a few good science fiction books, e.g. parts of Stanislaw Lem's Cyberiad and Olaf Stapledon's Last and First Man - for Gedanken experiments. Once a very basic model of ID+E is studied the subject is likely to be less emotional, political, religious/anti-religous
  • An important side effect of science is demystification. We seem to be rising to a plateau where eventually intelligence is de-mystified and where synthetic human intelligence may be reached/exceeded in the FUTURE. Also, many physicists aim to bring the study of intelligence, biological and social systems, etc. in the realm of physics -- which will dramatically impact our understanding of fundamental phenomena germane to discussion of ID+E. That sets the stage for better, less emotional, religious and political discussions on ID+E
  • As far as I recall Ayer wrote about "meaning". Without deep understanding of today's and emerging scientific paradigms the "Jewish views" expressed lack meaning and relevance to this age - regardless of wehich philosophers are quoted. Expressing so called "Jewish views" on science without science is an oxymoron.
  • Would be helpful if those who claim to express thoughtful and knowledgeable "Jewish views" on ID+E would elaborate oin the following statements by Rabbi Joseph Soloveitvhik in Halakhic Man:
* Man is obliged to engage in creation and renewal of the cosmos.
* Halakhic man is the man who longs to create, to bring into being something new, something original.
* This wondrous spectacle of the creation of worlds is the Jewish people’s escatological vision, the realization of all its hopes.
* The peak of religious ethical perfection to which Judaism aspires is man as creator.
  • Advise contacting Dr./Rabbi Norman Lamm for a point of view - noting section Views on abiogenesis, evolution and science in his Wikipedai entry and his 1971 essay The Religious Implications of Extra-Terrestrial Life
  • The views in the article seem to be "politically" (and religion) rather than "science" motivated/based. Some of the politics may well be justified, since ID advocates' aim seems to be forcing a religious view on science rather than seeking to enrich science. What is needed is ID+E models whose aim is simply science - and religion, politics, sociology parked outside the discussion. Theological aspects of Judaism and/or secularism can only be briught into rthe discussion if they are meant to enhance science - else they have no place in a science eduaction related discussion/pressure group
  • Those deeply knowledgeable about Juadism can help slightly by paraphrasing the opening parts of Genesis (Beresit) in such a way that it is clear what is explicitly "creation" by ID and what is/may be subsequent evolution
  • Until potential models (including Gestalt experiments - i.e. theoretical models) of ID+E are develop;ed by innovators and rigorously examined attempts to "forbid" study of ID+E in some part of science education violates free speech (and thought) and can't easily be differentiated from voices expressed in Monkey Trial I.
  • It would be refreshing to read an enlightened, innovative, apolitical and "Jewish" view on the subjectEmesz 05:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Esmez, Wikipedia must be written using impartial reliable sources see WP:ATT, WP:RS and other realted guidelines (WP:NOR and WP:NOT spring to mind). This means that sometimes data can be skewed, as not all views on a particular matter might not be published or otherwise expressed in a citable media. It also means that Editors can't go about contacting important figures for comments with the intent of including them in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a tertiary resource, not a news outlet.
Interesting. So the intent is to leave the "Jewish view" on ID+E unscientific, reflecting politically motivated views, irrelevant to today's and emerging scientific frontiers ... reactinary ... let's say quite "un-Jewish" in many ways ... and showing Jews as octriches hiding the head in the sand and fit for ridicule in Monkey Trial II. As a Jew I resent that. Emesz 09:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) That may be, but I concur that Wikipedia's No original research policy and reliable sources guideline require including already-published material and prohibit Wikipedia from being the first outlet to publish. Wikipedia can sometimes stretch this slightly and reprint material from blogs and similar run by established experts in their field, but even this is very limited as described in the reliable sources guideline and always requires prior publication by a figure established as [an expert. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case the article needs to be expanded to include Jewish views expressed by insightful and creative Jewish INDIVIDUALS besides reference to views of "organized Jewry", which, like any group, tends to be plagued by group think and have uncreative, politically motivated views, which are often irrelevant to the true needs of the subject matter. This was also the case during the Holocaust - when views of "organized Jewry" were uninspired, obstructionist and contrary to the interest of the Jews in nazi, fascist and anti-semite infested Europe during its last dark age. (Note frequent intense obstruction of Hillel Kook's rescue group by "leaders" of the Jewish establishment during the Holocaust.)Emesz 21:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligent design vs intelligent design (disambiguation)

Intelligent design, particularly when dealing with Wikipedia's intelligent design article series is clearly dealing with a particular form of the design argument current promugalted (and hijacked) by the Discovery Institute.

Various other theories and philosophies on engineered systems and design belong inside teleological argument and creationism series.

User:Metz did recently try to create an article in the creationism series, but got in to quarrels with another editor (... ... ...) over naming and article direction and other technicalities (messy, messy affair). I do think that perhaps you could work together and coordinate an article on Jewish views in the similar vein to Hinduism and creationism and Islamic creationism that would be better placed in the series than the pseudo-mess Judaism and evolution.

This article however deals with a particular idea: Intelligent design and should stay on topic--ZayZayEM 06:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The above clarification helps a lot. If the "Jewish views" noted relate ONLY to a particular form of the geneneric concept of ID then it would held help if the title clearly reflected that. In that case my comments are relevant to Jewish views on the general notion of ID, but not to the Discovery Institute's.Emesz 07:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Based on thos section the article should be renamed "Jewish reactions to the Discovery Institute promulgated view on intelligent design". Otherwise the article needs to deal with any view, model, paradigm on ID + E.Emesz 05:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's archive this Talk page and start over!

ZayZayEM and I seem to agree and just about everything now. --Metzenberg 07:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Emesz, I don't know what more I can say. Our concept of what wikipedia is must be very different. What you describe doesn't sound like a wikipedia article to me. It sounds like a rambling philosophical discourse. --Metzenberg 07:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is TALK page for comments, discussions - not a carefully thought out, polished article. Seems that there is opposition to open discussion and preference to stick with views which say VERBOTEN to key aspects of education. If you consider this a Talk page with aim of polishing, broadening, etc. the actual page, then it would have been productive if you and others would have related to actual points raised. Let's remember that a core "Jewish view" is valuing search for "Emesz".Emesz 16:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't archive current discussions. It makes it difficult for third (fourth or fifth...) parties.--ZayZayEM 09:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting point. Dictatorial regimes used to also have a practice of "not archiving". Is this a "Jewish view" on discussons? Not mine.Emesz 16:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I mean don't archive yet. If a discussion is continuing, it really shouldn't be archived.--ZayZayEM 13:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I misunderstood your prior comment.Emesz 15:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's impossible to go through what is there now and make any sense of it. It just scares anybody new away from the page. Archive and move on. --Metzenberg 08:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
If you think it is impossible to go thru this relatively short Talk Page and productively relate to the issues how can people be expected to understand "Jewish views" in general on ID+E? That is far far more complex, dynamic, scientific, "Jewish" and .. political.
Not clear what you are commenting on here: ID+E in general, or the "Discovery Institute" views? Until that is clarified the discussion is at best ambiguous and confusing.Emesz 08:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)