Is there such a thing as a Jewish creationist?

[BurtWorm]

It's my understanding that creationism is strictly Christian. An Orthodox Jew once told me that he didn't consider Darwinism a threat and he knew of no one else in his circle of Orthodox friends who would either.

The reason I ask: the Park Service has been ordered to sell a book at the Grand Canyon that argues a creationist "alternative explanation" of the Canyon. This seems pretty straightforwardly a violation of the Constitution to me, in that it puts the government in the position of promoting a specifically fundamentalist Christian point of view. Am I right?

[troublemaker]

1. Absolutely!

When you have a religious text there are always those who favor literal interpretations, including about the age of the earth, Noah, etc. Jewish creationism isn't a big movement like the American Christian version, but there will always be a few Jews conservative enough to argue for biblical literalism. (I think Spinoza was thrown out of Judaism for suggesting that Moses might not have personaly written the decription of Moses' funeral at the end of Exodus.)

[BurtWorm]

2. Absolutely I am right or absolutely there are Jewish creationists?

:shrug:

[troublemaker]

5. sorry - slow to complete post

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Given that the creation is in both the Torah and the Bible, I would think

that fundamentalist Jews feels about the earth's origins similar to the way the conservative Christians do.

[Jazzgirl]

4. You are absolutely right!

"in that it puts the government in the position of promoting a specifically fundamentalist Christian point of view."

[Cleita]

6. Hi BurtWorm. Lots of Catholic school under the belt here

and it was never a problem with the Church either. We got Genesis in religion class and Darwin in science class. One of the ways a nun explained it, and this was only her opinion, is that before the Fall, Eden was a supernatural place, not an Earthly one and Adam and Eve were supernatural beings.

When they were cast out of Paradise onto the material Earth, they were the first organisms from which all organic life sprang. They were not human but the seed that humanity would eventually spring from. This is why God said they would have dominion over all the species of the Earth, or in other words, humanity would be the highest evolutionary being that they would gestate over the ages that would be in their spiritual image that God created.

Well, there's a lot, lot more that she explained along this line of reasoning. Incidentally, this nun was a Biology teacher so I guess this is how she reconciled her faith and science.

[BurtWorm]

17. That's very interesting.

I've never heard the two reconciled that way. Is that based on Catholic dogma, I wonder?

[Cleita]

19. I was taught that the Bible was the written Word of God

where he inspired human writers to take his Word down. Now human beings being fallible don't always get the whole story down or God may not reveal everything because we won't understand it. However, since the Bible is the written Word of God, we must believe it even the Creation story, but we don't have to believe it exactly as it was written because the meaning may be changed through the eons. So a day doesn't have to be an earth day if you get my drift. It is a word that could mean an evolutionary step.

As far as reconciling the two, I think Sister **** came to this on her own, or maybe this is how her community interpreted it. There are various schools of theology within the Church and they don't always agree. I don't think the Pope speaking ex Cathedra, or speaking as God, has taken a position on it. If he does then it becomes dogma and you can't back away from this. This is why Popes through the ages have always been hesitant to speak ex cathedra because Catholics believe that this is the divine word of God speaking through the Pope and God is never wrong.

[BurtWorm]

20. I thought the Vatican issued a statement to the effect that there is no

contradiction between the Bible and Darwin, that one can, in other words, be a biologist and a Catholic. It seems that the people who have the main difficulty with the theory of evolution are the Protestant fundamentalists.

[Cleita]

21. Yes, there was some statement about this back about

sixty or seventy years ago. Sorry I don't have this at my fingertips, but Catholics can merrily do all the scientific inquiry they want to as long as it doesn't involve women's reproduction. This is a problem because a Papal Bull was issued back in 1860 something condemning birth control and abortion. Previous to that the Church didn't interfere with what was between a woman and her midwife. But since it was done, the Pope can't retract it. Big can of worms here. Other than that you can believe in the Big Bang, evolution, do scientific inquiry and the Church won't interfere.

[NickB79]

26. Yes there was

In 1959, I believe. It basically said the Catholic Church took no position on how human life came into existance through evolutionary means, so long as you acknoledge that at some point God bestowed upon humanity an immortal soul. Since science has no bearing on supernatural things such as a soul, there is no conflict. I have no problem with this; Adam and Eve could have been the first two early humans God gave souls to, not the first two humans ever to exist. That would explain the tricky question of who Adam and Eve's descendants bred with. After all, it says Cain was cast out and eventually made his way to the land of Canaan, where the started a community (that was later destroyed and the land taken by the army of Moses). Who did Cain mate with to start this community?

[DemBones DemBones]

29. Since Jesus speaks in parables, why can't Genesis itself be a parable?

Imagine being God trying to explain evolution to nomadic peoples living in tents. I'd go for a parable that employed simple imagery, wouldn't you?

It's the salvation history that the Bible tells that's important, not whether Eve was actually created from Adam's rib. That's only in one of the Genesis creation sagas, anyway; in the other God created man and woman at the same time. And the literalists have to know this because invariably they support man having "dominion" over the earth, which is included in the same story in which Adam and Eve are created together (no "spare" ribs!)

[DrWeird]

7. Not really.

Creationism is mostly an American Evangelical phenomenon. Sure, you'll find some fundamentalist Jews and Muslims who'd dispute Darwin, but none of this highly organized bullshit that occurs in the US.

Yes, of course it's a violation of church and state. More over it's undermining the entire education system.

[FlaGranny]

8. This is a little off subject,

but post #7 brought to mind a TV program I saw a day or so ago about kitchen and bathroom design in Europe. The program gave me a really bad feeling. Europe is innovating, the US is regressing - even in plumbing design!!! It has much do with conservatism. We are going to be left in the dust in the near future, if not already. Thank fundamentalists and their lack of respect for science for it.

[slappypan]

10. American appliances are a joke

In Europe they have all kinds of clever innovations like tankless hot water heaters. We are still wasting energy and space with outdated stuff.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

12. um...they have tankless hot water heaters here

I have a couple of them...

[slappypan]

13. yes they do

But they are more expensive here, and not so common even in new construction. You were smart to install them.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

14. they are awesome!

instant on...hot water until you need it no more...then off. No wasted energy and they leave a space in the garage for all my golfing crap that I never get to use!

theProdigal

[BurtWorm]

16. It is off topic, but I forgive you because it's an interesting subject.

I felt that way about European cars. Even though I was driving a Ford Focus, it was a diesel, it was compact, it was able to handle those narrow streets, but it had a lot of power. And it didn't seem to cost me all that much more to fill it up than an American car, probably because fill-ups were fewer and further between. And I was impressed with the scarcity of road and gas hogs.

[patcox2]

9. Its a literalist thing.

Only people who beleive in a literal interpretation of the bible feel the need to make up junk science.

[Maiden England]

24. and orthodox teachings are definately NOT literal

the Mishnah, for example consists of explanations of the deeper meaning of the Torah.
I went to an orthodox Jewish school, and I clearly remember being taught that genesis should be taken figuratively, as in to 'represent' a period of creation rather than a literal 24 hours, as in it would be appalingly arrogant to assume G-d would see a day in 24 hour increments. I liked that theory.

[dave123williams]

11. Not lately...

Mostly, we Jews value study and enlightenment over ideology; if you can prove that the earth moves around the sun...

[sherilocks]

15. There is a sect called Jews for Jesus

that is really a cult. But it does claim standing as part of the Jewish faith. I disagree, but the members are/were Jewish. I assume they believe in creationism, because they embrace all other aspects of the looney far right wing.

[ikojo]

31. NO segment of the Jewish community accepts JFJ as JEWS

they are seen as Christians. They are not accepted as member organizations in local Jewish Federations (which disburses a lot of funding for local Jewish groups in most large metropolitan areas).

JFJ are Christian not Jewish.

Most members of JFJ are Christians wanting a more "Jewish" setting to worship Jesus.

[KittyWampus]

18. Kabbalism Has A Creation Theory In Genesis... And It Is Read Using

gematria... the Hebrew alphabet has hidden meanings.

The text is Symbolic and not taken literally.

Basically, Kabbalism sees the Universe as proceeding from Unity by Vibration. Decending orders of Vibrations.

Unity is experienced and Understood as Consciousness.

[prodigal_green]

23. that is pretty much what string theory says too

according to the show I saw on PBS a while back. No, I don't have a link.

[sangh0]

25. Very interesting

Last weekend I read a review (in the NY Times Sunday Book Review) of a book about the first 5 books of the Bible, aka The Pentuarch (sp?). According to the author, in it's original form, the Pentarch was extremely repetitive sounding, with many similar sounding words repeated over and over, often in a rythmic manner. In addition, many of these words had several meaning, depending on the context in which they were used. In the Pentuarch, the context often makes more than one definition of a work appropriate, leading to multiple interpretations of passages, all of which were true!

The author sounds as if his thinking were in line with the Kabbalists.

[One_Life_To_Give]

22. Book selling?

Wether or not the book should be there depends on what else is being sold there. For the government to be neutral on the question of religion, not having the book there is potentially advocating against their religion.

We can keep the creationist ideas out of the science classroom as it is not science. Since it is a government bookstore it should try to encourage all points of view be available. The same as we would expect to find all points of view in the library of congress.

[DemBones DemBones]

28. If it's being sold there only so that the "creationist view" is included

then it should be clearly labeled as being an expression of the religious belief of some Christians and not presented as science. Creationists can legitimately argue that their mythology is as valid as Native American mythology but the government should not support either creationists or Native Americans asserting that their mythology is correct and science is a lie. Too often, that is precisely what creationists claim.

[greekspeak]

27. Hypothetically, yes. In reality, I do not know

Christians absorbed Hebrew scripture, including the Adam narratives Noahic flood accounts, into their own body of canonical literature. I imagine that there are still Jews around who accept the first chapters of Genesis as 100% fact. I do not know any Jews personally that do, but I can imagine they are out there. HOWEVER...

Creation "science" is a whole other ball of matzo. I watched a while back an evangelical film that describes creation science, and includes creationist "scientists." These "scientists" do NOT practice science. Rather they do their own little "midrash" on Genesis and CALL it "science." I laughed my fool head off at this "documentary." "Fountains of the Earth" opening up with such force that it sent land masses hurtling across the face of the planet like frisbies. Come on! The forces they described would have torn the planet apart. If you ever want a good hearty chuckle, watch a documentery about Creation "science." Then get really damn serious, because this lunacy is what they want to teach your children in public schools.

[H2O Man]

30. Two things:

{1} All tribal people had creation myths. These are generally all in the form of darkness and a liquid energy without specific form, that takes shape with a spark of light; human beings emerge as the central player. The group is central to human population. (Likewise, flood and related stories are not uncommon.)

The world's religions for centuries took fairly recognizable forms, based on geographic positioning and means of food production. Safe to say that people in the froozen north were unlikely to see God as the Good Shepherd. Only people who sheep-herd have the shepherd symbolism. And people near the equator who see plants die, seeds fall on the ground, and see the cycle of rebirth resulting from death will have those symbols.

So if the Parks Commission has the Grand Canyon as having a possible beginning with the creation or the great flood story of the older books of the Bible, they are selecting one mythology over another.

{2} If the government is supporting one group's creation/flood mythology over all others -- including, quite obviously, the originsal people of that land -- it seems a clear violation of the US Constitution. If they included information on the historic nature of beliefs, meaning the Native American legends and mythology, that would not be favoring one over another. It would simply be adding a historic context.

[ikojo]

32. Jews, even orthodox Jews, do not take the bible literally as is done

by fundie Christians. In Judaism there is a tradition of midrash which is basically parables to explain things that are not easily explained in the text. Most midrashim can be found in the Talmud.

One of the big differences between Judaism and Christianity is that Jews are encouraged to question and interpret the text before them. I heard a rabbi say in a sermon that the rabbis of yore considered those who interpreted the Torah literally to be evil. I believe this was a sermon during the Torah portion Pinchas.

In my interactions with fundie Christians, those who asked questions were seen as being without faith.

[ikojo]

33. Jewish creationists....I don't think so....

http://www.ijn.com/archive/2003%20arch/102403.htm#story4

Unfortunately for creationists, the book of Genesis does not support many of their claims. Unfortunately for evolutionary biologists, logic and evidence do not support many of their claims. Fortunately for the rest of us, science and religion are actually drawing closer together. Extremists on both sides obscure this convergence.

Creationism suffers from a fundamental methodological flaw. It purports to defend the Bible, but actually defends translations of the Bible, whose original and therefore only authoritative text is in Hebrew. Remarkably, all extant manuscripts of the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch agree on every single word, save for a few minor differences in spelling. Archaeological and paleographical discoveries confirm the consistency of the Hebrew text. Without access to the only real Genesis -- the one in Hebrew -- critical claims of creationists become howlers.

snip

Creation science suffers from a still more basic methodological flaw. It makes the truth of religion dependent on the falsity of science. For religion to be right, evolutionary biology must be wrong, or at least rendered a "theory" rather than a fact. I rue the day when science must be wrong in order for religion to be right. The moment religion concedes its criteria for its own truths, religion robs itself of its autonomy and spiritual power. Religion cannot rely on science, for no religious truth is total if it is totally demonstrable.

snip

I conclude that evolution occurred at least within species, that in critical measure evolution reflects design, and that the designer is G-d. This makes science and religion closer than they ever have been since Darwin.