Not really. But sort of. The former NY mayor did come up with what may be the dumbest reason I’ve seen to vote against a political candidate.
Koch told The Times that he also had a chance to speak with Obama at a reception the president hosted at the New York Public Library after the U.N. General Assembly. Obama made a remark, Koch said, about Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican presidential contender who lambasted the president’s Israel policy in New York last week.
Koch wouldn’t say what exactly Obama said, but said he told Obama that Perry could hardly lay claim to the Jewish vote.
“I said to him: ‘Mr. President, that’s the one guy you won’t have to worry about. Jews will never vote for anyone who doesn’t believe in evolution.’”
Perry has a very long and consistent record of supporting Israel. Obama…not really. A vote for Obama isn’t exactly a vote for Israel’s survival.
Koch is probably largely right. Except for a few Orthodox, the Jews would vote for Hitler before they’d vote for a creationist.
I don’t entirely understand that. I don’t disagree with it, it just doesn’t make much sense to me. I mean, we (Christians) did lift the first 5 books of the Old Testament from the Torah, didn’t we? You know, that whole bit about how God created the heavens and the earth?
Koch knows that most Jews don’t believe that anymore.
I’m with Amy. If Jews don’t believe ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…’, which is Genesis 1:1, what do they believe?
I really don’t know.
The simple answer to your query is that Jews are not literalists, rather they believe the sacred text is meant to teach us something. The tradition is that there are four levels to the text’s meaning: the simple, straightforward one (p’shat), the hint of something deeper (remez), the more profound understanding (d’rush), and the very deep, “secret” meaning (sod).
That certainly applies to the Creation story. The notion that Torah speaks “in the language of men” acknowledges limitations to our understanding, thus uses terms we can comprehend. “Six days”, thus, does not mean six days as we humans understand them, rather as stages or processes. Thus the head of German Jewry in the 19th century, Rabbi Shimshon Hirsch, insisted there was “no conflict” between Darwin’s theory of evolution and Jewish faith.
Perhaps the best overview of the traditional Jewish attitude toward science, et.al. is Rabbi Natan Slifkin’s “The Challenge of Creation”. A naturalist and lecturer affiliated with Jerusalem’s Biblical Zoo (his father was a physicist), he addresses such issues as evolution, intelligent design, cosmology and the Big Bang, etc. Read it and you’ll understand why even believing Jews aren’t Creationists (and maybe why we continue meriting Nobel prizes in science – five more among this year’s winners.)
“If Jews don’t believe ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…’, which is Genesis 1:1, what do they believe?”
Dennis Prager knows. Or as he told one interviewer almost 20 years ago, “Liberalism has now replaced Judaism as the religion of the Jews.”
“Jews will never vote for anyone who doesn’t believe in evolution.”
belief in a theory? kinda faith driven no?
No. You are confusing the terms “hypothesis” and “theory” (as did Reagan). “Hypothesis” is the technical term for “wild ass guess”. “Theory” is an explanation for a phenomenon backed up by sufficient scientific evidence. The theory of evolution by natural selection (Darwinism) is the explanation of how evolution works, it is by no means guesswork. The evidence in favor of it is overwhelming, no “faith” necessary for acceptance. Faith is required to discount so much evidence, not accept it.
You seem to think that “the theory of evolution” sprang whole and fully formed from mind of Darwin the way Athena sprang fully grown from the head of Zeus. Nope. Sorry. Wrong.
The theory of evolution by natural selection was first propounded by Darwin, but has been altered, chopped, channeled and adjusted from Darwin’s original speculations as additional factual material has appeared. It will be altered, chopped, channeled and adjusted further as more factual material appears.
A theory is the explanation for the available facts, but the theory inevitably must alter as additional facts appear; some will fit easily into the theory as it exists, but if they do not then the theory itself must be adjusted to encompass them. If the theory cannot encompass the new facts, then the theory is scrapped and a new theory which does cover all the facts must be propounded.
Darwin’s had a good run, thus far—and the theory based on his work may be with us for a while yet. But Isaac Newton’s physics had a pretty good run, too—until Einstein fractured them.
“Darwin’s had a good run, thus far—and the theory based on his work may be with us for a while yet. But Isaac Newton’s physics had a pretty good run, too—until Einstein fractured them.”
Newton’s physics are still correct – all the Einstein showed was there even more general rule-set, and sooner or later an even more general rule-set will appear to unite general relativity and quantum mechanics. Again this wont mean Einstein’s general relativity was wrong either. E will still equal mc^2 and all that.
Many people use this idea to say that evolution will be eventually disproven (presumably to be replaced by creationism, naturally!) – which is nonsense. Since Darwin first came up with the idea, it has been refined with the addition of new knowledge. This is comparable to what is going on in physics with even more general rule-sets being discovered, except in a much more gradual fashion (like evolution! ha!). Since all the tests the theory has passed are not going to magically disappear – the fact of evolution is not going to go away.
I have said nothing about “creationism”; it is you, not I, who is setting up this false dichotomy. For all you know, someone will tomorrow discover evidence that this planet has been periodically seeded with new life forms at ten-million-year intervals by aliens who are keeping this planet as a combination game preserve and zoo. This would blow the “theory of evolution” to hell in a second—but it is possible, even if highly unlikely.
What most people—even those who are not “people of faith”—object to with regard to “evolutionists” is the fat-headed fatuousness with which you contemplate yourselves and congratulate yourselves on your bovine complacency with regard to the veracity of evolutionary theory. Yes, it was a brilliant insight which had not occurred to anyone before Charlie D. thought it up—but that does not preclude the possibility that some other person, whether professional scientist or (like Charlie D.) an insightful amateur, might not come up with an even more elegant and accurate theory.
“You seem to think that ‘the theory of evolution’ sprang whole and fully formed from mind of Darwin the way Athena sprang fully grown from the head of Zeus. Nope. Sorry. Wrong.”
What? Huh? What are you smoking? Where did I say anything of how the theory of evolution came into existence? You are confusing two entirely different theories: the fact that evolution occurred (i.e., “the theory of evolution”) and Darwin’s theory to explain *how* it happened (natural selection). The theory of the fact of evolution had a long history before Darwin was born. I cannot and did not dispute that. The idea of natural selection, however, *did* spring from the mind of Darwin (and Wallace), although not fully formed. It has been added to and corrected ever since.
But Newton’s physics works in 95% of the cases. And Darwin’s original theory is still 98% intact (methods, details, not the basis).
Actually, Newton’s physics (i.e., nonrelativistic classical mechanics) works in 100% of cases *for macroscopic systems at speeds that are a negligibly small fraction of the speed of light*. It is a double-limit case of relativistic quantum mechanics (Dirac). The single-limit cases are (nonrelativistic) quantum mechanics (atomic scale low-speed limit) and (classical) relativity (macroscopic systems moving at non-negligible fractions of light speed).
Bill N – Check the second law of thermodynamics. The Darwinian hypothesis for origin of life and macroevolution violate the second law. Similarly, the Darwinian hypothesis cannot explain the gain in information required for both origin of life and macroevolution; and finally the Darwinian hypothesis requires more than the available probabilistic resources of the universe to have a chance (hence, hypotheses about infinite universes). (And need I add the problem of irreducible complexity to the mix?) None of that precludes a naturalistic explanation of origin of life or macroevolution, but the Darwinian hypothesis does not cut the mustard in that regard. (The Darwinian hypothesis will explain microevolution, which is a loss of function as opposed to a gain of function – the domain of macroevolution.)
As for what Jews believe or disbelieve – that, believe it or not, is not terribly relevant for the observant Jew. What is very relevant for the observant Jew is fulfilment of Torah commandments on this earth (as interpreted in rabbinic Judaism). BTW another not terribly relevant thing is the afterlife. (We don’t do things here to get browny points there.) Regretfully, many of my coreligionists, as Dennis Prager puts it, have traded the Torah of Moses for the torah of contemporary liberalism. One consequence is that the only vibrant and vital part of Judaism is that comprising people who are observant. Someday, but not in my lifetime, that part will be the dominant part of Judaism in America.
Nonsense. Evolution doe NOT violate the second law. You obviously don’t understand the second law, and in particular how to draw envelopes.
Most people who’ve heard of the Second Law never heard of “closed” vs. “open” systems
Snork – The second law has to do with entropy. The Darwinian hypothesis requires that there be a reduction in entropy. Now, I know there are all kinds of speculations about how that reduction is offset elsewhere by an increase, but the simpler solution (Occam’s razor) is to reject the hypothesis and look for another hypothesis.
Status. Jews are liberal, because that is what status demands. Only the primitive Jews believe in Creation. Jews give highest status to the educated. To seem uneducated, unenlightened, is the ultimate faux-pas. Loss of face. All liberals have this in common, the desire for the status “correct thinking” provides. It does not matter what is true. It only matters what is acceptable.
The road to Hell is not paved with good intentions. It is paved with political correctness.
Precisely correct, and this view also explains why Liberals are so emotional: because their politics is not about rational choice of the best social policies but rather about satisfying the emotional need for status.
The bad news is that status-seeking is the primary motivator for most people, as one would expect for a species whose evolution occurred in the context of small social groups of cooperators/competitors.
The good news is that Liberalism/Marxism only has status because of the historical fact that it arose in the more educated segment of the population of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The best way to destroy Leftist power is to reduce its value as a marker of status. PJ Media is a great tool for doing this.
Koch has replaced Daniel Patrick Moynihan as the New York Denocratic policitican who, at times, will say the most rational things, but who, when push comes to shove on the big issues, will always come down on the side of party loyalty.
I’m not sure I really want to vote for a politician who is wasting time pimping Creationism, or whatever they are calling it these days, when the country is headed into Hell in a hat basket.
That being said, given that the alternative is a Democrat, I’ll just ignore our candidate’s faith based wrongness and vote for the intelligent things they are saying. No candidate is perfect.
I wish our candidates would keep their religion to themselves. We are not electing a Pope. I really don’t think debating whether the Bible or Evolution is a better model for explaining how we got here is the most pressing issue we face at the moment. The debate will only serve to split the party and increase Obama’s chances for reelection. Which is why the Democrat Press Corps keeps asking our candidates questions about it.
I’m with you on that one, OG. Religious beliefs are immaterial to me. Moral philosophy and principle always trumps the nuances of the particular flavors of judeo/christian faiths. Islam is a different matter.
And you are right about the media wing of the Democrat party using such matters to try to trip up conservative candidates.
Although, I don’t believe Perry ‘pushed’ his creationist ideas. He was the victim of a troll who used her child as a sock puppet to ask ‘why don’t you believe in science?’ It was a set up.
Bryan’s got the video in the archives somewhere.
I hate to be cynical, especially about someone’s expression of faith, but when I heard about Perry’s public prayer meeting a couple of months back, my first thought was that the guy is just garnering votes, the same way Rove did with Bush. Sorry, but my gut feeling about Perry is that the guy’s a phony, and I don’t care what Kinky Friedman says.
Is it that Perry disbelieves in evolution or that he believes there’s holes in the theory?
If so, better that than believing that when you die you go to your own, private planet.
Just as Muslims who blow themselves up screaming “Alla Who?” are not regarded as Muslims, so Jews shouting “There is no Judge, and there is no Judgement!” are not regarded as Jews!
Oh! and BTW. There is a slight difference between Creationism and Evolutionary Theory!
Anonymous – As you indicate, there is indeed a difference. Creationism (as I understand it) posits a world that is six-thousand years old. Creationism would require that the world as we know it today is what was created (because there is not enough time for evolution). The alternative is a naturalistic explanation, such as Darwinism, or Intelligent Design. For reasons I outlined earlier, the Darwinian hypothesis does not seem to be the answer, but to repeat what I said earlier, there may be a naturalistic explanation; it, however, is not the Darwinian hypothesis. An alternative hypothesis which operates within natural laws is Intelligent Design. It allows for evolution as the designer changes things. Also, Intelligent Design makes no assumption about the nature of the designer, only that there is one. Intelligent Design should not be confused with Creationism. They are two entirely different matters.
Once upon a time i was an engineer. I took thermodynamics (2nd law stuff…there’s even a zeroth law), physical electronics, quantum mechanics (Schroedinger Wave equantion and Hiesenberg Uncertainty principle)but no biology, so maybe I don’t even deserve the right to say….but when I look at man in all his complexity. 75 trillion cells (nobody calls it the simple cell any more). The staggering amount of information in DNA ( the instruction set that puts us together). The million connections between the eye and the brain that is carried out perfectly in the womb. The lungs which if unfolded are the size of a tennis court. The micro-machines inside of us that are made up of proteins. And on and on. Goggle “flagellum” and convince yourself that that machine natural-selectioned itself into being.
Give it a trillion years. This degree of complexity ain’t gonna happen with a god named natural selection. And in our heart of hearts, we all know that. The theory of evolution is in crisis today. But like what happens in the mainstream media and academic community, there are just certain things you don’t go against because they are sacred cows.
I am content to simply give God the glory.
So, if something as complex as man couldn’t come into being absent a creator then where the hell did the infinitely more complex creator come from in the first place?
Is your answer somewhere along the lines of “he just exists”? Or “he willed himself into being”? Because if that’s your argument then you really don’t have a lot of room to say that natural selection is improbable.
James Felix – As I tried to make clear in my earlier comment, Intelligent Design is not Creationism. Furthermore, the intelligent designer may or not be the Creator. Also, I don’t think Intelligent Design is a cop-out. It simply says things are too complicated to have occurred through random events and natural selection. As I said in my reply to Bill N, origin of life and marcoevolution require more than the available probabilistic resources of the universe (which means there is not enough time or atoms in the universe for such things to have happened randomly). Thus, they require an intelligence to get life going and for it to evolve. Do we need to know who the designer is? As a practical matter, the question is answered in the negative. As an example, take the case of so-called junk DNA. Darwinists thought it was junk and their thinking impeded progress in determining its uses. ID proponents would look at the so-called junk DNA and ask the question: Why is it here? As it turns out, research has shown that junk DNA is not junk but determine importants aspects of an organism. So, ID turns out to be more scientifically useful as a paradigm than Darwinism.
Point well made JF. We’re left to choose between the impossible (macro evolution from some soup…forget about where did the soup come from) and the unexplainable – a transcendent creator God who is eternal.
I’m going with the unexplainable. Some pick the impossible. Who am I to judge? However, the Psalmist said in chapter 14 “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God”
Jack. The Jewish Calendar posits this year as 5772; that would be your 6000 years.
HOWEVER, it is a big BIG MISTAKE to apply this date to “Creationism”. That 5772 refers to the birth of a very special man, Adam Kadmon, who was the first speaking, thinking man–and he was no ape, nor descended from apes as are those who maintainn that the world was created a literal 6 days before Adam Kadmon was…
For those of us who understand what the year 5772 truly represents talk of Creationism is as puerile as denial of Evolution Theory or Big Bang theory. The ONLY thing we Jews object to is the claim by the evolutionists that ALL IS RANDOM. Thast’s why I often say that Dawkin’s mother could just as easily have been a bitch, and Hitchen’s mother was probably going to be a monkey, but the grace of G0D saved them from the Buddhist Chakra and inflicted them as thinking men upon us here in this world…
So Creationism is just a pejorative term now used by those who say “There is no Judge and there is no Judgement” to justify their own nasty and brutish lives…
From my experience, people who study the natural sciences accept evolutionary theory, in one or other of its variations, because the evidence supports it. And I find the “Intelligent Design” paradigm to be a cop-out. To me, it’s simply based on the thought “Hey, this couldn’t have happened by chance”. Quite the contrary, given enough time, and the laws of physics, anything is possible. The one question all of philosophy will never answer is “How did the laws of physics get here, indeed, how did the universe come to exist?”. Inside every person without faith is the core belief that, through evolution, man will eventually acquire the brain power to figure it all out. We’ll get smarter and smarter and our science will get better and better until we figure it all out, and then we won’t need to be God, we’ll be all that there is. Me, I don’t think it’s gonna happen. People delude themselves into thinking science is better than faith. Wrong. You are either given faith by the Father or you are not. Tough beans, but that’s the way it is.
Nobody likes to point it out, but all the babbling about “creationism” or “evolution” is nothing more than a religious test for public office (something which is Constitutionally forbidden, BTW) being imposed by antireligious secularists.
Does it matter whether the President—whoever it may be—”believes in evolution,” or “believes in creationism”? Not a whit. Not in the least. Most of our Presidents throughout our history have believed in one or the other, or both—and America still became the greatest superpower in the world.
Nobody has yet been able to state in clear, unbigoted language why a President’s belief or lack of belief in “evolution”—however defined—makes the slightest difference when the President is negotiating trade agreements, arguing for or against military action or a treaty, or suggesting that the government take or refrain from domestic economic action. Nobody has yet explained why a President’s position on Piltdown Man or the genetic influence of interbreeding with Neanderthals has anything to do with current public policy.
Thanks for that.
Plus, I often get the feeling that GOP candidates feel forced to support creationism or at least say evolution is just a theory because they are afraid of Christian Fundamentalists who worry more about the schools teaching evolution than they do about the schools teaching hatred of America and Western Civilization, and propagandizing for redistributionist collectivism.
We are faced with some seriously big issues. Biogenesis is not one of them. However life started and whatever shaped its development, we still have a mega debt and a crumbling economy to deal with, and are faced with several very dangerous enemies.
Please leave evolution in biology class and creationism in the bible study class. We don’t need to be distracted by pointless arguments. I seriously doubt that a single creationist or evolutionist has ever convinced a member of the other group to switch views.
In the history of modern things there is a correlation between the rise of Darwin’s evolution and the rise of hatred towards America, Western Civilization, and redistributionist collectivism.
If there is no God (the Creator) then there will be Hitlers.
It is sad Jews refuse to see this correlation.
Syn: You are gibbering.
Thanks for that as well Old Guy.
As you say, we have some seriously big issues, but I contend your world view is shaped by your belief in biogenisis. When man views himself as an accidental product of time plus chance, accountable to no god, you are more likely to act that way. I am the center. Life is about me and my satisfaction. There is no such thing as right and wrong. When man views himself as created in God’s image, accountable to Him, special, though fallen and in need of his grace and foregiveness, you are likely to act and live out your life accordingly. Suddenly, there IS a right and wrong.
I just can’t get out of my head 2 Chronicles 7:14
If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Is there any doubt we have embraced wicked ways? (greed, drugs, sex, racism, abortion, socialism etc). Is there any doubt that we need our land healed?
World view matters.
“In the history of modern things there is a correlation between the rise of Darwin’s evolution and the rise of hatred towards America, Western Civilization, and redistributionist collectivism.”
You really have to stretch to protect your fairy tale.