Talk:Opposition by Judaism to evolutionary theory

I have created this page because the issues presented here were taking undue weight on the page Judaism and evolution. The overwhelming weight of Jewish opinion favors teaching of and inquiry into evolutionary theory. A handful of minority views that is really not characteristic of Jewish opinion, including Orthodox Jewish opinion, is being given undue weight here on Wikipedia. It's unfortunate, but very minority opinions get overemphasized on wikipedia. Note that I have already provided a number of sources for the article.

--Metzenberg 09:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, the sources are there, but there's no article! --Butseriouslyfolks 10:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You ever hear of a stub? --Metzenberg 10:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

But even a stub has content. This article only has headings! Gillyweed 10:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Gillyweed. I created the article a couple of minutes ago. I am working on it. Can you see that it has some content now?

Come, come sir. Not a mere two minutes ago! But I'm happy that something is happening and so I shall go away now. Gillyweed 10:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Another admin removed the speedy deletion tag for me. Thank you! Please look at this article as part of an effort to cleanup the article it is attached to, Judaism and evolution, which has been tagged as unbalanced (and is indeed unbalanced, in my opinion). --Metzenberg 11:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Slifkin affair

A group of Haredi rabbis (in 2005) condemned a book by Nosson Slifkin.

Note that Nosson (Yiddish) = Natan (Hebrew) = Nathan (English) --Metzenberg 10:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't and didn't ever go by Nathan, only natan and nosson. --Shuli 15:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nathan is not the same as Natan. Also Noson is Hebrew, it is the Ashkenazi pronunciation. The word נתן can be prounounced as Natan or Noson.

Discovery Institute

The Discovery Institute is a Seattle-based "think tank" that is dedicated to intelligent design has several Jewish fellows. Their occasional publications might give the impression that there is widespread Jewish support for theories of intelligent design, as opposed to theistic evolution. --Metzenberg 09:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Judaism and evolution

I think it makes sense to merge these two articles. JoshuaZ 01:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That is funny. It was just split from there! --Butseriouslyfolks 01:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Joshua, this article is part of a series on Creationism, and the Project Creationism box appears on this page. That article is part of a series on Judaism. Obviously, the two articles are crosslinked. --Metzenberg 08:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, why bother splitting them? They seem to be very interrelated topics. JoshuaZ 13:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Joshua, have you read the talk on the two pages? The talk on the other page, Judaism and evolution, and its external links, were dominated people wanting to talk about the views of a tiny minority of Jews. This smaller article will make a good jumping off point for people interested in Creationism who want to know about the Jews that also take a literalist interpretation of the Torah. But the fact that there are not many "Jewish literalists" (for lack of a better word), and that they have had marginal impact on Jewish thought and Jewish life, suggests a branching of the article so that we can treat it properly somewhere, without letting it dominate the main article and its linking structure. Unfortunately, wikipedia articles often have a problem of being weighted toward fringe topics.

As you can see, the Creationism template is on this page. It didn't make sense to have that template box, with its very Christian iconography and Christian subject matter, on the page Judaism and evolution. Another change I made, to the Creationism Template, is that I took the "phrases" Jewish Creationism, Islamic Creationism, and Hindu Creationism off, by shortening them. You can see how I did it. To imply that there is such a thing as "Jewish creationism" is to imply that there are Jews who believe in the Christian theory called "Creationism". Jewish Torah literalists are a different breed. If you wish you contribute further here, please obtain a copy of the University of Chicago press book that is referenced, and read the chapters that pertain to this subject. --Metzenberg 23:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that splitting this out makes sense. I would also agree that we have to be wary of (even by implication) lumping these views into contemporary Christian creationism. - Jmabel | Talk 04:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

University of Chicago Press, new book (November 2006)

Cantor, Geoffrey and Marc Swetlitz, (editors). Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism. University of Chicago Press. 2006. ISBN: 9780226092768

PART 1: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON JEWISH RESPONSES TO EVOLUTION

• Introduction to Part 1
• Chapter 1. "Anglo-Jewish Responses to Evolution," by Geoffrey Cantor
• Chapter 2. "Responses to Evolution by Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist Rabbis in Twentieth-Century America," by Marc Swetlitz
• Chapter 3. "Practically, I Am a Fundamentalist: Twentieth-Century Orthodox Jews Contend with Evolution and Its Implications," by Ira Robinson

PART 2: SOCIAL USES OF EVOLUTION: ANTI-SEMITISM, RACISM, AND ZIONISM

• Introduction to Part 2
• Chapter 4. "The Impact of Social Darwinism on Anti-Semitic Ideology in Germany and Austria, 1860-1945," by Richard Weikart
• Chapter 5. "The Evolution of Jewish Identity: Ignaz Zollschan between Jewish and Aryan Race Theories, 1910-1945," by Paul Weindling
• Chapter 6. "Zionism, Race, and Eugenics," by Raphael Falk

PART 3: EVOLUTION AND CONTEMPORARY JUDAISM

• Introduction to Part 3
• Chapter 7. "Crisis Management via Biblical Interpretation: Fundamentalism, Modern Orthodoxy, and Genesis," by Shai Cherry
• Chapter 8. "Torah and Madda? Evolution in the Jewish Educational Context," by Rena Selya
• Chapter 9. "Modern Orthodoxy and Evolution: The Models of Rabbi J. B. Soloveitchik and Rabbi A. I. Kook," by Carl Feit
• Chapter 10. "The Order of Creation and the Emerging God: Evolution and Divine Action in the Natural World," by Lawrence Troster

I have reproduced the Table of Contents here. This book looks like it will help us out greatly in improving this article. --Metzenberg 23:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Relationship of Jewish and evolution/creationism articles

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

Re:

• Judaism and evolution
• Jewish opposition to evolution
• Jewish reactions to intelligent design

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)

My response to ZayZayEM is located at Talk:Jewish reactions to intelligent design. Please respond there if you wish to. --Metzenberg 21:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Illustration

Is it me of has the monkey illustration deliberatly been chosen for its vague resemblance to the illustration of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein zatsa"l ? If this is the case, though I am far from being a Haredi, or from sharing ideas with them, at least on this topic, I feel this is an utmost form of disrespect and would strongly recommend to change this illustration ! --Inyan 10:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Now, while I happen to disagree with Reb Moshe on the subject of evolution, the story about his views on evolution made me stop and think. It does really say what is different about humans and monkeys. I think Rabbi Feinstein's statement (whether or not he actually said it, the story is very famous in Israel) truly makes a strong spiritual statement about what it means to be human. So I meant no disrespect! I agree that the juxtaposition of the pictures is funny, but it also makes people stop think and remember the spiritual message, which I happen to think is important. --Metzenberg 21:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Illustrations

Illustrations ideally, should illustrate an article. --ZayZayEM 03:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• The picture of a monkey has absolutely no role in this article.
• The picture of Moshe Feinsten's books have no bearing on the TOPIC of this article.
• The Picture of Sklifkin's book does have a role in this article, and like my removal of ADL comments earlier, show impetous on my behalf. It also highlights the need for clarity in inclusion of articles. This picture had no caption earlier. And you'll notice I've further edited it's caption.
• Feinstein's own portrait doesn't really contribute to the article. But unlike the monkey or letter/books. Doesn't detract from the article, so I will not dispute it's inclusion. Just grudgingly accept it. Who Feinstein is appears relevant to the topic at hand.

The picture of Feinstein's books is extremely relevant. This is an article that is largely about those books, and the response to them. In the Jewish world, it was traditional for a great rabbi not to be published in his own lifetime, but for his letters to be collected and published after his passing. The picture is in fact a picture of that collection of letters, and one of the letters it contains is the subject of more than half of this article. In Judaism, there is actually no central authority. Authority is vested in sacred texts and writings. Feinstein is an example of a posek, one whom even Jews from a different movement or tradition would consider as a great source of wisdom. The picture of a monkey is ... well it's cute, isn't it. But it is a homeletic story. Judaism has a great tradition of that, not only in ancient times (as in the Pirke Avot) but in modern times as well (as in the collections that Martin Buber (1875-1965) made of such homeletic tales. ZayZayEM, I have asked you to just leave the article alone for a few days and give other people a chance to comment. I am going to try to leave it in the form that I would like it to remain in. Let's see what some other people have to say. --Metzenberg 03:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly "Its cute" is not an argument for picture inclusion.

This is an article about "Jewish opposition to evolution" that should be its focus; not any one particular rabbi's argument. If only one rabbi has made an argument, then I'm not really sure if it's fair to claim any Jewish opposition - as you mentioned there is no central authority in Judaism. Again you have no ownership of a wiki; and wiki is live. Please leave testing, practice and pre-editing to Sandbox pages. Articles are live as such any edits need to be "good to go" or they are not useful. Please refrain from reverting edits without valid excuses. I am not sure but we may have violated WP:3R on this matter.--ZayZayEM 12:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

ZayZayEM. Rabbe Moshe Feinstein is considered to be the greatest rabbi of the Haredim in the 20th century. I'm not saying that's my opinion, but it is the opinion of a community that follows him completely (the Haredi community), and must find a way around his words if he pronounces something as apikorsus (heresy), which is what he did. --Metzenberg 15:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

R' Feinstein was not accepted as the greatest rabbi of the 20th century by all Haredim, Many Haradi rabbis, especially in Eretz Yisrael, strongly disagree with his rulings, not to mention that the Chasidim have their own gedolim. Rabbi Feinstien was universally respected, but not universally accepted as the gretest, and his opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the entire heredi community.yisraeldov 14:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

ZayZayEM writes Please refrain from reverting edits without valid excuses. ZayZayEM, you have made deletions immediately after I added things, as we have been going through this process. And you've delete sources materials without any explanation at all. I am not claiming to "own" anything on Wikipeida, but I think it's obvious that people who appear to know nothing about a complex subject should confine their work to the Talk page, and not interfere with those who do while they are in the process of writing.

And, once the material is more set, they should confine themselves to links, copyedits, and such. Your constant interference in the process has been a great stumbling block. I don't think anyone who is following this discussion, and there is no way to really follow it except by carefully reconstructing a long series of edits and deletions that occurred across multiple pages, can appreciate what was going on. I do notice from your "contributions" that your last RfC was two days ago. I've never been involved in one in all my days, and over thousands of edits and dozens of articles. It appears to me that you come here to pick fights, not to really contribute. Based on your recent "contributions" much of your "work" here is deletion debates, RfCs and the like. I can't tell what your agenda is, other than to cause strife. I've asked you below to simply back away from this page, and I will do so too. Let's give other editors who actually have the knowledge to work on this material a chance. If you won't come back for a week, I won't. --Metzenberg 22:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with ZayZayEM that the photograph of the monkey is irrelevant, because monkeys actually have nothing to do with this argument. As Rabbi Slifkin has thoughtfully and, in my opinion, rightfully, asserted in his Challenge of Creation, the theory of evolution states that modern day apes and modern day humans are related in that they both evolved from the same ancient entity. This argument, despite claims of its validity or lack thereof, is entirely different from the argument as it is quoted by its opponents, who intend to undermine it when they mockingly say that "Darwin was crazy because he thinks we came from monkeys." That Rabbi Feinstein made a similar statement should not at all be a testament to the Jewish perspective on this issue, as it was similarly erroneous. Now, one could say in his defense that he was merely speaking colloquially, but then it would be improper to quote him out of context. Thus, while the photograph of the monkey might somehow relate to the colloquial version of Darwin's argument, it really has nothing to do with the actual version of Darwin's argument, and should be removed from this article. Furthermore, the article seems to, by quoting these various rabbis and rabbinical institutions, assert that these statements of the rabbis and rabbinical institutions are representative of the universal Orthodox stance on the issue. Perhaps this article needs to be balanced with information derived from the arguments of Rabbi Slifkin. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• This article is about opposition to evolution. It is bias by nature. This is a reason why clear leads are needed. Something I'm about to attempt.--ZayZayEM 12:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

ZayZayEM. There are now messages posted about this article in a number of Jewish project pages on this website. You've deleted sourced materials without explanation on the page for Natan Slifkin. You've demonstrated by your edits and deletions here, and on other pages linked to this one, that you wouldn't know Teaneck from Tanakh. It takes at least some basic knowledge of Hebrew, and of the Orthodox Jewish world, to work on this material. Why don't you let somebody who is more knowledgeable about this material have a shot at it. I'll back off from the page for a week if you will, and we can let an experienced editor with knowledge of the Jewish world have a crack at it. --Metzenberg 22:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What sourced materials. Like my impeteous deletion of ADL, I'd be happy to revert if an explanation is given. Please cease with your attacks on me. Remember WP:Civil. Please also consider WP:IAC. You do not need credentials to edit wikipedia, and your credentials (alleged greater knowledge about topics) don't matter either. I ahve made no edits contributing knowledge in these areas. And I don't plan on. Please do not get upset about users using wikipedia in the appropriate matter. If you wish to practice use a Sandbox. Wiki is live. All wiki edits should be withstand scrutiny at all times.--ZayZayEM 01:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday, you deleted two sourced quotations from wikipedia on Natan Slifkin. I had just added sources for them, and you seemed to be so angry that I changed your caption, which had the non-word "haredic" in it, that you wrote over what I had just completed without explanation. I don't think you even noticed in fact. But the problem here, seriously, is that you should be writing to Talk pages. But you're not even paying any attention to talk pages. Can you read the Hebrew words (used in transliteration) on the Natan Slifkin talk page? I dare say, you have no idea what they are talking about. If you don't understand a topic, and let's stop kidding, you DON'T understand these topics, then you shouldn't try to edit them.

Why is it that you are so obsessed with editing in this material. It is mostly about Jewish philosophy. What do you know about Jewish philosophy? What do you care? You didn't write it. You're not involved in it. You don't live it. What contribution is it that you think you are making here? Yes, you can make any edit you want, but by the same token I can make any revert I want. --Metzenberg 01:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand ZayZayEm's comments. An article on a view (e.g. opposition to evolution) does not therefore make the article biased; all of our articles must comply with NPOV and we have many articles on particular views that comply with NPOV. I do not understand this comment "This is an article about "Jewish opposition to evolution" that should be its focus; not any one particular rabbi's argument." - since Judaism has no central authority we will surely have to quote various rabbis. I agree we should distinguish between prominent and non-prominent rabbis, but surely Moshe feinstein is as prominent as a rabbi these days can get. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see detailed listing of complaints [1]. Please also read WP:POVFORK (someone else mentioned this to me). As you mentioned "we will surely have to quote various rabbis". thsi article does not do that. As it stands it is flawed.This doesn't mean it doesn't ahve the ability to become a WP:GA. It just needs to be tagged as flawed. If I didn't see any hope for redemption I would have gone straight to BALEET--ZayZayEM 06:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

They are not "authorities"; they are "decisors"

ZAyZayEM, this really illustrates why you are not the one to edit here. The way rabbinical law works in the Haredi community, authority is based on people's willingness to follow. The don't carry police sticks. The most famed poseqim make the law. But the Slifkin affair turned the Haredi world upside down. Thousands of blogs and e-mails, that the whole rest of the world was watching. Do you really think you understand enough about it to work on this page?

I am aware of this quirk in Judaism. I cannot think of a better English word to describe a rabbi's status as teacher and law interpreter than authorative - if you can think of a better one please use it.--ZayZayEM 02:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do ctrl+F "authority" on the rabbi page. Please do not get upset by linguistic limitations of English. Please do not enforce your own personal definitions on others. The article itself states the books were banned by "group of Haredi rabbinic "authorities", perhaps this requires fixing? I am not adding content to tehse articles. I am using present content to present ideas more clearly.

BTW The current caption looks great. good work.--ZayZayEM 02:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As a person who has no involvement in or knowledge of Judaism, you don't understand the language. What is it that makes you feel such a compulsion to track your muddy feet around in here? This article would be better if you left it alone. It will be accurate if people who actually understand this material edit it. If people like you who have no idea what they are talking about edit it, it will be incorrect. I said I would leave the material alone and give others a week to work on it if you would too. But you didn't. What's the problem? If you have any problems, why not write them on the Talk page. You yourself may not look at Talk pages before you start editing, but other people do.

It's true that you don't have to have authority to edit on Wikipedia. I don't claim to have any. As my User page says, my authority is the edits I have made and the articles I have worked on. But you do have to know something about what you are talking about.

Take this page: Edgeworth's limit theorem

Do you understand that page? Do you have any idea what Edgeworth's limit theorem is about? Would you try to edit that page? Why don't you go there and start editing it and see what happens. Do you have the authority to edit that page? Yes you do. Do you have any business editing that page? No you don't.

Well, it's the same story here. --Metzenberg 02:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Edgeworth's limit theorem is on WP:CU I most certainly feel I shoudl edit. I have done minor grammar fixes and added notices where wanting. Have I added content. No. Do I have business editing that page? Why yes I do. --ZayZayEM 02:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see what I just said on Talk:Natan Slifkin#Deleted_content. What you are trying to do on these pages is beyond your area of knowlege. You have no business being here. You are just harassing me, trying to be difficult. I notice that in the lsat week, your "business" on wikipedia has been mostly commenting on deletion proposals and filing RfC's. Your last RfC was two days ago. I've never had one. You are here on wikipedia looking for fights. I'm not. I want to write. And you're wasting my time.

Your efforts to "improve" these articles are not leading to their improvement. Please go work on some other article. You have more than 1.696 million articles to choose from. Why do you have to be here, and bring us all your tsorres? Can't you find something else to "improve"? --Metzenberg 02:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol please look at my early efforts at contributing to Goanna; the initial toll-like receptors; involvement in the early WP:ACOTW, oh and the massive improvement of the woefully abysmal allergy page (which appears to have slipped in recent times), and most recently the PZ Myers article. I am not a troll. I am not looking for fights. You have been unmoving, rude and brazen in your responses to my attempts to improve an article you appear to wish to claim as "yours". The RfC last week was my first. I currently feel much more comfortable than I did about three years ago in actively participating in Wikipedia formalities and understand the process behind wiki much better. Please grow up and get over yourself.--ZayZayEM 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

.

Reasons for {noncompliant}

My issues with this article are not quite {NPOV}. They are mostly involved with Tone, Defining the topic, Staying on Topic, and Clarity.

• Illustrations
  • Rabbi - makes sense, needs caption illustrating relevance to topic
  • Rabbi's book - sort of makes sense, needs caption illustraing relevance to topic
  • Monkey - libellous, pov, misinforming, ditracting, NOT okay
  • Natan's book - relevant, needs caption illustarting relevance

• Lead paragraph.
  • needs to first define topic and article scope, this is its primary function
  • should provide a small summary of entire view spectrum of opposition to evolution, allowing a user to read it, feel informed, and then decide whether or not they want to find out more of teh details
  • must provide a link (and possible short statement) to other views on evolution by Jewish international community
    • must state which view is majority, and faction affiliation of view spectrum

• Overuse and overrepresentation of quotes. Stating something about Jewish views and then quoting one rabbi's statements seems overrepresentation to me. Eg:
  • Judaism has no creed or catechism that prescribes normative beliefs about evolution, or any other matter. In his Guide to the Perplexed, the medieval Sephardic rabbi Maimonides stated, "what the Torah writes about the account of creation is not all to be taken literally."
• This may be a result of my unfamiliarity with the subject. This is something I want checked by independent third parties.

ZayZayEM. Good example why you just don't belong here. Maimonides was one of the three most important rabbis of the Rishonim (the first commentators). He is reverred by all Jews today, as one of the great commentators from the Middle Ages. You are here talking about materials that you know nothing about. You are here to disrupt, as a stalker, not to make a contribution to this page. --216.89.203.226 18:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You have made a point that Judaism has no central authority. This is contradicting your earlier claims. Please calm down more. And cease ad hominem attacks. (Branding me as a stalker allegedly invalidates my arguments). Please pay attention that almost every use you have asked to look at this page has expressed concern over your contributions as well as mine.--ZayZayEM 08:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Consistent use of terminology please.
  • This article and several other articles on Judaism-realted topics use the word "authority" in relation to the position of a rabbi, specific rabbis, and rabbinical (or whatever the adjective may be) organistaions in Jewish society. I was criticised for my use of the term. Consistent use of terminology is more important of personal views on linguistics.
  • As there is confusion over usage of this term. I want third party attention to this article to ensure that similar problems are not occuring.

--ZayZayEM 02:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

ZayZayEM is stalking!

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.

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. Why is it that you, a 21-year-old Australian biomedical student, who knows nothing about Judaism and its philosophy and theology, are so concerned with what is on this page? 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).

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

--12.31.54.34 18:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC) 18:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC) The user formerly known as M_E_T_Z_E_N_B_E_R_G

Rabbi Gil Student

Gil Student's blog page has some information on several prominent orthodox rabbis who believe Judaism does not go againts jewish belief (Kook, Hirsch,etc.) Another excellent source is M. Kasher's article in Talpiot (I'm afraid I don't remember exactly which issue) explaining exactly how the idea of evolution can be explained according to Jewish sources. I imagine R' Feinstein may have agreed that theistic evolution does not go against the jewish religion. Also, the story mentioned within is also attributed to Yaakov Kaminetetzky.

I am proposing now that we delete this article

I started it, and now I agree with Shirahadasha that we should delete it. I have already moved the material to the Judaism and evolution page, to which I have also added new materials about other Orthodox Jewish opponents of Darwinian theory. On the Judaism and evolution, I put the Creationism section box beside this material. Although I am not crazy about its Christian iconography, I think the subject of the whole section is really about the Judaic response to Christian creation theology.

Shira left these comments on my user page, so rather than state my case for deleting the article, I will simply repeat hers. Because the article is currently locked, with the controversy underway, I am unable to open the deletion debate. I would like to ask an administrator who is able to do so to begin the process: --Metzenberg 01:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I may not agree with User:ZayZayEM on everything, but I am inclined to agree that Jewish opposition to evolution is a POV fork of Judaism and evolution and I also agree that Judaism and evolution is the more NPOV title and hence Jewish opposition to evolution should be merged into it. ZayZayEM's simply right on this one. I'm not sure I'm convinced by the arguments that Jewish reactions to Intelligent Design should also be merged, but the arguments, although a little strongly made, generally seem plausible and legit arguments, right or wrong, rather than any sort of disruptive activity. I understand the edit history may show a different story. --Shirahadasha 00:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that Jewish opposition to evolution is being presented badly or in a POV way. The problem I see is that having a separate article devoted to a specific POV in a controversy represents a WP:POVFORK. I don't see why Haredi opposition to evolution can't be presented in the more general article. I realize in many cases I've argued that different denominational approaches to religious issues represent distinct subjects deserving distinct articles. Here, however, I think they aren't. In general, I think that a denomination's approaches to distinctly religious subjects represesnts a subject within that denomination rather than a point of view about something external (So, for example, Conservative Halakha is a subject intrinsic to Conservative Judaism rather than a mere Conservative point of view on a subject external to Conservative Judaism). Here, however, we are dealing with a religious denomination's perspective on a secular subject that comes from outside the denomination. For this reason, I believe that Haredi Judaism's view of evolution is simply a POV about evolution, not a distinct subject intrinsic to Haredi Judaism. Accordingly, I believe it belongs with the other POVs and doesn't deserve a separate article. It's OK to have a separate article on Jewish POVs, but WP:POVFORK prohibits a separate article on only POVs that are opposed. --Shirahadasha 02:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So, let's move this article into the deletion cycle! We don't have to wait for the issues on this page to be resolved, because it appears I am agreeing now with ZayZayEM on this one issue. --Metzenberg 01:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a small note: Moving the content to another page will not resolve discussions on other issues with article tone and style. It does mean WP:POVFORK isn't a problem anymore. Hooray.--ZayZayEM 01:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So, you know all the Wikipedia policies and procedures. And we seem to be agreeing about this now. How do you propose this article for merger into the other one? (It has already happened.) --Metzenberg 21:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Bold text

Why is there a long string of bold text in the beginning? Doesn't seem necessary. The Behnam 08:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Bold text is used to highlight the first mentioning of the article. I have been asked not to edit text content that I don't have topical familiarity with. If you can word the lead better Please do. And try and keep an emboldened piece of text outlining article topic.--ZayZayEM 01:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Article title

I haven't read the article yet, but I find the title striking and subtly offensive. I think Jewish opposition to the theory of evolution or "...evolutionary theory" would be much better. Right now it sounds like we Jews just refuse to evolve. --Eliyak T·C 08:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Slifkin creation.jpg

Image:Slifkin creation.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

noncomliant

"Tone, Defining the topic, Staying on Topic, and Clarity" are not noncomplaint. Rich Farmbrough, 00:32 10 December 2007 (GMT).