I used to think that Jews in general were able to avoid the confusion of biblical literalism with their rich tradition of allegorical and other forms of interpretation and commentary, but it seems that there are some - haredim - who follow the example of the Lubavitcher Rebbe and dismiss evolution as far-fetched and anti-biblical. The link is to an anonymous essay by a rabbi at the Jerusalem Post. In it he argues that the tradition of Orthodox Judaism permits a looseness of interpretation that means that science can rule out bad interpretations, which is very unlike the Christian literalist tradition (but very like, say, Catholic hermenutics):
To my mind, modern Orthodox Jews, like me, have wisely not supported the "intelligent design" movement. We believe that Torah represents both true doctrines and a passion for truth, and see no reason, as believers, to attack universally-held scientific theories that do not contradict traditional interpretations of the Torah. We have no need for bans and no desire to guise our theology in pseudo-scientific theories, and will continue to use the full range of traditional sources to understand God's Torah and His universe.
1. There is a vast difference between Rabies - which are community leaders - and their communities. From my experience, the orthodox Jewish "street" is as anti-evolution as they can get. You can often hear comments such as "The secular might be monkeys, but we have a soul". In any case, the hierarchy is simple: animals do not have a soul. So even if evolution is taken to be an explication of the creation process, still, in the eyes of an orthodox Jew, a huge gap exists between the physical form of a human being (which could have evolved) and hid mind/soul (which is out-of-this-world an is not the outcome of evolution).
2. Religious Jewish apologetics have always claimed that science cannot contradict their specific religion. I find it interesting to use Popper's principle here: there is something to be said about a world view which is compatible with any conceivable evidence.
It is hardly surprising that there are Jewish fundamentalists. But Judaism has had a long tradition of believing that if Man's interpretation of the Torah conflicts with reality, it the fallible Man that is wrong. Not the Torah of course, just the interpretation.
So, as noted, Judaism is thus always compatible with reality, but in the same way Science itself is as well. If there is evidence against a particular theory (interpretation) then it is time for a new theory (interpretation).
Down with Rabies! ;)
I think we'll assume that is either a typo or a mistake by someone whose first language is not English. Principle of charity and all?
Omer, one point about Popper - he had no problem with there being unfalsifiable metaphysical views. He merely said that such were not science. He would happily agree that Judaism was not science, but none the worse for that, I think.
True, Popper's principle isn't a magic wand. Used in the wrong places, it can wreck some havoc. (I just used it - with the help of a couple of other logical mistakes - to prove the existence of afterlife...). Still, I keep hearing that science proves the Torah. Whenever a new piece of science comes out to the news, you hear the same old "we knew it, it proves the Torah" thing. There is a tendency to use science as a support to faith (while cherry picking the right bits of science, of course). This tendency, I think, is open to criticism.
Results of a survey appeared on the Net many months ago that I found sufficiently interesting to send to Larry Moran, and he published a blog post about it. IIRC, it found that a larger percentage of Jews felt the theory of evolution was correct than Catholics, Protestants (so far not surprising), and - oh! - atheists.
Sorry, just funnin' - no insult intended, Omer!
Interestingly, one of the first positive responses to Darwin's Origin of Species was in Hebrew from a Polish-born Jew, Naphtali Halevi:
http://roughguidetoevolution.blogspot.com/2008/10/blog-post.html
But as an example of a bone-headed response from Orthodox Judaism, see this.
None taken, brooks. I thought it was rather funny.
I rule out bad interpretation regardless if it conflicts with science.
Orthodox Jewry is not monolithic, regardless of how loud the fundamentalists yell. The "anonymous rabbi" of the Jerusalem Post is reflecting an opinion that goes back to at least the 10th century leader, Saadia Gaon, who said that when Torah contradicts science and reason, then Torah must give way.
To start, you have confused Haredi with Chassids. Then you have confused a sub-set of Chassids, the Lubavitch which is the largest sub-set, with the whole. Finally, Schneerson, said that the world was young, but if science said otherwise, then it was otherwise.
As to the first, no I didn't, although I expressed myself badly (I meant to say that the Haredi were doing the same thing that the Lubavitch had done). As to the latter, yes I may have, although I didn't mean to as I am aware they are not the whole of the Chassidim.
And if Schneerson said that, so much the better for him.