Rabbi Slifkin: your cultural sensitivity has enabled you to bridge a considerable gap in the Jewish world, and give impressionable young Chassidic children an opportunity to learn about the natural world in a way they might not have ever been exposed to before. Because you are respectful of Boundaries in their cultural world view, you are able to navigate a complex discussion in a manner that does not cross a red line they cannot tolerate. With repeated sensitive exposure, and sometimes with legal secular structure, perhaps we can continue creating more bridges. Thank you for presenting ALL sides of the equations needed to bridge major gaps in the Jewish traditional world.
This is just shameful. You call yourself a NATURAL HISTORY museum and you hife the truth from visitors instead of keeping your spine and proudly acknowledgingillions of years old beings like dinosaurs? At what point would you stop acfomodating false beliefs? Dinosaurs denial is good to go but if flat Earthers would come, that would be too much to ask and you would bother to admit that the planet is round? Or would you start covering everything what does not say the planet is flat?
He is not accommodating or denying anything. Have you been to the museum? It's not even called NATURAL HISTORY museum, but "Biblical Museum of Natural History" - you seem to have missed the first word. He presents animals known to the people in the Bible. Why would dinosaurs be there?
Why not call it the museum of Biblical Animals? Calling it a "natural history museum" implies a certain educational perspective and mission, doesn't it? And even so, there's something amiss, it seems to me, in taking pride in avoiding teaching people the truth.
Can you provide any modern definition of "natural history" that does not include the interaction of organisms and their environment, family relationships among organisms, and change over time? I mean, I'm sure if you go back far enough into the 1700s or whatever, "natural history" meant something like "all the animals that went on Noah's Ark," but that is hardly the modern connotation.
Not related but I came across a pile of books left outside of a Jerusalem apartment building the other day.
It's a "frum" neighborhood, mainly populated with both black hatter olim and Israeli hareidim. Seems like the books removed from the premises might have all had in common that they might not be "frum" enough any longer to be kept in the former owner's home.
I picked up 4 books. One of the books is by a Christian pastor who urges Jews to stick to their heritage. I was already familiar with the pastor's name. He is one out of a billion. If you think otherwise, you are being hoodwinked.
Another book is titled "Not By Chance - The Fall of Neo-Darwinian Theory," by Lee M. Spencer PhD.
The two last books are titled "Focus" and "Second Focus,' by someone named Nosson Slifkin.
"The museum is already set up to be sensitive to charedi requirements - there are no dinosaur skeletons, no evolution exhibits, no “controversial” material."
What's the problem? It would be a problem to present something false. But we don't have to present everything that's true. And it's not relevant to the museum's topic anyway.
Well, there's something called lying by omission. When you don't "present everything that's true," you run the risk of conveying a false impression. If I tell you that the Sun rises in the morning and descends in the evening, and I don't tell you that actually it's the Earth that is turning to create that perception, by withholding the truth I have created an entirely erroneous impression. I have lied to you. Frankly, presenting anything about life -- animal, vegetable, bacterial, whatever -- without discussing the mechanism by which that life takes its current form and function is no less misleading.
I mean imagine if a group of people who believe the Earth is flat came to your museum. Would you feel comfortable adjusting you narrative so that everything fits well with their flat-Earth belief? At what point do you say to yourself, "Gee whiz, I'm really lying to these people."
The covering of women is much worse in my opinion. If they want that, and they are free to want that, they can stay in their own bubble. At some point the bubble pops.
Since amimals came to existence through evolution - yes, you are supposed to thell the truth, esecially in a natual history museum, instead of accomodating lies. Dogs, bird - none of them just popped out of nowhere, all of those species existed ten thousands of years ago, and birds are essentially the descendants of the surviving avian dinosaurs. You want to live in fantasy land? Sure just don't build a whole museum on this delusion.
That IS absurd. But if you are educating people about animals and why they have the features and behaviors they have adapted for the environments in which they live, evolution is an essential part of that conversation. I'd be curious what kind of conversation about animals you can have that does not touch on their appearance or behavior and its suitability for the environment.
the same way you can have a conversation about anything that does not include some aspect of it. If someone falls down do you have to talk about gravity? Explain Newtonian Physics and inverse square relationship? Einstein's general relativity and the curvature of spacetime? Hypothesizing gravitons due to incompatibility with quantum mechanics? Where does it end?
If you have a MUSEUM OF PHYSICS, then yes, you explain gravity and the development of theories related to gravity. If you have a MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, then you explain the biological theory of why life is the way it is.
I mean let's say some clever child asks, "These birds look almost the same, but have different beaks and eat different nuts." What does Rabbi Slifkin say? "Yes, amazing how Hashem made everything just so." He surely doesn't believe that's the truth. And if a child asks, how did all the animals fit on the Ark, what's his answer to that? More omissions and evasions? I dunno, maybe the goal is that a little information is better than no information, but I'd hardly consider this a model of communicating the truth.
He's not adjusting a narrative. No statement encompasses all of true reality, and no museum in the world is expected to be completely exhaustive. Do you interrupt any time someone mentions a beautiful sunset to inform them it's not really setting? Do you censor that song from Fiddler on the Roof?
The religious world is governed by fear to far too great a degree. And Rabbi Slifkin is among the bravest, but still. "We can't print this, we can't show this, we can't say this." Self-censorship is deadly to truth.
This is beautiful and Kol Hakavod for catering to cultural sensitivities! It shows that your dedication to education trumps other considerations. Especially in light of your (correct IMHO) analysis of and feelings toward the current social disputes, it is encouraging that your desire to spread the knowledge and beauty of the museum takes precedence.
Speaking of presidents.... here's one who should never be invited to give tours!
As we all know, in Gur they don’t reproduce the way everyone else does it.
Rabbi Slifkin: your cultural sensitivity has enabled you to bridge a considerable gap in the Jewish world, and give impressionable young Chassidic children an opportunity to learn about the natural world in a way they might not have ever been exposed to before. Because you are respectful of Boundaries in their cultural world view, you are able to navigate a complex discussion in a manner that does not cross a red line they cannot tolerate. With repeated sensitive exposure, and sometimes with legal secular structure, perhaps we can continue creating more bridges. Thank you for presenting ALL sides of the equations needed to bridge major gaps in the Jewish traditional world.
Wow, kol hakavod, 6 tours is a lot in one day! Refua shleima to whoever fell down the stairs. What's the name for davening?
It was just two stairs, and he's okay now!
This is just shameful. You call yourself a NATURAL HISTORY museum and you hife the truth from visitors instead of keeping your spine and proudly acknowledgingillions of years old beings like dinosaurs? At what point would you stop acfomodating false beliefs? Dinosaurs denial is good to go but if flat Earthers would come, that would be too much to ask and you would bother to admit that the planet is round? Or would you start covering everything what does not say the planet is flat?
He is not accommodating or denying anything. Have you been to the museum? It's not even called NATURAL HISTORY museum, but "Biblical Museum of Natural History" - you seem to have missed the first word. He presents animals known to the people in the Bible. Why would dinosaurs be there?
Why not call it the museum of Biblical Animals? Calling it a "natural history museum" implies a certain educational perspective and mission, doesn't it? And even so, there's something amiss, it seems to me, in taking pride in avoiding teaching people the truth.
At least in Hebrew he leaves out the NH bit.
To your second objection, leaving out NH completely, in all languages, would still be problematic.
The term "Natural History" does not have anything to with history.
Interesting. Thank you.
I didn't want to trouble you with the question, so what does 'history' mean? so I tried to look it up. But couldn't find anything. May I ask?
Can you provide any modern definition of "natural history" that does not include the interaction of organisms and their environment, family relationships among organisms, and change over time? I mean, I'm sure if you go back far enough into the 1700s or whatever, "natural history" meant something like "all the animals that went on Noah's Ark," but that is hardly the modern connotation.
Not related but I came across a pile of books left outside of a Jerusalem apartment building the other day.
It's a "frum" neighborhood, mainly populated with both black hatter olim and Israeli hareidim. Seems like the books removed from the premises might have all had in common that they might not be "frum" enough any longer to be kept in the former owner's home.
I picked up 4 books. One of the books is by a Christian pastor who urges Jews to stick to their heritage. I was already familiar with the pastor's name. He is one out of a billion. If you think otherwise, you are being hoodwinked.
Another book is titled "Not By Chance - The Fall of Neo-Darwinian Theory," by Lee M. Spencer PhD.
The two last books are titled "Focus" and "Second Focus,' by someone named Nosson Slifkin.
Wish I had such luck whenever I go fishing!
Oy vey!
Maybe autograph them…?
Who's the pastor?
Kenneth W. Rawson.
Were you expecting someone else?
"Kenneth W. Rawson."
Thank you.
"Were you expecting someone else?"
I'll pass on that one.
"The museum is already set up to be sensitive to charedi requirements - there are no dinosaur skeletons, no evolution exhibits, no “controversial” material."
I'm curious how you justify this intellectually.
What's the problem? It would be a problem to present something false. But we don't have to present everything that's true. And it's not relevant to the museum's topic anyway.
Well, there's something called lying by omission. When you don't "present everything that's true," you run the risk of conveying a false impression. If I tell you that the Sun rises in the morning and descends in the evening, and I don't tell you that actually it's the Earth that is turning to create that perception, by withholding the truth I have created an entirely erroneous impression. I have lied to you. Frankly, presenting anything about life -- animal, vegetable, bacterial, whatever -- without discussing the mechanism by which that life takes its current form and function is no less misleading.
I mean imagine if a group of people who believe the Earth is flat came to your museum. Would you feel comfortable adjusting you narrative so that everything fits well with their flat-Earth belief? At what point do you say to yourself, "Gee whiz, I'm really lying to these people."
So every time people say anything about animals they have to mention evolution? Sorry, that seems absurd.
The covering of women is much worse in my opinion. If they want that, and they are free to want that, they can stay in their own bubble. At some point the bubble pops.
A few small pockets of air escape but the bubbles survive.
Since amimals came to existence through evolution - yes, you are supposed to thell the truth, esecially in a natual history museum, instead of accomodating lies. Dogs, bird - none of them just popped out of nowhere, all of those species existed ten thousands of years ago, and birds are essentially the descendants of the surviving avian dinosaurs. You want to live in fantasy land? Sure just don't build a whole museum on this delusion.
That IS absurd. But if you are educating people about animals and why they have the features and behaviors they have adapted for the environments in which they live, evolution is an essential part of that conversation. I'd be curious what kind of conversation about animals you can have that does not touch on their appearance or behavior and its suitability for the environment.
the same way you can have a conversation about anything that does not include some aspect of it. If someone falls down do you have to talk about gravity? Explain Newtonian Physics and inverse square relationship? Einstein's general relativity and the curvature of spacetime? Hypothesizing gravitons due to incompatibility with quantum mechanics? Where does it end?
If you have a MUSEUM OF PHYSICS, then yes, you explain gravity and the development of theories related to gravity. If you have a MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, then you explain the biological theory of why life is the way it is.
I mean let's say some clever child asks, "These birds look almost the same, but have different beaks and eat different nuts." What does Rabbi Slifkin say? "Yes, amazing how Hashem made everything just so." He surely doesn't believe that's the truth. And if a child asks, how did all the animals fit on the Ark, what's his answer to that? More omissions and evasions? I dunno, maybe the goal is that a little information is better than no information, but I'd hardly consider this a model of communicating the truth.
He's not adjusting a narrative. No statement encompasses all of true reality, and no museum in the world is expected to be completely exhaustive. Do you interrupt any time someone mentions a beautiful sunset to inform them it's not really setting? Do you censor that song from Fiddler on the Roof?
Fiddler on the Roof is not trying to educate people about the natural world. Rabbi Slifkin is. Or is he?
A fundamental of that education must be Dobzhansky's "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution".
Rabbi Slifkin,
Did you ever consider setting up a Torah and Science museum. Explaining Astronomy, geology, Paleontology and Evolution…?
No way!
Perhaps a little too….controversial…?? 😱
The religious world is governed by fear to far too great a degree. And Rabbi Slifkin is among the bravest, but still. "We can't print this, we can't show this, we can't say this." Self-censorship is deadly to truth.
This is beautiful and Kol Hakavod for catering to cultural sensitivities! It shows that your dedication to education trumps other considerations. Especially in light of your (correct IMHO) analysis of and feelings toward the current social disputes, it is encouraging that your desire to spread the knowledge and beauty of the museum takes precedence.
Speaking of presidents.... here's one who should never be invited to give tours!
https://media1.tenor.com/m/sUhdcm9asWIAAAAd/gerald-ford-ford.gif