[4] Scholar Noah J. Efron wrote in 2014: No American Jewish organization advocates teaching intelligent design in public schools.
Official representatives of all the major streams of Judaism -- Reform, Conservative, Orthodox & Reconstructionist -- have denounced it; only Ultra-Orthodox Jews, who in any case vigilantly oppose sending Jewish children to public school, have expressed sympathy for teaching intelligent design in the schools they refuse to attend, and even then in very small numbers.
In a famously fractious community ... almost all American Jews agree that intelligent design has no place in the public school science curriculum.
In 2005, Jeffrey Sinensky, general counsel for the American Jewish Committee, praised the court ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover School District.
However, Schwab disagrees with the intelligent design movement's claim, that the existence of God can be proven as "a practical scientific theory that has equal evidence in science as evolution."
For example, Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, the executive Vice President of the Orthodox Union told the daily Haaretz, "Intelligent Design calls to our attention the amazing complexity of the universe.
These addresses prompted a storm of protest from scientists at the conference, who besieged Dembski with so many questions that the next speaker on the agenda was unable to follow him.
[16] Journalist Mariah Blake reported[16] that scientists who attended the conference, most of them observant Orthodox Jews, were generally critical of intelligent design.
Nathan Aviezar, who teaches physics at Bar Ilan University in Israel commented, "The whole enterprise of science is to explain life without invoking supernatural explanations.
"[17][18] Natan Slifkin, in his work The Challenge of Creation, condemns the intelligent design community as presenting a theologically problematic perspective of God, and which, is thus, surreptitiously very dangerous to religion.
There is a risk in undertaking such a project, of course, as the theistic evolutionists constantly remind us by referring to the need to avoid resorting to a "God of the gaps."
I do not think the risk is very great, but in any case I do think theists should meet it with a preemtive surrender.Slifkin challenges Johnson's statement that "God will have to retreat out of the cosmos," because he asserts that a "complete explanation of the celestial bodies by astronomy, or an explanation of the formation of the mountains by geology, or of rain via meteorology, does not paint God out of the picture, but instead means that He works through science," something that Johnson denies.
[20] Slifkin concluded by emphasizing that intelligent design is no friend of religion, in that it "denies the role of God in 99% of the universe...and implies that He was only able to engineer processes that would accomplish 99% of His objectives.
"[20] This point is built on comments made by Kenneth Miller in his work, The Flagellum Unspun: [T]he struggles of the Intelligent Design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures - rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God.