One of our readers, Ash, asked me why we don’t accept evolution. I believe the question is for those of us who are more “open-minded” vis-à-vis science. Why is evolution worse? Why is evolution treated like Rosa Parks on a bus to an Aryan Brotherhood convention? I can't speak for all of us, but in very rough terms, my view of the conflict between science and Creation is as follows (see
One thing. What do you mean that falsifiability as a necessary component of science is a myth? Isn't that the very definition of the scientific method? (true induction being ultimately impossible, the scientific method establishes facts "for all intents and purposes" through repeated and comprehensive attempts at disproving them under laboratory conditions. Or at least that's what I've always been taught. Was I lied to?)
הספר חובות הלבבות שער א - שער היחוד פרק ו, מחדד טענה הזאת, ובין השאר מתבטא שם, אשר כל אדם "בריא" בנפשו, ודאי אינו מסוגל לסבור שהעולם נוצר, בלי כוונת מכוון. רק אדם בלתי שפוי, יכול להעלות על דעתו אפשרות כזאת
(= YOU HAVE TO BE INSANE TO THINK SO)!
מאז זמן החובות הלבבות, מלפני 900 שנה ועד עתה, הנה נתגלה המורכבות
(= COMPLEXITY)
שבבריאה, הלא
מיליוני פעמים
.יותר! מן הנודע בתקופתו
I HAVE NEVER HEARD OR READ ANY COHERENT ANSWER AT ALL, TO THE SIMPLEST QUESTION HE PLACES THERE:
והלא תראה, אם ישפך לאדם דיו פתאום על נייר חלק, שא"א שיצטייר ממנו עליו כתב מסודר ושיטות נקראות כמו שיהיה בקולמוס. ואלו הביא אדם לפנינו כתב מסודר ממה שאי אפשר להיות מבלי מצוע קולמוס, ואומר, כי נשפך הדיו על הנייר, ונעשתה צורת הכתב עליו מעצמה, היינו ממהרים להכזיבו על פניו, שאיננו נמלט מכוונת מכוון
IF EVOLUTION CAN CREATE THIS UTTERLY AMAZING UNIVERSE, WHY CAN'T IT FORM EVEN ONE PAGE OF SENSIBLE SCRIPT, WHETHER AT ONCE, OR OVER 14 BILLION YEARS??
:הערה נוספת
.לפי שיטת בעלי האבולוציה, הרי הכלל הגדול הוא שהחזק שורד ("כל דאלים גבר")
!אבל מסתבר, כי האמת להיפך לגמרי: החלש שורד דווקא
WHO'S STRONGER , DINOSAURS OR MAMMALS, AND WHO SURVIVED??
WHO'S STRONGER, ANCIENT EYGPT, BABYLONIA, PERSIA, GREECE, ROME, ETC., ETC., STALIN AND THE COMMUNIST REGIME, HITLER AND THE THIRD REICH, OR THE POOR JEWS, AND WHO SURVIVED??
WHO'S STRONGER, PUTIN AND HIS GREAT RUSSIA, OR ZELENSKY (THE JEW...) AND HIS UKRAINE ...
So you are rejecting Slifkin's evolution on scientific grounds-not theological ones-but you seem to have no problem rejecting the same science on theological grounds...I'm confused.
Are you willing to accept Slifkin's theory - yes or no? Why are you suddenly bound by the scientific position that you reject. You reject that position because it is predicated on Atheism, but you say it is for that very reason - Atheism - that science rejects Theistic Evolution. So simple math would say if you reject the Atheism part but still accept the science, you can accept Slifkin's theory.
I think there are 2 totally separate ideas that often get mixed together is discussions like this. They are inherently separate ideas, and we should speak about them separately.
1. Evolution. The scientists claim that everything we see is the product of evolution. What they mean, is that there is no God, and all life that we see is the product of random mutations and natural selection. This is completely incompatible with our Torah. The Torah says that Hashem created life, that means evolution, as described by the scientists, is flat out wrong.
One can make the argument that evolution was not random, but it was a process guided by Hashem to get specific results. That means, life we see was not because of random mutations and natural selection. It is a result of Hashem 'tinkering' with life to get specific, intended results. The mainstream scientists, from what I have seen, do not really give this idea any credence at all. They start off assuming there is no God, and work from there.
2. Age of the world. This is really a separate idea than evolution. The responses to this are not necessarily the same responses to evolution.
These 2 ideas often are mentioned hand in hand. In order for the theory of evolution to work, there has to be billions of years. You will not find an evolutionist who believes the world is only thousands of years old. They HAVE to maintain that the world is billions of years old. If one can prove that the methods used by scientists to date the world are wrong, then evolution can not have happened. End of story.
The theory of evolution itself, is very sketchy. Scientists constantly change their minds about how things happened. There is so much that is unexplained, that had this been any other theory, it would have been rejected out of hand by the scientific community. It is only the necessity on their part to deny God that allows such a dysfunctional theory to have any credence whatsoever.
In my mind, questions about the age of the universe require a more serious discussion. The scientists have various methods to date various things (rocks, fossils, stars etc.), and each of these need to be addressed. Using the ideas in the previous post, that the world was created in a mature state, can answer much of these questions.
Excellent post. Slifkin actually deals with this in his The Science of Torah, which is much better (and far less kefirahdik) than his later Challenge of Creation.
There are two main parts of evolution- the fact that everything came from one organism, which matches the fossil and other evidence very well and i think is indisputable, and the mechanism. I personally also have trouble with the claimed mechanism being completely accidental. I think it is one of the niflaos haborei in that He made life so adaptable. It is far more efficient to make one form of life that can adapt to any environment than to make many different forms of life. That alone is proof of Hashem in my opinion.
The Gosse hypothesis is insufficient to account for the detailed evolutionary history, Dovids posts not withstanding.
Amazing stuff. Koi lechoi!
One thing. What do you mean that falsifiability as a necessary component of science is a myth? Isn't that the very definition of the scientific method? (true induction being ultimately impossible, the scientific method establishes facts "for all intents and purposes" through repeated and comprehensive attempts at disproving them under laboratory conditions. Or at least that's what I've always been taught. Was I lied to?)
Happy, r u Eli Yitzchak Fine?
:סליחה על שאני מגיב גם בעברית
טענת כותב מאמר זה מן התכנון
(= DESIGN)
!היא עצומה, ניצחת, ואין עליה תשובה
הספר חובות הלבבות שער א - שער היחוד פרק ו, מחדד טענה הזאת, ובין השאר מתבטא שם, אשר כל אדם "בריא" בנפשו, ודאי אינו מסוגל לסבור שהעולם נוצר, בלי כוונת מכוון. רק אדם בלתי שפוי, יכול להעלות על דעתו אפשרות כזאת
(= YOU HAVE TO BE INSANE TO THINK SO)!
מאז זמן החובות הלבבות, מלפני 900 שנה ועד עתה, הנה נתגלה המורכבות
(= COMPLEXITY)
שבבריאה, הלא
מיליוני פעמים
.יותר! מן הנודע בתקופתו
I HAVE NEVER HEARD OR READ ANY COHERENT ANSWER AT ALL, TO THE SIMPLEST QUESTION HE PLACES THERE:
והלא תראה, אם ישפך לאדם דיו פתאום על נייר חלק, שא"א שיצטייר ממנו עליו כתב מסודר ושיטות נקראות כמו שיהיה בקולמוס. ואלו הביא אדם לפנינו כתב מסודר ממה שאי אפשר להיות מבלי מצוע קולמוס, ואומר, כי נשפך הדיו על הנייר, ונעשתה צורת הכתב עליו מעצמה, היינו ממהרים להכזיבו על פניו, שאיננו נמלט מכוונת מכוון
IF EVOLUTION CAN CREATE THIS UTTERLY AMAZING UNIVERSE, WHY CAN'T IT FORM EVEN ONE PAGE OF SENSIBLE SCRIPT, WHETHER AT ONCE, OR OVER 14 BILLION YEARS??
:הערה נוספת
.לפי שיטת בעלי האבולוציה, הרי הכלל הגדול הוא שהחזק שורד ("כל דאלים גבר")
!אבל מסתבר, כי האמת להיפך לגמרי: החלש שורד דווקא
WHO'S STRONGER , DINOSAURS OR MAMMALS, AND WHO SURVIVED??
WHO'S STRONGER, ANCIENT EYGPT, BABYLONIA, PERSIA, GREECE, ROME, ETC., ETC., STALIN AND THE COMMUNIST REGIME, HITLER AND THE THIRD REICH, OR THE POOR JEWS, AND WHO SURVIVED??
WHO'S STRONGER, PUTIN AND HIS GREAT RUSSIA, OR ZELENSKY (THE JEW...) AND HIS UKRAINE ...
Great pictures!
Great post! Clear and sophisticated as usual. EDIT would love to discuss details, here or email?
So you are rejecting Slifkin's evolution on scientific grounds-not theological ones-but you seem to have no problem rejecting the same science on theological grounds...I'm confused.
Are you willing to accept Slifkin's theory - yes or no? Why are you suddenly bound by the scientific position that you reject. You reject that position because it is predicated on Atheism, but you say it is for that very reason - Atheism - that science rejects Theistic Evolution. So simple math would say if you reject the Atheism part but still accept the science, you can accept Slifkin's theory.
As an anti-vaxxer (for scientific reasons!), I don't and can't agree wuth that part.
All the rest is very convincing and well argued
I think there are 2 totally separate ideas that often get mixed together is discussions like this. They are inherently separate ideas, and we should speak about them separately.
1. Evolution. The scientists claim that everything we see is the product of evolution. What they mean, is that there is no God, and all life that we see is the product of random mutations and natural selection. This is completely incompatible with our Torah. The Torah says that Hashem created life, that means evolution, as described by the scientists, is flat out wrong.
One can make the argument that evolution was not random, but it was a process guided by Hashem to get specific results. That means, life we see was not because of random mutations and natural selection. It is a result of Hashem 'tinkering' with life to get specific, intended results. The mainstream scientists, from what I have seen, do not really give this idea any credence at all. They start off assuming there is no God, and work from there.
2. Age of the world. This is really a separate idea than evolution. The responses to this are not necessarily the same responses to evolution.
These 2 ideas often are mentioned hand in hand. In order for the theory of evolution to work, there has to be billions of years. You will not find an evolutionist who believes the world is only thousands of years old. They HAVE to maintain that the world is billions of years old. If one can prove that the methods used by scientists to date the world are wrong, then evolution can not have happened. End of story.
The theory of evolution itself, is very sketchy. Scientists constantly change their minds about how things happened. There is so much that is unexplained, that had this been any other theory, it would have been rejected out of hand by the scientific community. It is only the necessity on their part to deny God that allows such a dysfunctional theory to have any credence whatsoever.
In my mind, questions about the age of the universe require a more serious discussion. The scientists have various methods to date various things (rocks, fossils, stars etc.), and each of these need to be addressed. Using the ideas in the previous post, that the world was created in a mature state, can answer much of these questions.
Excellent post. Slifkin actually deals with this in his The Science of Torah, which is much better (and far less kefirahdik) than his later Challenge of Creation.
There are two main parts of evolution- the fact that everything came from one organism, which matches the fossil and other evidence very well and i think is indisputable, and the mechanism. I personally also have trouble with the claimed mechanism being completely accidental. I think it is one of the niflaos haborei in that He made life so adaptable. It is far more efficient to make one form of life that can adapt to any environment than to make many different forms of life. That alone is proof of Hashem in my opinion.
The Gosse hypothesis is insufficient to account for the detailed evolutionary history, Dovids posts not withstanding.