According to David Falk, in an article published in the Alfiim magazine, the religious scientist Natan Aviezer in his book "Beresheet Bara" tries to rape science so that every verse in the book of Genesis will supposedly testify to scientific progress that science has only recently discovered
David Falk
It is no coincidence that around the two biggest revolutions in the history of science, stories were woven about confrontations with the religious establishment: about three hundred years ago, Galileo Galilei came out of such a confrontation with a minute's silence as he muttered, "And yet move, move." Two hundred years later, Thomas Huxley, "Darwin's bulldog", came out with a loud fanfare from the debate with Bishop Wilberforce, about the origin of man. The history of the scientific revolution in the last three hundred years can be seen as a constant struggle between an authoritative world view, which derives its absolute truths about the world from the Holy Scriptures and especially from the Genesis account, and the skeptical, anti-authoritarian scientific view, which developed the experimental and observational method to form opinions on " Redemption of the world while constantly examining its truths.
Nowadays, some claim that a kind of separation of powers is evident in this struggle: while religion claims patronage over the spiritual life and moral and social values of man - science is reduced to the front door of an objective examination of the physical reality of the world. In fact, there is no possibility of such a separation at all. Some today swear by the name of science and even worship the mouthpieces of scientists in all their ways of life, just as in the past they unquestioningly accepted the rulings of religious priests. Others stand helpless in front of the world where the scientific revolution determined not only the technological achievements of modern society, but also imposed a way of life that imposes on each individual, almost hourly, the responsibility of making decisions, many of which are difficult and fateful. Alongside these many have taken on the challenge of dealing with a world that is known or understood but to a limited extent.
It does not take much philosophical depth to be convinced that the world based on the achievements of science did not bring more happiness to human beings than the world in which the religious authorities ruled. Therefore, there is no reason that many are not ready to give up the safe, authoritative shelter that religious faith provides. Some of them have formulated a way of life in which the researching authority, based on the scientific methodology that questions all authority, and the authoritative authority of the religious framework are subordinated to one another. However, there are others who cling to the sources as a supreme and determining authority in all ways of life.
The innocent among those who cling to these sources, fundamentalists, completely reject not only the claims of science, but also the technological achievements based on them: they cultivate their fields with wooden plows, weave the hend for their clothes with hand looms and would not think of driving a car powered by a gasoline engine or using light electrical power. Others are content with sticking to the biblical stories as they are: for them the earth is flat, fixed in its place and the sun revolves around it, the age of the world does not exceed six thousand years and dinosaurs are mindless inventions of sales promotion experts. The extremists among them even strive to impose the Halacha as a language, either that of Islam or Judaism, as the exclusive way of life on the society in which they live.
Not so the sophisticated among the fundamentalists. Although they also see the Holy Scriptures as the sources of knowledge and authority, but according to them science and its arguments are not invalid. On the contrary, science only reveals what was written and said long ago in the Holy Scriptures. According to this version of fundamentalism, scientific theories are interpretations and adjustments to what is written and said in the Holy Scriptures, adapted from time to time to the state of scientific information and of course according to the position of the claimant to the scientific findings.
Thus, for example, Naftali Halevi, a native of the city of Radom in Poland, claimed in a debate published in 1876 that the findings of science in the field of cosmology and physics of his day fit well with what is said in Genesis and are nothing more than confirmation of what is written (and interpreted) in this regard. Also the origin of species by means of natural selection, Charles Darwin's sensational theory in those years, is, according to him, a claim that is clearly expressed (literally) in Parashat Beresheet. Prof. Natan Aviezer, a scientist and professor at Bar-Ilan University, accepted in the international community of physicists, is a fundamentalist of the second kind. In his book "Beresheet Bara", which was published in English about two years ago (Nathan Aviezer 1990 IN THE BEGINNING BY seeks to examine, like many before him, the compatibility between contemporary scientific discoveries and what is written in the Holy Scriptures, first and foremost in the book of Genesis. Indeed, at the end of his book he deploys the His "I believe" and insists that he does not refer to the Holy Scriptures as if they were a qualified scientific text: as a professional scientist he is impressed by the wonderful correspondence that is discovered between the findings of modern science and the stories of creation, and more precisely, in Genesis.
He wishes to share this impression with his readers even though he emphasizes. Of course, it is not because of this adjustment that he is an observant Jew, for even if he found that the Jewish tradition does not fit any aspects of contemporary science, this would not diminish his faith. Nevertheless, the reader soon realizes that the book is nothing more than an attempt to spread the gospel of its author's fundamentalism. The correspondence he finds between what is written in the Book of Genesis and the scientific theories of today is similar to the target that the slinger draws around the arrows - after shooting, but in my opinion, the distorted image of the scientific perception as a metachronic method is no less serious, and especially Aviezer distorts the Darwinian perception about the origin of species.
Despite his claim at the end of the book, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Eviezer treats the Holy Scriptures as a text, which is worth trying and examining whether scientific theories may confirm its existential and unquestionable truths. Following the path of commentators and preachers from generation to generation, he presents his own interpretation of the text of the creation in the Holy Scriptures, which indeed corresponds to a large extent with the findings of science. He is getting stronger. For example, one of the prominent problems of the inconsistency between the scriptures and the scientific claims is that he adopts the interpretation that a day in the story of Genesis is a fixed period of time, which can extend over hundreds of millions of years in the simplistic terms of contemporary scientists. He interprets the verse "And God created the great crocodiles" as corresponding to the appearance of the Adicarian system (PyllumAdicaran) in the Precambrian era: creatures of this system appeared in the fossil finds, according to the scientists, "suddenly", about 700 million years ago, and were widespread in considerable numbers for about a century million years, and then disappeared, about 570 million years ago, without leaving a trace among the multicellular creatures. In the scientific literature it is indeed stated that the Adhikarya were "giants by the standards of the time." Although their size, which reached 5-1 cm, was impressive in comparison to other creatures in the eras that preceded them - whose size reached at most 5 mm (but smaller than the largest of the creatures that appeared about *50 million years later, the Anomalocanis the predator, which reached about 45 cm). The degree of interpretive flexibility that Eviezer needed to identify creatures like Adikaria with the "big crocodiles" demonstrates that there is no limit to the possible matches, if it is up to the reader to find matches, provided that the convenient assumptions are made.
The game of sizes is indeed used by Aviezer with great skill: a biblical day is a period of millions of years, although he of course also has an explanation for the fact that the seventh day, Shabbat, is a total of twenty-four hours; The large crocodiles are creatures that are only a few centimeters in size; And for events that took place over a period of several millions or tens of millions of years (which geologists or paleontologists refer to as a short period), Aviezer refers to them as "immediate" events. Through such manipulations Prof. Aviezer does not have much difficulty in claiming that the first verse of "Beresheet Bara" refers to nothing but the Big Bang. According to the theory accepted today, this dramatic event of the creation of the universe, as it is known to scientists, took place about 15 billion (or 15,000 million) years ago. Whereas "and there was light" is of course interpreted as referring to the overall phenomenon of "electromagnetic radiation" according to the scientists, both the visible and the beyond the visible realm. According to the scientific theories, immediately after the explosion the material was subjected to such high temperatures that it was all in a "plasma" state, and this "trapped" any electromagnetic radiation in the first stages after the explosion. Therefore, only when the plasma cooled and turned into atoms on their particles, it was possible to "see" the radiation. Without a doubt, this is an elegant explanation for those looking for a scientific formulation of what is written.
Even in connection with the description of creation in the other days, Aviezer needed a little sermon to "prove" that the Holy Scriptures are nothing but a much earlier (and more significant) edition of the existing scientific theories, or, perhaps it is better to say, of the scientific determinations of today. In relation to the sixth and seventh verses, "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let there be a dividing line between water and water; And God made the firmament and made a difference between the water under the firmament and the water above the firmament and it was so" Aviezer was helped by the innovations of science during the age of the satellites. He brings the interesting findings regarding comets (comets) that contain (or are made of) enormous amounts of ice, and the possibility of the existence of ice domes on the surface of Mars or in the rings of Saturn or within the planets Jupiter and Venus, as a wonderful testimony to the words of the verse that differentiates between the water under the sky - in the days on the surface of the earth, and the water above the sky - in the planets of the solar system. As for the verse "And God said, Let the waters under the sky flow to one place, and the dry land will be seen, and it was so," the words refer explicitly to the movement of the continents, a theory that has gained many tractions in our time.
Aviezer shows a special interest in the "wonderful coincidences" that he says characterize the creation process. Life on Earth could only develop there because the range of radiation reaching the surface of the Earth was neither too hot nor too cold. If the radiation was only fractions of a percent higher or lower than what we know, life would not have been able to develop on Earth. The point of the recurring argument about improbable coincidences is that the events cannot be the result of chance, and hence they are the result of a deliberate hand.
Apparently an argument and it is convincing, but a careful examination of it reveals that it is fundamentally wrong. Such "coincidences" are miraculous only to those who discuss them in retrospect. According to Aviezer's logic, the probability that I will actually write these lines, with an unsharpened yellow pencil, in my left hand, late in the evening, on a kitchen table, in a Jerusalem apartment, at a given address - is also almost zero. Isn't it appropriate to consider the possibility that just because there was such a range of radiation here, as it was, such life, as we know it, could have developed if other combinations of conditions had existed, a different kind of "life" could have developed, even one that we cannot even imagine in our imagination. If we were to ask in advance (back in "the days of chaos") what the probability of the development of life as we know it today, a correct calculation would show that it is almost zero. However, at that time it was not known what form of life would develop, and all we could ask was, what is the probability that at least one of the many different "life" forms would develop, and the answer to the question would probably have been expressed in an infinitely high numerical value.
Aviezer devotes special attention, as expected, to the fifth creation day, in which the creation of life is told. According to him, it is widely believed that Darwin's theory regarding the origin of species through gradual evolution from existing species is convincing and supported by many factual data. Ullman claims Aviazer, the factual material is far from agreeing with the claims of Darwin and the Darwinists (Aviazer accepts as present-day Darwinism the combination of population genetics with classical Darwinian theory, as it was done in the XNUMXs, a combination known as the "neo-Darwinist theory" an "theory the synthetic" of Darwinism). Furthermore, a "careful reading" of Genesis is consistent in his opinion with the development of modern-day creatures from earlier forms or types, that is, evolution took place, but not according to the principles of Darwinism.
Aviezer's criticism is not directed at Darwin, but at the Darwinist bloggers of today, who, according to him, have abandoned the essence of the scientific method, in favor of a theory that has lost its strength. He writes, "In light of the latest scientific evidence, it is difficult to understand the biologists' resolute defense of the Darwinian theory of evolution, which Darwin is often attributed with views that are in direct contradiction to what Darwin himself writes...no one attacks Charles Darwin. A study of the origin of species is enough to prove what a great scientist Darwin was. He created a comprehensive theory that fits in a proper and admirable way with the data of his time - according to the best scientific tradition. However, 130 years have passed, our treasure of scientific knowledge has grown enormously, and Darwin's evolutionary theory is not enough. ,..it's time to move forward" (pp. 59-58).
Darwin's evolution has passed its time, and the theory that replaces it is the theory of the sudden change of species, the change that occurs due to factors that are not related at all and mainly to the adaptation of the creatures to their living conditions. In other words, the whole idea of natural selection as a driving factor in the change of species, or at least in the creation of new species, is nothing more than conservatism that would not recognize its place as a tent of scientific investigation.
It is therefore important to examine some of these claims, both in relation to the idea that underpins the scientific method compared to its application in practice, and in terms of the arguments against modern-day biological evolution. Scientists, more famous and less famous, often set themselves demands and criteria that they themselves could not meet. Among these requirements is the refutation, that is, the requirement to conduct an observation or an experiment that will serve as a decisive test of the theory: if they agree with the theory there is no reason to abandon it, however, if they do not agree - this will be a final and unequivocal refutation of it.
Aviezer quotes from Darwin's words that he also referred to the observations regarding the extinction of existing species and the appearance of new species under them, as decisive regarding the acceptance or refutation of his theory. According to Aviezer, the biologists guarding the walls ignore the fact that the Darwinian theory has been decisively refuted at least on this point. It is possible that the principle of refutation faithfully describes an ideal that many would like to attribute to the scientific research method, but there is no doubt that this description does not reflect the nature of scientific investigation, which is mainly based on continuity and continuity, while correcting the existing theories and improving their adaptation to reality. It is easy to cite one example, in which Darwin's theory was put to such a test, a few years after its publication. Darwin himself wrote that the criticism that was raised - if it is recovered - is likely to refute his theory and that it has no resurrection: the Scottish engineer Fleming Jenkins (Jenkins Reeming) showed that the mechanism that Darwin proposed for inheritance would lead to the disappearance of variation in the population long before there was any chance for natural selection to create from it new species. Although Darwin understood this and agreed that it was a matter of principle, he did not abandon his theory. Darwin was no exception to this. Almost every scientist encounters this kind of dilemma, but we usually learn about it only when it comes to the greats of science, since we can only read their biographies. Usually the scientist who finds himself in this situation finds an ad hoc explanation for the discrepancy between his expectations and observations: there was dirt in the test tube, another factor came into play that we did not think about in advance or did not consider sufficiently, and so on. Another common way is to ignore (for now) the mismatch. Rarely will a researcher abandon a theory, especially not one as extensive and well-established as Darwin's theory. The physicist, a contemporary of Darwin, the inventor of the theory of electromagnetic fields, James Clark Maxwell (. the acceptance of his theory. Both experiments were done and both disproved his theory, according to the criteria he himself set. Of course, Maxwell did not abandon his theory.
It was only years later that others showed that one experiment had a technical flaw, while to explain the other discrepancy it was necessary to make certain adjustments in the fringes of the theory. A satisfactory answer to the difficulty that Jenkins raised regarding Darwin's theory was given only after about fifty years, within the Mendelian theory of heredity. This is usually the way of science: adding corrections and refinements to existing theories. Over time, these corrections may accumulate to such an extent that, looking back, it seems as if there is nothing left of the theory. Only rarely in the history of science can it be said that one theory has superseded its predecessor, as it were, out of nowhere.
Has nothing changed in the Darwinian theory of evolution since the days of Darwin or more precisely since the days of the neo-Darwinian theory of the forties and fifties of our century? Aviezer sees the concepts of "survival of the fittest", "struggle for existence", "natural selection" and "adaptation" as the progenitors of the Darwinian sin.
In his opinion, we were finally freed from the need to need these concepts when biologists and paleontologists (fossil researchers) such as Gould, Eldridge, Stanley and others, proposed a new theory that does not settle, and therefore necessarily replaces the Darwinian theory of evolution. The main argument of Gold and his colleagues is that it is not possible to draw an equal conclusion from the processes that lead to relative stability and little change of species that exist for long periods of time, to processes of creating new species that take place for relatively short periods of time, many of them following mass extinction events.
But a cursory look at the arguments of the researchers mentioned is enough to prove that they do not turn their backs on the basic concepts of the Darwinian theory, at least not as they are understood in the current framework of the theory of evolution. There is no doubt that Darwin's concepts about the "survival of the fittest", the "struggle for existence" and the like, largely reflect the social and value perceptions of his Victorian era. Furthermore, many noticed the difficulty in understanding the concept of the survival of the "fittest", since what is the criterion for the fittest, apart from the very fact of its survival? However, everyone involved in the study of evolution is familiar with many observations and experimental studies that indicate the mode of action of natural selection, both under controlled experimental conditions and in natural populations.
The change in the frequency of the dark-colored moths (night butterflies) in the industrial areas, compared to their frequency in the rural areas, which occurred in the last hundred years with the change of the environment, is undoubtedly a striking testimony to the power of natural selection. However, the claimant will rightly argue that even if it is proven that the seventeenth selection brought about changes in the populations, this does not prove to what extent it played a part in shaping the face of the populations that live today and lived in the past.
Furthermore, the Darwinian argument regarding an equal derivation from the power of natural selection in shaping the diversity between representatives of the same species should not be accepted without criticism regarding its power in shaping the diversity between species. But we are able to demonstrate that when there is variation between living creatures, whether they are members of the same species or whether they are members of different species (and that at least part of this variation is based on heredity), and that there are differences in the ability of the creatures to produce fertile offspring under the given living conditions, a process of reproduction takes place Relative forms of sympathy and relative depletion are other forms.
That is, a process of natural selection takes place. Usually the process results in few changes in the structure of the populations because the forces that operated during the generations reached (approximately) a balance: most of the new mutations do not differ in character from those that flourished in the past, nor do the environmental conditions differ significantly from generation to generation. The processes of natural selection thus essentially guarantee the maintenance of the existing adaptation, without minor changes, either as a response to gradual changes in the environmental conditions, or as a result of the appearance of a rare mutation, which increases the relative adaptation of its subjects to the existing conditions. However, from time to time there are more dramatic changes in the environmental conditions. Today, the most common dramatic changes are the actions of man: the pollution of the environment with industrial soot, so that many of those who were camouflaged in the past like the carnivores are now exposed to predation, while those rare individuals, who were prone to easy prey in the past, because of their prominent dark color, have become well camouflaged.
Construction of a new road through a thick forest, a fire that destroyed a built site, a farmer plowing a plot of fallow field - these and similar events suddenly open an empty (or almost empty) alcove in nature. In such a niche, the conditions of competition (or, the lack of competition) are completely different than in densely populated niches, where the "confrontation" between the creatures and the forces of nature (including other creatures, members of the same species and members of other species) has reached a point of balance. Here, in the opened habitat, a relatively rapid change is possible, based on the availability of the huge diversity that is stored in every natural population (and which increases every generation thanks to the mutation processes). Now a chance is given even to the forms that previously had no chance, and one of them, the so-called "lucky ones", are most suitable for the new competition conditions. Green plants, which need a lot of light, were "lost" on the side of the thick forest trees, while with the cutting down of the forest they grow quickly and will have an advantage over the soft sprouts of the trees, which grow slowly, noticeably. Dwarf wild plants or those that grow tightly and produce few offspring may have an advantage over lush plants, rich in flowers and fruits, if they are grown in a field where the mower passes through any plant above a few inches in height. Creatures relegated to burrows and cool places may find paradise if climate conditions suddenly change to gray and less sunny. Darwin became convinced of the creative power of natural variation in the creation of new species in the opening up of a new habitat, when he arrived at the Galapagos Islands, a group of islands formed in the Pacific Ocean by land rising above the surface of the ocean. The islands are inhabited by an abundance of closely related species, whose relatives on the continent do not show such diversity at all. There was no escaping the explanation that those who were lucky enough to reach the empty habitat could spread almost unhindered. Even unusual types, which on one mother continent were destined to disappear within a few generations because of their inferior reproductive efficiency, found here niches that could inhabit them and new forms of them multiplied in them.
The matter of the difference in the rate of change of species was already known and known to Darwin, and since then many have taken pains to explain the phenomenon of long periods of change that is mainly intrasexual, with almost no creation of new species, compared to relatively short periods (in geological terms) of feverish creation of species. The geophysical findings of AIvarez and others indeed indicate that catastrophic events have occurred throughout the history of the earth, and that they originate from events that go beyond the realm of the earth. But this does not change the fact that these events changed the conditions in which the creatures that remained on Earth had to live and exist from that time on.
It is therefore nonsense to claim "that the destruction process is independent of the local environment (not natural selection, not the survival of the fittest)" (p. 57), as if the fact that an extraterrestrial body was involved in the extinction is important to the matter of the extinction itself. It is clear that the conditions of the natural environment of those creatures that remained alive on Earth have changed. Even the immediate results of a momentary event of a collision between the Earth and a meteorite were a function of the natural environments of the various creatures: species of creatures that lived in burrows and other sheltered places (except of course those found in the collision zone), had a higher chance of surviving than those that lived on land or in the sea. Although Alvarez thought that the main changes, such as the extinction of the dinosaurs, took place within 10-1 years, (note of the editor of the site, in the end it turned out that Alvarez was right, and that a huge meteorite caused a nuclear winter that eliminated a significant percentage of all species of creatures that were on the planet Within a few months to a few years A. b), it is quite clear today that many of the decisive events that occurred following the initial catastrophe spanned longer periods of time: climate changes lasted for decades and periods of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years were required for the creation of new species - short periods indeed mostly in geological and evolutionary terms. Aviezer emphasizes that "in mass extinction, large groups of animals become extinct primarily because they had bad luck and not necessarily because they had bad genes" (p. 65, my emphasis, d.p.) Here there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the biological argument (and not Only the Darwinian): There are no "good" or "bad" genes in the abstract or absolute sense of the word. If we use such terms, we can at most claim that there are good and not bad genes in relation to given environmental conditions. Genes that were good in the environmental conditions before the catastrophe may be bad after it, and genes that were bad before the catastrophe may be good after it. Large groups of animals did not become extinct in the self-catastrophic event: except for species whose habitats are limited and whose habitats were overlapped by the catastrophic event, there was no immediate extinction of large groups.
The dinosaurs, for example, were common all over the planet. It is difficult to see how during the collision between the meteorite and the sphere. Most of the land was wiped out. The dinosaurs disappeared quickly in geological terms, but gradually, over the hundreds of thousands of years following the event, probably because the conditions on Earth changed quite dramatically: many areas that were inhabited and where the collision occurred apparently became empty, the resulting dust cloud changed the weather conditions and The lighting conditions and the like in most parts of the world, the borders of the seas and continents have changed and the surface of the continents themselves has probably changed a lot. It is probable that the "cold-blooded" dinosaurs, whose activity depends on sunlight, were harmed, while the "warm-blooded" mammals, who lived mainly in burrows or other shady places, i.e. in niches where the dinosaurs had no advantage, now enjoyed a relative advantage even in habitats that existed before "under the control" of the dinosaurs. There is a lot of evidence that mammal species existed tens of millions of years before the disappearance of the dinosaurs. Their "luck" was that the environmental conditions on Earth changed, following an event between bodies in space, their luck was that many of their genes suddenly became "good", while those of the reptiles became "bad" (in other words: many characteristics of the mammals were adapted to the new environmental conditions, while many features of the reptiles were not adapted to them). Natural selection thus allowed many forms, which previously had no chance, to reproduce and survive and to establish new species, adapted to the habitats that opened up to them. Although you will note again that Rarwin already insisted that traits or life forms could become extinct or survive even regardless of their "value" during the selection process. These were some of his scientific successors, who wanted to see in natural selection the all-encompassing vision of the process of the evolution of species. That's what Gold and his colleagues got up to, and rightly so.
Are the processes of creating new species through natural selection in post-catastrophe conditions fundamentally different from the processes of gradual change that can happen in the long periods between catastrophes? That is, is the difference between natural selection, which regenerates in one case and stabilizes in the other, a qualitative difference, or is the difference nothing more than a large accumulation of quantitative differences? Is the establishment of mutant species under conditions of natural selection in a "crowded" and uncompromising environment fundamentally different from "conditioned" natural selection, as happened in the opening of a new habitat? The answer to this is mainly a matter of worldview. Indeed, as quoted by Raup, "the conventional Darwinian model is not correct." It underwent far-reaching changes with the accumulation of various experimental data and with the development of the thinking of the scientific community. Gold and Eldridge claim, unlike their predecessors, that species are created almost exclusively when a new habitat is opened, and that in such circumstances mutations that cause a noticeable change, whose chances of surviving and participating in the process of natural selection in the conditions of a dense habitat are zero, are a central component in the formation of new species.
According to them, these mutations result in a qualitative, rather than cumulative, quantitative change between the original species and the new one. Gould, Eldridge, Stanley and others tend to emphasize the aspect of principled innovation in their explanations. Others, such as Ayala, Lande, or Charlesworth tend to emphasize the continuity of the new insights with the old. Among some evolution researchers, opinions are heard that the innovations in our views on the creation of new species, more than questioning the Darwinian claims about the origin of species, raise questions precisely about the nature of the forces that maintain the relative stability of existing species for such long periods.
Whether leaning in one direction or the other, there is no debate that both sides see intra-sexual variation on the one hand and environmental constraints (in the broadest sense of this term) on the other, as the driving force for both the stability of the species and their change. Whether the "broken equilibrium" model is in possession of a new paradigm or just a change in the existing paradigm, in the language of the philosophy of science, the basic principle of evolution as a result of the creation of unintended variation and the direction of this variation by the interaction of the creatures with their specific living conditions, remains the same. In a certain sense, it is possible to see in the suspended equilibrium model exactly the same support that the Darwinian theory needed: when it became clear from the fossil findings that the forms of transition from one species to another are indeed rare (although there is no complete agreement regarding the interpretation of the observations, even in this matter) and that this is not just a rarity resulting from an unsystematic search , an auxiliary hypothesis was needed to settle the refutation. Gould and Aldridge provided the Darwinian theory with the correction it needed so that the paucity of fossil intermediate forms would not constitute a refutation of the theory.
The extensive research and heated debates indicate that there is no caffeine on the yeast in this field of biological research, and that there is no unanimity regarding the degree of influence of various factors and regarding the principle significance of others. Aviezer's claims as if there was no evolution based on the diversity of the existing species and the preferred proliferation of some forms over others, and that man also "appeared suddenly and remained so until these days, and therefore there has been no evolutionary change in modern man" (p. 59) are therefore Inos hold of the scientific argument for its purposes. Aviezer's attempt to stick to Gold and Eldridge's model of the discontinuous equilibrium, as if it refutes or replaces the basic Darwinian concept of evolution, has no hold. As expressed by P. third'. Williamson, one of the researchers who provided the most important observational support for the punctuated equilibrium model: "The punctuated equilibrium model is first and foremost an extension, in terms of the geological timescale, of Mayr's classical model about the creation of species-in-neighborhood. It is a mistake to assimilate the theory of suspended equilibrium in the idea of evolution through sudden jumps (saltational)." Not only the theory of the origin of the species by way of selection of intrasexual variation, including the origin of the human species, received large-scale direct and indirect observational confirmation in the last decades, but also the theory of the origin of life from the inanimate in the evolutionary process (which extended over "no more" from 500 to a thousand million years) received much support from both field and laboratory studies.
It seems to me, in summary, that more than the failure of Aviezer's ingenuity in flexing the interpretation of the biblical story of Genesis in relation to the origin of species, he goes to war against the Darwinian conception of evolution, when his approach is based on an image of science, which even in the fields of the "exact sciences" is doubtful He takes it. Of course, today's scientific theories, just like those of the past, are based on assumptions and even metaphysical beliefs. The Darwinian theory about the origin of species does not differ from other theories. We have come a long way from the belief that the scientific argument and the theories that the scientist puts forward are based on the purity of logical thinking and a rational and objective analysis of the facts, in order to reveal and discover the truth, the whole truth and only the truth. 1 There is no doubt that world views, prejudices, immediate and less immediate interests guide scientists just as they guide children other people, either consciously or unconsciously. These things are true about Darwin, about Gold and Eldridge, and even about Aviezer. Of course, the author of this list does not exclude himself from this rule either.
*Author's note: I owe a lot of thanks to Prof. Uzi Rita and Prof. Moshe Soler for their important comments and clarifications, even though I did not receive all of them and I am solely responsible for what was written. My thanks go to Oren and Roma Fleck for their critical reading and help.
More on this topic on the science website:
59 תגובות
The discussion here is a bit funny.
The book is not intended for the atheist reader, but for the religious reader.
He tries to offer an interesting interpretive way, but interesting for those who accept as a basic premise the principle of 'Torah from Heaven'.
Whether the book is good or not, will be determined by the audience for whom the book is intended.
In the end, the basic assumption of people like Prof. Aviezer is that there is not and cannot be a contradiction between Torah and science, both are the creation of the Creator of the world. Whoever disbelieves in the truth of the Torah or in the truth of science, really has nothing to look for in this book or similar ones.
Nonsense and nonsense
"It doesn't take much philosophical depth to be convinced that the world based on the achievements of science did not bring more happiness to human beings than the world in which the religious authorities ruled"... I strongly disagree with this statement! What happiness was there in living under the regime of the Inquisition for example or other Catholic regimes? Or be judged according to biblical laws (stoning, burning, beheading, strangulation)? Has anyone ever tried to get a divorce according to Jewish law? Not to mention children who died like flies from diseases, women who died during childbirth, witch hunts, constant fear of hell, denial of rights to women... and what about the women who lived and still live today in Islamic countries under Sharia law? are they happy Also the same woman who was raped and had to sit in prison because she did not agree to marry the rapist? And what about that Muslim who wants to leave his religion and is afraid of being murdered...
Oops, wrong recipient name, wrong
Sorry
to Xingua
The children of Israel, even though according to the storyteller they met the divine manifestation directly and even though they met it through its actions, for some reason they were not convinced, according to the storyteller - from that time until the destruction of the First Temple. If so, then there is a problem, isn't there?
But that's not the point. In principle, the fact that there is a problematic set of stories from beginning to end, full of self-contradictions, is nothing more than a set of stories. She is not the only one, and there were people like her then and people like her today (India, for example and in contrast to the New Testament).
Stories of this kind cannot form a basis for knowledge at all, certainly in relation to a being that everything related to it is even more problematic.
Beyond that, the claim that since it is something we do not know about and its characteristics - but that is why it exists or at least there is a good reason to believe that it exists, does not hold water in itself. with an emphasis on itself. If you choose anyway - Tafdal. But to base something on it on such a scale that it should have an existence on its own, it doesn't work, at least for me - nor for you in anything in your practical life.
When God will be self-evident not only to a Jew out of belonging but known like gravity to a Japanese as well, then it's a different story.
But this story will not be told. The creator of the universe, the intelligent planner, does not choose a group of people, you mess around at the most petty level, exhibiting pathological personal problems and on the other hand allow it to be damaged at extreme levels over so many years.
I do not doubt but claim that there is no such thing. The very fact that the creator of the world rises and falls on this and is even up for discussion is the giver.
Which brings us to the end: you claim there is? The burden of proof is on you. Until then - none.
Everything that has been brought up to now does not stand a single test. Not to mention the multitude of tests and not to mention the countless problems and contradictions at all levels.
What a crap!
Yoel
He is what I said: "The reality that surrounds us is changing and it is also difficult to define what is considered reality or not, it all depends on the system of concepts that we can grasp"
First of all the discussion must be based on assumptions and starting points because again we are not dealing with science - if we assume that God is the opposite of matter and if there is a soul - it exists in a "spiritual" system of concepts
So this reward and punishment is not according to the system of concepts that we perceive - as you mentioned and it is certainly not material
If we define an assumption that what is written in the Bible is true (again I am talking about a starting point for discussion - not about facts) - then the people of Israel are not commanded to believe but to know in an interpretation - because according to what is mentioned in the Bible God spoke and all the people heard - there is no Here is more faith - than knowledge.
When the children of Israel knew - they were not yet denied the right to choose and the fact that they chose to sin - although you can also look at the revelation - as denying the right to choose to know/not know, to believe/not to believe
Just as the reality that surrounds us -doesn't really allow us an absolute right to choose (-I can't choose to jump off the roof and stay alive-or live to the age of 200, etc.)
Today - because we are no longer exposed to the divine power - we no longer have the possibility to accept the divine reality through knowledge but only through faith, and here we return to the original assumption - if I assume a divine existence - this whole chain is unnecessary - God is omnipotent - we do not understand and we cannot to contain his ways of working as a result we are not able to understand why we are unable to prove his existence with our conceptual and rational system and we cannot perceive the programming of logical contradictions - such as the question "Can God create a stone that he is unable to lift) - in our conceptual system - Such a contradiction would not be possible, but in the divine system of concepts - the assumption is that God is omnipotent and as a result of this the answer is positive: - that is, in the divine system of concepts the concept yes and no - can be generated in one subordination without division - only we are not able to perceive this logical fallacy - because it is a fallacy Only in the world of concepts in which we live. Just as we cannot imagine a world without time, beginning and end, etc.
Meaning there is nothing to try to prove if it exists or not - this is only an internal assumption of origin of each person - yes, as scientists we must actually assume that one of the options is a divine existence - not binding in the religious sense of the word and if so one of the possibilities is a divine existence - then one of the options is God in the religious sense.
The very fact that we are talking about an abstract concept such as God (which is in complete contradiction with logic) means - that it is an option and a possibility - otherwise we would not be discussing it. Just as you cannot think or imagine anything that does not exist in our system of concepts -, you cannot imagine a color in your head that does not exist or we have not seen it and it is not possible to think and contain in the mind a form that does not exist or does not consist of a system of forms that we have in mind -
Try to imagine radio waves, infrared, it is not possible. Any image you give will be based on the system of concepts you live in. - Now a person who lives in the Middle Ages - does not discuss this topic at all - which means that person does not exist at all in reality and he has passed an entire life without exposure to this concept Therefore, there is no option for this person to assume even a possibility of this kind - the very fact that we are discussing something makes him have a certain possibility.
At the moment the situation is 50:50 - even for the most skeptic - because you cannot doubt something that definitely does not exist.
The reality around us is changing; 100 years ago there were no computers. The reality that surrounds us does not change, mountains are mountains, and the sea is a sea. That is: there are statements like the above and also like this that are completely true, completely wrong - and therefore not necessarily worth anything, if you don't attach a concrete context to them.
In any case, if the refrigerator falls on you - you will know very well what the reality is in the most immediate and clear way.
According to the word of God, whoever does what he commanded, it is good for him. Whoever does not, will be punished. It is the father of materialism. The Jewish religion does not command the believer to know; The Jewish religion is based on the revelation of God. Among other things, it is impossible to command knowledge.
If God existed as gravity exists, his existence would be self-evident and at the same time valid for everything in the universe. Also Japanese. There is no doubt that the story of Mount Sinai is very convincing, to those who are convinced and/or those who are willing to accept such a story as a description of what happened. Whoever says he is not - there is no way to show him something else, even if it is an olive. Yes, including what is written in Khazari.
And again: if according to the story the creator of the intelligent world, since he appeared thousands of years ago to all kinds of people, some of them not really the greats of the generation, it would be nice if there was something of that now. All the spiritual mumbo jumbo is one of the contemporary ways of avoiding the simple fact that science has revealed: beyond the story, there is nothing and not half of anything.
NEACKNAME
The debate between religion and science is like a debate between the blind and the sober.
The whole debate between religion and science (if it can even be defined as a debate) is like a conversation between a blind man and a deaf man, each trying to connect the other to his world of concepts
The last Camilla claims:
". If you really want to impress us and even make us repent, there is nothing simpler than that, all you have to do is use the tremendous knowledge you have gained from the "holy" studies, build an airplane, or send a rocket into space, or predict the existence of an element unknown to science or decipher how the brain works, or find a cure for cancer or genetic defects or autoimmune diseases, there really are no shortage of ways to convince us. Simply put, show us that you understand the reality that surrounds us at least as well as the understanding provided by science"
So this is exactly the point: the reality that surrounds us is changing and it is also difficult to define what is considered reality or not, it all depends on the system of concepts that we can grasp.
As a general rule, the Torah/religion/God - their main purpose is not to give a person the tools to know how to use the material better and take advantage of it
to achieve material well-being. (Although it is possible to see significance in relation to the influence of Jews in the world on the world even if they are not religious - that is, it is possible to have the same influence on the people who live the life of the Torah, even if in the past - on the world)
I think the majority of believers - believe not for rational reasons - it is impossible to combine the rational with religion - it also does not come to a generation in one submission but rejects one another even what we see and experience as rational - not always so. - The debate is not a scientific debate and cannot be scientific But a purely philosophical argument.
On the other hand:
The Jewish religion is the only one that requires not to believe but to "know" - that is, there is a divine commandment to come to the knowledge of God, a God who revealed himself on Mount Sinai in this act - forced the Israelites to know Him and not just "believe" in Him - and even then they did not follow His ways and not because Lack of faith .
But how can you reach the news today?? We live in a world of material concepts, how can we contain the knowledge and understanding of something that is outside the framework of the terms in which we live? - Why are we different from the Israelites who received the Torah at Sinai - Why were they given the real opportunity to know and not just believe?
How could a person born blind ever understand the term color in the way we understand it?
Our understanding or lack of understanding or our ability to arrive at answers - have nothing to refute or strengthen the reality of the Creator, just as uneducated people have nothing to do with their lack of education or understanding to refute the laws of physics.
If "the last Camilla" had experienced a real revelation and the knowledge of God - would it have affected the reality of the rest of the people in the world?
Even after such an event - Camila can interpret the reality she experienced here and there and not necessarily come to the conclusion that there is a creator for the world.
The summary of an interest in order to understand and know something that is outside the space of our reality and outside the framework of the world of concepts and terms we live in - we will probably have to strive to obtain tools for understanding the reality beyond
As the blind man's goal is not to understand the concept of shade and color but simply to see...
A. M
(August 14, 2011 at 21:51 pm)
Do you really believe that the Jews of all times would dress like penguins and put a fox on their head? Do you have any idea how far the Orthodox Judaism of today is from the Judaism of a few hundred years ago? And Judaism from thousands of years ago? Which Judaism do you think you have returned to exactly? Do you have any idea why there is an obsessive preoccupation in the Talmud (and later in the studies of the Talmud to this day) in issues related to the rape of women, Mishkab Hama and thousands of other deviations? Do you think it's because the Judaism you "returned" to is so sublime? Don't you understand that Judaism consists of Jews, and the value of Jews is measured first and foremost by their actions? See for example here a tiny sample of Jewish morality:
Babylonian Talmud, tractate Neda, page XNUMX, pages XNUMX-XNUMX
Where does this condescension of yours about the "Gentiles" come from, on what basis do you allow yourself to belittle billions of people? What exactly are you better than them? Wisely? I assure you that there are many much smarter than you. in good deeds? I assure you that there are citizens of other countries and nations whose kindness and humanity towards every human being (including Jews) far surpasses the "righteousness" of many ultra-Orthodox, so much so that not only is it sectoral and racist in general, it is also driven by completely egoistic motives, simply to to earn a good place in the next world. Every good deed of a person who does not believe in the next world is a much more noble deed because he knows that he will not benefit from this deed. Do you really believe that there is some objective measure that there is no "Gentile" who will be better and more successful than you? So the only thing you can say is that you belong to the chosen people (or any similar nonsense, just as there are others in this world who proclaim it to themselves). Is this what you base your entire sense of superiority on? And let's say it was true, let's say you do belong to some virtuous people. Is this what justifies such arrogance? Is this the best moral you can present here?
Ben Amutz,
Apparently, a person who reads your response could mistakenly associate you with the type of people whose heads are already so open that their minds have fallen out, but I recognize in you the same ills that are so common among religious lawyers, from innocence to the distortion of reality to the point of absurdity, as in the sentence you wrote: "All the familiar In reality, I see that there is no contradiction between faith and science, and the number of believing scientists will prove it."
It is a fact, as shown by the studies and surveys (which have links on this website), that there is an inverse correlation between religious belief and education, and the fact that most scientists do not hold a religious belief and that this trend only gets stronger when compared to the early years of the last century:
Nature, 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998
"Leading Scientists Still Reject God"
A recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
It is a fact that the mere possession of some religious belief, in itself, does not contribute to scientific achievement.
It is a fact that even successful scientists who hold some kind of religious belief, their success comes from their commitment to the scientific method in their field of research (such as Professor Haim Sompolinsky for example) and not due to the "wisdom" of Sages or the amazingly wrong "knowledge" that exists in the Torah.
There are several other interesting facts related to the comparison between scientists and religious people, especially in matters related to morality, starting with criminal acts, through simple violence, through racism, treatment of women and, in general, tolerance of someone who is different from you just because he is different, whether because of his faith, or his sexual orientation, his origin or just his opinions.
The fact that you ignore all these facts and release unfounded statements like this:
"Everyone who knows reality sees that there is no contradiction between faith and science, and the number of believing scientists will prove it."
"In the matter of evolution, anyone who is exposed to scientific knowledge as well as Torah knowledge in its true form understands that there is no contradiction between them."
Shows that you are not just mindless but a real crook, a wolf in sheep's clothing, only your disguise is not so successful.
The fact that you try to slander the vast majority of scientists and present them as if they lack understanding, narrow-minded people who spread hatred and intolerance, greatly strengthens your true face which is already revealed from the previous things.
Your website is special in its content and in the way it is edited
Thank you for that
I did not understand what is the connection between religion, hatred and science.
After all, there is no shortage of eminent scientists who believe, and that because you are not interested in religion, you should rape reality and decide that believers are not making progress in science, and that they hate science.
As far as I know the number of scientists, and inventors, believers, who promote the scientific world in science, practical and theoretical, is much higher than the number of those scientists who do not believe.
Anyone familiar with reality sees that there is no contradiction between faith and science, and the number of believing scientists will prove it.
There are stupid people everywhere, both among the believers and among those who believe in heresy, those like these walk with their heads against the wall, and are not realistic.
In the matter of evolution, anyone who is exposed to scientific knowledge as well as Torah knowledge in its true form understands that there is absolutely no contradiction between them, for many reasons, and there is no reason to chew on the subject over and over again and use the lack of understanding of the narrow-minded on both sides to spread hatred and intolerance.
The honest people whose heads are open to understanding new ideas, use their talent to improve the world in which they live and work.
And so we will do it and succeed
withering:
Breathe for the reaction!
The analysis about the rabbit is brilliant and uplifting.
Late reply on SP's reply
(January 12, 2009 at 19:24 pm)
There are many problems with the arguments, rather nonsense, given there. I will present one problem as an example:
It is written there: "If indeed the biblical rabbit was the same rabbit we know today, then it is difficult to understand how a Jew, living in a culture of faith and mitzvot, would give his son a nickname - the name of an unclean, cowardly animal owner." It is true that in later generations we find a phenomenon of calling the names of unclean animals to the Jews - lion, bear, wolf, but all of them are brave and strong animals, and probably also in a context with national religious significance (lion - cub of the lion of Judah = a nickname for the tribe of Judah, bear - lurking bear is an Ari in hiding = a nickname for God, a wolf - Benjamin a wolf will prey = a nickname for the tribe of Benjamin)."
Does the commenter not understand that if the explanation he offers is correct, meaning that the rabbit was actually a carnivorous animal in the style of a lion, bear, wolf, etc., then it is a fearsome predator that is also a vegetarian (ie a definite vegetarian)? And don't you think it's a really idiotic argument? Like many religious people, this commenter was content with making excuses, some more creative and some less creative, not to mention downright stupid. This is exactly the difference between law and science. The lawyer will tell any lie to sell his version. How will you know the difference between a scientist and a lawyer? Very simply, both are engaged in creating models of reality, both work hard for this, both require creativity in their work. One of the main differences is when checking the understanding obtained from the proposed model. Science has been providing such an understanding for hundreds of years in millions of discoveries and billions of products that work and theories that provide successful predictions. Was it possible to reach the technology that science can achieve through the text that appears in the Torah? Is there this type of knowledge that can be obtained from the religious scriptures and updated to science? Or are we destined to hear all the time the lawyers jumping on facts in the science news and claiming that the Jews have known this for years. Everything is written in the Torah, it is true, just as everything is, but everything is already written in the letters of the Hebrew Bible. You just need to know how to arrange them in the right order and preferably use the skipping method.
The challenge is simple, if the Torah is a truth that can be understood by humans then it should not be difficult for an average person to present amazing discoveries that will be published in the leading journals of science. If you really want to impress us and even make us repent, there is nothing simpler than that, all you have to do is use the tremendous knowledge you have gained from "holy" studies, build an airplane, or send a rocket into space, or predict the existence of an element unknown to science or decipher how the brain works, or find a cure for cancer or genetic defects or autoimmune diseases, there really are no shortage of ways to convince us. Simply, show us that you understand the reality that surrounds us at least as well as the understanding provided by science, and you are guaranteed that if the understanding is even better, all the secularists will leave the path of science and conviction and follow you. Most of the ultra-Orthodox and not a few religious people are already there, now all that is needed is one more small step and show it in practice.
If it is impossible to extract such information from the Torah, then please leave it to us and stop troubling science with nonsense and excuses as to why what is written in the Torah is in complete contradiction to the observed reality, please stop claiming retroactive ownership of knowledge that the only reason you could refer to it at all was its discovery by science. Do you want to withdraw the claim that the Torah is actually only a spiritual matter? Alright, so please return to your rightful place together with the rest of the healers (astrologers, card/coffee/palm readers, chakra openers, x-rays of any kind and other New Agers) and dismiss us already from you and your punishment. The people sprained their leg!
a m:
You are talking about lies.
I was born in a religious family, but the truth doesn't interest you at all.
Even before people were religious they were monkeys.
I'm not going to go back to being a monkey because of this.
*I returned
Yes, I read the article itself (not the title..) and most of the lack of understanding is in the Torah and not in science.
"Opinions originating from brainwashing"
You should learn some history. Don't you know that two hundred years ago there were no secularists at all? All Jews were once ultra-Orthodox observant of the Torah and mitzvot, and those who left Judaism would assimilate and disappear among the Gentiles. Do you know why you are secular at all? Because your parents were brainwashed, because your family left Judaism, because they wanted to look like the gentiles, talk like the gentiles, to be "a people of all nations", because they were simply jealous of the gentiles who persecuted us all these years. I repent - think for a moment, what is "repent"? I return to the true Judaism of our people, I return to the Judaism you left without knowing at all.
Do you even know what it is to be Jewish? Are you saying that I was brainwashed because I am returning to keep the Judaism of my ancestors? Why, are you a Gentile? What exactly is your Judaism? What makes you Jewish? Just because you were born Jewish? How are you different from a Gentile? You dress like a gentile, speak like a gentile, live in a secular culture, and don't even know what Gemara is. I repent because I studied, because I began to understand what Judaism is, because I researched the truth. You are secular simply out of ignorance, because you didn't ask questions, because you don't have an iota of knowledge about Judaism. You don't know what Judaism is at all, you don't know what it is to keep Shabbat, you don't know what is written in the Torah and you don't know the heritage of your people. First of all open a book, learn the history of your people, get to know the most influential religion in the world, after that talk to me about brainwashing. Meanwhile there is only one of us who is brainwashed - out of ignorance!
a m:
I have not read the reviewed article and have no intention of reading it.
On the other hand - I read the article that was published here.
did you read
Did you see the subtitle?
To remind you - here is the subtitle:
"According to David Falk, in an article published in the Alfiim magazine, the religious scientist Natan Aviezer in his book "Bereshith Bara" tries to rape science so that every verse in the book of Genesis will supposedly testify to scientific progress that science has only recently discovered."
This is not an interpretation of the Torah, but the destruction of science.
Please note that there are no articles on the site about a confused teacher or about the Mishna Torah or about the Torah itself.
The site reacts, on the other hand, when the religious censors try to rape science for their own purposes or when they express opinions that originate from the brainwashing that passed off as problems in science.
If so then to whom shall we leave the protection? Lazmir Cohen?
By the way, later this week an article will be published in two parts from a 200-page report by the BBC, in which he writes that when it comes to scientific truth, the network must not show neutrality in reports, but rather give priority to the scientific position - and gave examples from three areas - vaccines, genetically modified food and global warming Country.
Defense of science is defense of the truth, and every media outlet should behave like the scientist.
Most of the commentaries are for the Torah, not for science.
And again: a science website should deal with science. Not in the "Science Defense".
And by the way, it is important to note that when we try to coincide cosmological and biological events with the Torah, it should be emphasized that the things were done on purpose and not by accident.
As long as the enemies of science present their wares as science, science is allowed to defend itself.
a m:
Because the book "Bereshit Bara" the article is talking about claims to talk about science and as you can see - quite a few people buy the bluff.
And what does science have to do with it?
Why should this thing appear on a science website
Ghosts:
The name changes are the result of one simple thing:
There were all kinds of people whose method of argument was to impersonate me and talk nonsense.
At first I identified myself as just "Michael" later, as "Michael R. (formerly Michael)" so that they understand that it is the same person with a name change, and at the end - when most of the readers already knew me - by my full name.
Sorry Michael, I forgot to add a cheeky smiley in parentheses.
to 32,
Yes, ah, for the time being Makal had time to grow up and if before he was just a Makal and then he grew into a Makal R. So today he can be proud of the full name Kebal with Ada.
A known record - a dialogue that lasted more than a year and four months!
Noriel:
They don't force anything on me?
Do they not impose on me the burden of their livelihood and filling the place of their deserters in the army?
Don't they force me not to use public transportation on Shabbat?
They impose a lot on me and I could write a whole article about it, but the above examples are enough.
Haven't you seen lies?
At this moment I showed accept the people and the world that you yourself lied.
Of course, there is no shortage of lies and blasphemy in the words of your predecessors, and your entire response is nothing but one big lie.
The ultra-Orthodox do not hate you and this has never been claimed.
You hate them because of prejudice and lack of knowledge.
I did not see blasphemy and lies and..or..religious coercion towards you.
But it's obvious that you don't like them and they don't like you.
Besides, my words were not only towards you but also towards them.
There is nothing to pity Mila. According to your understanding, we will all end our lives in a pit without a future.
Noriel:
The ultra-Orthodox hate me because I allow myself to think (they are just jealous because they are not allowed to).
I hate them because of the religious coercion and parasitism.
Despite this - I give logical and practical reasons in my comments and they are just insults and lies.
I promise you that as soon as they stop harming me with blasphemy, lies, parasitism and religious coercion - I will not hate them.
I will still feel sorry for them but not anymore.
BDS
How much hatred in one discussion….
You don't have to agree..but why fight (this is evident from your letters..)
Everyone will write their facts and knowledge..and the readers will decide there is no need to make it a personal matter....
Oh well, all these idiots who have never studied Torah in their lives only know how to wave stupid, trite and baseless slogans like "Rabbit that ruminates" - you are not able to enter into a deep discussion, you just throw slogans and that's how you beat everyone. Wise at night
SP:
They tell of someone who was preparing for a biology exam and because he knew the teacher liked worms he only studied the material related to worms.
When he got to the exam, the teacher asked him specifically about an elephant.
The student was not confused and said that the elephant is a big gray animal with a nose that resembles a worm and the worm is... and here he continued and poured out everything he had learned.
There was no reason why you talked about the rabbit other than the desire to talk too much and get sand in your eyes.
Then you went on and invented a new meaning for the expression "to raise shit" and said that it is actually "to eat shit".
Well - it's bullshit and you won't be able to feed me that shit.
If the rabbit didn't eat shit, then you would say that it litters the fields with its excrement and then eats what grew in them, and this is also raising a graha. If you had thought a little more you might have said that here it is - this also applies to the rabbit and we have found the unified field theory.
By the way - do you really not know that you also do not rely on the giving of the Torah in the class of Shishim Rivova?
Have you missed the scripture in XNUMX Kings chapter XNUMX according to which in the days of Josiah no one knew the Torah and it was discovered during renovation work in the Temple?
Is it not clear to you that this means that you are basing your faith on a book that was discovered by a single cleaning worker and whether its contents are true or not, the entire crowd of believers in it was gradually created from the words of that cleaning worker?
OK, there is a God, the Bible includes all the past, present and future, all the secrets of science that the scientists claim to "discover" themselves are already written there, so is the whole destiny of every person.
I accept everything that the various converts say.
Now, look around you in the room you are sitting in, at the pages of paper in the printer, at the wooden table (or the glass for the wealthy among us), at the multitude of items and products, at the electronic devices, at the buildings and cars outside, at your cup of tea/coffee and please tell me, what of all These thousands of items are the product of an in-depth Torah analysis, and what is the product of a rational understanding of the chemistry, physics and science that surrounds us and questioning the Torah?
Or in other words, did the Challenger (1986) really explode because there was no mezuzah on the door, as one rabbi claimed, or because someone miscalculated something?
claim:
The rabbit and the hare do not make noise, contrary to what the Torah says in Leviticus, chapter XNUMX, verse XNUMX.
Answer:
As an introduction to any discussion, the question will be asked whether the Torah given in Sinai at the time of Sessim Rivova is not reliable enough to establish this fact. Those who are not ready in principle to accept this source of information, it is only for them that it is necessary to enter into a discussion on the subject. The question is who are these two animals. From a historical zoological point of view, the identity of the hare is well known to us, but not so with the rabbit. The primary animals that should be examined in this context are the following 3 animals identified today according to the taxonomy as follows: Hare, belonging to the rabbit family. The type of rabbit - Oryctolagus is the "rabbit" of children's books. The type of rabbit - Lepus grows wild in Israel. Rabbit - (in English Procovia syriaca, (Syrian Coney, Hyrax) grows wild in Israel. It should be noted that with regard to these three animals there are different translations as there are dictionaries that translate the terms in a mix of fields: Alkalai dictionary, rabbit, rabbit, rabbit, hare. Also in the languages of the nations, the names of these animals change. We probably know the identification of the biblical rabbit. This is apparently according to the comparative sources known from the course of history and the translation of the Septuagint Harebat above. Regarding the rabbit, the biblical identification may be the rock rabbit that is found in many parts of Israel. But it is possible that the biblical rabbit was actually the rabbit. And maybe it's a different stock. It is also possible that this is one of the animals that has completely disappeared from the world like many animals that were and are no longer (such as the mammoth, the sword tiger, the dwarf elephant, etc.). This is a taxonomic problem that requires further investigation. We do not know any evidence to identify the rabbit as it is known today as "the rock rabbit". There is perhaps apparent evidence that the animal known as the "Rabbit of the Rocks" is not the biblical rabbit. This is because the name "rabbit" appears in the Bible as referring to humans - men. If the biblical rabbit was indeed the same rabbit we know today, then it is difficult to understand how a Jew, living in a culture of faith and mitzvot, would give his son a nickname - the name of an unclean, cowardly animal owner. It is true that in later generations we find a phenomenon of calling the names of unclean animals to the Jews - lion, bear, wolf, but all of them are brave and strong animals, and probably also in a context with national religious significance (lion - cub of the lion of Judah = a nickname for the tribe of Judah, bear - lurking bear is an Ari in hiding = a nickname for God, a wolf - Benjamin a wolf will prey = a nickname for the tribe of Benjamin). What's more, the biblical figures bearing this name had a very high status and importance in the religious social hierarchy of their generation, and then it would be difficult for us to stick to such a name that refers to a cowardly animal. However, it is possible that the intention of the Torah is that the rabbit is the rabbit and this is perhaps also the reason for writing these two animals together in one verse of the Torah in Deuteronomy XNUMX:XNUMX "and the rabbit and the rabbit" since the camel, which is fundamentally different from them, is written in a separate verse. What is written in Psalms Ked XNUMX "rocks are shelter for rabbits" leads to a very wide variety of possibilities, because rocks serve as shelter for a wide variety of animals. The rabbits are grown in a different way than the usual greens. These animals digest the food in a two-stage digestion known as coprophagy. After the first stage of digestion they take it out through the anus straight into their mouths in a semi-digested state and in the second stage they chew and digest it with final digestion. Preventing them from doing so harms their health as an important part of the nutrients, which their body needs, will not be extracted from the food as each of these stages is done in a different way in terms of the digestive processes. In this respect, their custom differs from that of a pig that feeds on faeces simply because it is "porcine"... It follows then that their food went down to the digestive system and was brought up again in the throat. The word "Gira" can be derived from the root "Gerer" (refer to the book of roots by Rabbi David Kimchi, one of the great grammarians). It is likely that the word is derived from the word "throat". This method of digestion is the passage of the food, a distinct two-step process involving the passage of the food a second time through the throat after it is brought up to it. In this the process is similar to that of the cloven hooves with 4 stomachs. Such a two-stage digestion method is also shared by other animals, such as the rat. It seems that the other animals that behave like this fall under the definitions of the Torah in relation to vermin. It should be noted that the phenomenon of elevating gira in other methods of elevating gira, ie less stomachs or elevating external gira, inherently involve a questioning of the validity of the sign as a kosher sign. This is perhaps the reason why the Torah states that the prohibition of unclean animals is due to the fact that they ruminate and do not spread a cloven hoof. After all, it seems surprising why the Torah mentions raising immigration as a reason for disqualification. Rather, it means, probably, because the classic gerbils vomit the food into their mouths from one of their stomachs and swallow it again into the appropriate stomach for further digestion. The words of Rashi HaMfarsh that the raising of rumen refers to vomiting from the inside, according to the context of his words, revolves around the issue of raising rumen of the classical ruminants, i.e. wild animals - deer, doe, goats, etc. and domestic animals - i.e. sheep and cattle, which are eaten. Therefore, they do not constitute a problem for the other immigrants as DA wants to claim. Even if it were possible to prove that Rashi was not accurate in the matter, then we are back to introduction A. Regarding the rabbits, we found a source in the scientific literature. Refer to the book: K, 1997. Schmidt-Nilson, Animal Physiology 5th Edition, Cambridge university press. p 149 The same is true in the animal and plant book of Ai - Azaria Alon, part seven, p. 90. Regarding the Beah known as the "rock rabbit" there may not be enough information today. We have not found a source in the scientific literature that deals with the matter thoroughly. In fact, we do not know at this stage whether in the field of animal science it is accepted that this animal is recognized as a living animal or not. There is the simple possibility regarding this animal that since rumination in the unclean animals is not perfect, it is at the extreme limit of bad rumination in that it does rumination as a purely external visual action. This is perhaps the reason why in tractate Chulin Net. Only the camels were mentioned as livestock. It is possible that the topic calls for a suitable study that we will try to realize. That is, whether this animal behaves like the rabbits or not. There are signs that the Hyrax may indeed be ruminating in some form. This is because we obtained information indicating that his excrement has a different character according to the seasons. Also, in the book "The Animal and the Plant of Ai" - Azaria Alon, part seven, p. 234, it is written that chewing it causes rumination. He will also refer to the book "Shihat Chulin" - Amitai Ben David, p. This is also reflected in Prof. Yehuda Felix's book - "Mirat Mishnah - Ha'i Bam Mishnah" p. 160, also in the Torah Betown "Kol HaTorah" Nissan XNUMX a certain supporting testimony is given in this direction. The thing that motivates DA's ridicule for not bringing up the migration of the rabbit and the rabbit is not the search for the truth, but mere heresies and heresies. As for the rabbit, for which there is proof of its identification, he failed to assess with certainty what is reflected in the differences between the various editions of Contresio that deal with the matter. What remains in his hands is only words of disdain in the Torah's assessment of an animal that is not yet identified with any kind of certainty as the biblical "rabbit". If we obtain additional scientific information, we will inform those who contact us about it. As a side note, it should be noted that the animals mentioned in the Bible and whose identifications are certain, the Torah is amazingly accurate. For example (with the exception of the unidentifiable rabbit) there is no animal in the entire world, not even in the New World - (America and Australia) that was certainly not known to the recipients of the Torah, that has such qualities except the animals belonging to the camel family (including the guanaco and its civilized descendants from the Andes mountains in South America including the Tibetan Lamas). The pig mentioned in the Torah is also the only one mentioned in the Torah as breaking a hoof and not raising a pig. He is also the only one like that in reality. The same is the case with the fish. There are all apparent reasons for the assumption that only a minority of the fish were known to the Torah recipients and later to the Sages. However, all animals that have scales also have fins exactly as ruled by the Halacha, we would say a piece of fish that has scales is known to be pure and the fish from which it was taken is definitely equipped with a fin.
1. We meant the animals known in the scientific world of that time and then even if there is an exception you can rely on the assumption of a large majority of the scaly animals.
2. Or will apply to the case mentioned in the introduction a.
As an addition to the above ideas, it is possible that the rabbit is included as such due to the fact that it appears to be a ma'ale gerah, as the Torah has listed meli gerah that are not meli gerah from the most similar to the farthest from the eleat gerah. For example, the camel does produce ruminants, but it is not a perfect ruminant since it is equipped with only 3 stomachs, unlike the other normal ruminants, so the process of raising ruminants is a little lacking.
The rabbit is an external ruminant and is not equipped with stomachs as ruminants at all.
The rabbit is the worst on the list in terms of his rumination and his actions are tantamount to rumination.
Nathaniel:
And here's something about believing in one alternative approach.
It does not describe institutions but statistics about details and the relationship between scientific knowledge and belief in God:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Nathaniel:
And another small addition: where do you come to the conclusion that my father actually "believes" and does not advocate the evolutionary approach for exactly the same reasons that I advocate it?
By the way - you might be interested to know that the entire scientific establishment accepts this approach and rejects the various and different substitutes.
For example, you should read the following statement signed by all the scientific factors in the enlightened world:
http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf
Nathaniel:
I don't do anything lofty about the rabbit.
I just want you to tell me why the Torah lies about this.
There are many other lies in it and in the Holy Scriptures but come face to face with one instead of trying to sweep it away.
Who said that when it is written in the Torah "no" at all they mean "no" as it means nowadays? Maybe you mean "yes"? The question of the meaning of the words can be applied to every word and with an appropriate effort we can convert the Torah into a Kama Sutra.
Michael R.
Do you want my account number?
The story of the rabbit does not take away any "piece" of credibility from me, you just treat it like a little child to an esoteric matter and make it a "loftgaschaft" and Mount Everest, and by the way, who said that the rabbit mentioned in the Torah is indeed the one we know today?
Maybe it's another animal that went extinct in the distant past like the dodo chicken or any other animal that didn't survive from then until today? You who attack that it is lies, where is your absolute certainty that it is the same animal?
Regarding Darwin, you reacted against me and I thought you were in the same boat as Avi Belzovsky, I was wrong, sorry, accept my sincere apologies.
Nathaniel Rice:
I forgot to respond to the claim about "my belief in Darwin".
It's just so stupid I didn't remember it even showing up.
I don't believe in Darwin.
Where did you make it?
I see the results of scientific research and I understand the mathematical proof of the principle of evolution. Thanks to the discoveries in the field of genetics, I also know how evolution works much better than Darwin did.
Nathaniel:
Ok.
Maybe you're really interested but you're not ready to put in the effort and you're asking me to put in the effort for you.
Maybe you want me to invest money in the bank for you too?
For now let's focus on the rabbit thing and try to finally answer my question.
Why did they write this lie in the Torah? What is the point of writing lies.
You keep trying to dodge but this kratom that I use every time hurts you and takes away another piece of credibility from you.
* The human
*With every discovery
(Correction following fast typing)
Michael R.
On the contrary, I'm very interested in reading, since this site is new to me (I found the site by accident not long ago) I would be very happy if you could bring me the links and save me the trouble, it's not a matter of idleness but of a lack of orientation.
I don't know which of us is actually living a lie, so spare me this nonsense.
Your blind faith in Darwin is no less foolish than mine.
You are using the story of the Kardom rabbit to dig into, the very prohibition of eating the rabbit is the constant and not the reason for it, I am not bothered if suddenly something else is discovered about this or that creature, and again, the Bible is not the guide to zoology or a magazine of National Geographic.
The nullity of the taste is not the nullity of the law. It was brought to emphasize the eternity of the imperatives without any relation to the fundamentally limited human understanding of their relevant or non-relevant meanings if any revelation and the passage of time.
…he didn't think at that moment
About humans, humans for the most part.
But they have already started thinking about themselves….
In the beginning the universe was created, this thing upset many people, and was generally considered a rather bad move
Nathaniel Reiss: It really wouldn't surprise me that someone who ignores any truth claim would also regard my unwillingness to repeat everything for the thousandth time... as a poor evasion attempt. After all, your whole life is based on a lie, so you have no problem adding faith in another lie.
I'm past the age where idlers will make me collect material for them that they don't want to read just by nonsense claims like this.
Regarding the rabbit - am I vomiting the living words of God?
Stupid expressions such as "the void of taste is not the void of judgment" were invented precisely to legitimize any avoidance of dealing with reality. If the taste is void then what was the point of God giving this taste?
I repeat: I did not give the example of the rabbit to argue whether it is allowed or not to eat it.
As a vegetarian, I forbid myself from eating it anyway.
I brought the story of the rabbit as an example of the false claims in the Torah.
I repeat and ask: What are we supposed to learn from the fact that the one who claims to have created all living things does not even know how the rabbit works?
Michael R.
A.) I will not do the Sisyphean work for you, if you claim that you have already answered my claims to other surfers on such and other topics on this site, please provide links to them, I would be happy to see them myself, I will not waste my precious time on it anyway, and I will consider this an experience Poor evasion on your part and nothing more if you don't.
B.) Every book of historical documentation is written in a certain chronological sequence, not so the Bible, the Bible is indeed the historical truth - from the stories that are indeed historical events and relevant to the historical description and not the teachings (the commandments of the Torah and the rebuke of the prophets) or morals or stories whose purpose is to raise questions Philosophies (Ecclesiastes, Job, the Song of Songs), but it is not a book of historical documentation built in chronological order.
c.) And regarding the rabbit (which I don't understand why you repeat it like a dog, return to Kio) the conclusion is that it is a non-kosher animal and forbidden to eat, even if it had belched the AB for the last time while extracting Niccolò Machiavelli from its left nostril.
In case you haven't heard about "The void of taste does not void the law", so even if X is written as the reason for a certain mitzvah and it is scientifically proven that it is not X anyway, the prohibition or obligation to a certain mitzvah (if it is a mitzvah he did) remains the same and it is not at all relevant to the reason for the prohibition.
Nathaniel:
I'm sorry, but you're just the thousand panhandlers trying to sell us their wares and I'm tired of repeating things I've already said dozens of times.
You are welcome to look for the wonderfully reasoned answers I gave to all your comments in other correspondences here on the site.
In any case - your claim that the Bible should not be considered a history book is one of your usual evasions.
The Bible claims that it is such, but because of the many contradictions there are those among you who have realized that they will not be able to deal with the contradiction between the Bible's presentation of itself as a history book and its incompatibility with history, and therefore (on the side of those of you who firmly claim that everything written in the Bible is also historical truth) They claim the opposite of what the Bible claims.
By the way: if you claim that the Bible is something spiritual then please tell me: what spiritual conclusion should I draw from the false claim that the rabbit ruminates? Should I draw the conclusion that you drew saying that a lie is good?
Michael R. Do me a favor, instead of dealing with the arguments in a serious and scholarly manner, you simply run away and casually dismiss it as "deprived of any basis", with forgiveness, I watched from someone who writes on such a respectable website that claims scientific respectability that would at least rise above such a level, I must have been deluded.
If that's what you're interested in, an argument of no practical importance, such as whether the rabbit does or does not ruminate, is simply a waste of time, it's like asking if the Rambam's book of medicine has medical health validity today.
Nathaniel Rice:
Look: your claims are devoid of any foundation, but it really doesn't interest me.
What I'm interested in is whether the rabbit ruminates or not.
I would love to see these "intermediate species", for some reason too many biologists and paleontologists have not observed these species.
"Increases in cases of clearing niches" - this linguistic Orwellianism is no more "scientific" than its spiritual description! of the act of creation in the book of Genesis, it is merely a trick of your tongue, father, and nothing more.
With word games and descriptions of reality with the help of philological spirals and verbal eights in the air I am also able to explain any phenomenon in the world with the help of Tolkien's books.
And with regard to science in general and physics in particular, all I have left to ask is whether science has really been able to answer David Hume's appeal to the principle of causality, or as you described it regarding physics - "no one has been able to see gravity" and yet the comparison in itself is not More than linguistic follies and in general the great personal difference between Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin as scientists.
To Michael R. Allow me to ask you back (like a good Jew who answers a question), after all, Lith Man Deplig that there was wall-to-wall agreement in the world of science until 60-80 years ago (depending on who you ask) regarding Aristotle's statement about the "accadems of the world" (the world/universe has always existed ) Then came the "Big Bang" theory and broke all the tools mainly thanks to Edwin Hubble and his successors (as well as the two scientists who discovered the remnants of cosmic radiation in the universe).
Suddenly it seems that everything that the Creationists/Clergymen/Clericals claimed (delete the unnecessary) seems much closer to Hawking (who remains in one big question about the first 3 minutes which according to him are outside the laws of physics) than to the absolute Aristotelian view that ruled the dome until less than a century ago.
And my question is, you can always attack religion and define certain things as irrelevant in light of revelations that seem to contradict what is said in the Torah, like the rabbit's dung raising the rumen, etc.
But all of this is irrelevant because whether she does or not (and some varieties do lift, and some don't, besides) all of this does not change the fact that Lith Man Deplig does not spread a horse in any case and is not kosher, so the whole discussion is hypothetical and without any meaning on the level the practical.
Therefore, is it not possible in so-and-so years that we will suddenly discover more scientific findings that agree well with what is said in the written and oral Torah?
Precisely because of this I see Prof. Aviezer's book as an excellent tool for understanding the reality described on the spiritual level in the Torah while on the scientific/physical level in the scientific description.
After all, you won't find a single equation in the entire Bible, nor dealing with exact science on the thousandth of a millimeter/second level or with single cells/approximations and galaxies beyond the Milky Way.
The Bible does not pretend to be a book of history and not a scientific book (which is exactly the fundamental mistake in understanding it), the Bible is a binding behavioral and moral instruction book as well as its study on the spiritual level without drawing scientific conclusions here and there and only as such it should be seen.
Nathaniel Rice:
So what in the end? Does the rabbit rummage or not?
to Nathaniel Rice. How easy it is in 150 words to attack millions of studies and billions of evidence, yes even those that you don't want to acknowledge the existence of intermediate species. Evolution takes place throughout time and increases in cases of clearing niches, such as the dinosaurs that disappeared because of the asteroid and after the dust settled almost all the niches were free for large animals.
If evolution is a pseudoscience then physics is also a pseudoscience, because no one has been able to see gravity…..
It turns out that David Falk and I didn't read the same book,
Partial quotations (from Prof. Aviezer's book), axiomatic assumptions that lack any scientific observational validity (by Falk), linguistic slurs (backed by countless serious spelling errors) and fundamentalist slurs (yes, yes, the fundamentalist is you David Falk, Avi Blizovsky and friends who turned Darwin to a martyr) in a pseudo-scientific theory that has lost its grip.
Suddenly, when it's convenient and we surrender to the facts of catastrophic events, all the creatures of the world rejoiced over a relatively short period of time and the arrival of new species that have nothing to do with their predecessors that died above the surface of the earth, the air or below the surface of the sea (in complete contrast to Darwin's theory which must be supported by mutant development over a much larger time interval and without assumptions of the formation of cataclysmic catastrophes).
He suddenly comes up with a theory out of nowhere about an accelerated process of mutations and "natural selection" that took place under these impossible conditions (without any actual finding to back up this process except for the feverish minds of Darwinist fundamentalists, not even a single fossil, any skeleton of any creature in an intermediate stage which had to be invented in light of this concept) in the transition between mutant occurrences in the relevant cells, suddenly the evolutionary "history" receives a pseudo-scientific twist that will "fit" the findings of contemporary science.
What a shame, but all that remains to be said here about David Falk is: "The wrongdoer is wrong."
A well thought out and very interesting article, thank you Avi for taking the trouble to present this article.
For this article we used OCR software at the time. I thought I had overcome all the problems that arise from this, but my vision is not what it used to be.
Huge amounts of kerat = ice
Provided that you make the convenient assumptions = that you assume...