The quotes appear in the book documenting a meeting of theologians that took place six months ago, but of course words cannot change facts - no evidence has been able to disprove evolution, despite the millions of controlled experiments
Pope Benedict XVI, who is the German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, addresses the issue of evolution for the first time as Pope and claimed that Darwin's evolution cannot be proven and that science has reduced itself unnecessarily.
In a new book "Creation and Evolution" published last Wednesday in the German language, Ratzinger praised the progress achieved by science, but warned that evolution raises philosophical questions that science alone cannot answer.
"The questions are not intended to compel people to decide between creationism, which in principle is asked to disconnect from science, or the theory of evolution, which covers its gaps and does not want to see the questions that lie beyond the methodological possibilities of the natural sciences," says the Pope. Under both theories, he prefers the theory of intelligent design, but said that science and philosophical reasoning work together in a way that does not rule out faith."
"I found it important to emphasize the topic of evolution, according to which this theory raises questions that must receive a philosophical answer and that in themselves lead to issues beyond the scope of science," the Pope was quoted in the past in meetings he had with his fellow theologians.
In the book, Benedict XVI refers to the comments of his predecessor John Paul II from 16, who said that the teachings of Charles Darwin are correct, as long as we take into account that creation itself was an act of God. And the previous pope said that "evolution is more than a hypothesis". "The Pope (John Paul) had reasons to say this" says Benedict. "But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not complete and is not scientifically proven." Benedict commented that the long period of time that the theory of evolution covers makes it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to prove or disprove the theory." "We cannot put ten thousand generations into the laboratory," he said.
The theory of evolution has been under attack in recent years by its opponents - most of them conservative Protestants known as "creation theory" supporters, who believe that living things are so complex that they must have been created by a higher power and not evolved from more primitive creatures.
The book, published by the German publishing house Sankt Ulrich, includes remarks made by the Pope and others at a meeting with theology students at the Pontifical Summer Meeting at Castel Gandolfo in early September. The Pope's comments were consistent with what he has said in the past, and are his central motifs that faith and reason are interdependent. "Science opens up large dimensions of logic and brings us new insights," writes the Pope, "but in the passion of the scope of these discoveries, it tries to take away from us dimensions of logic that we still need. The results of science sometimes lead to questions whose answers lie beyond the methodological canon of science, and it cannot answer them within its framework," writes the Pope.
Interpretation:
It took the church about 400 years to apologize for its attitude to Galileo, and just as no one tries to interpret literally the cosmology of the book of Genesis, according to which the earth is at the center of the universe, and no and no one tries to challenge the extent of the earth's sphericity and being a marginal factor in the universe, so in the future they will be seen as ridiculous The Masaf wars that have been going on for 160 years are against Darwin's theory of evolution, and no one would think of accepting the biology of the book of Genesis as a real fact (what is more, there are contradictions between the story of creation in chapter XNUMX and the story that appears in chapter XNUMX and is mistakenly considered an abbreviated repetition of it).
Although anyone who wants to can believe anything, and the fact that in Pakistan, for example, they believe that the truth of all kinds of conspiracy theories according to which the Jews are the ones who caused the events of September 11, the main thing is not to see the truth, but there should be a difference between ignorant villagers (such as those reflected in satirical extremism in the film Borat) and a man who is supposed (or pretends) to be one of the most important intellectuals in the world.
It's a shame Ratzinger isn't willing to shorten this unnecessary process. He should have done a simple thing: stand behind his predecessor's statement and not qualify it with all kinds of excuses. The previous pope did a lot of damage, but he also did one thing right. Ratzinger continues the damage, it's just a shame that he also wants to cancel the good legacy of John Paul II.
The Catholic Church is still strong, but fortunately it does not lack the ability to censor scientific findings in an age where information is widespread. It's a shame that the Internet, created thanks to scientific curiosity, serves as a platform for the transmission of delusional teachings, and they will remain delusional whether behind them is an organization of people who claim that aliens taught them how to lead their lives, and another organization that claims that aliens taught them to breed humans, or the Catholic Church that runs the The lives of billions.
40 תגובות
Don't be right, be smart!
Evolution is "right", so to speak, but - it is too ridiculous to inspire confidence.
I (and the whole universe) are too perfect - against all randomness!
to Aryeh Katz
Why even refer to the book of Genesis and not the book of Finnish or Japanese mythology?
Why should a story invented by one religion be superior to a story invented by another religion?
Science has advanced a lot since the 19th century and is simply today the only authority, any religious authority is at most a social authority.
Volikovsky raped in his theory both the science of geology, both astronomy and the archaeological and historical study of culture. I read a book by an astronomer (Sagan) and a geologist (can't remember at the moment) and each of them said that maybe in the other fields Volikovsky understands but in his field he shows ignorance.
Sagan even writes that an expert on the ancient cultures of the East told him that Volikovsky wrote nonsense but was very impressed by the astronomy which, as I remember, predicted that one planet, Venus, could be born from another planet - Jupiter, something that has no scientific basis and is just one example. - "I thought the opposite" writes Sagan.
The holes in the theory of evolution are the product of the invention of Amnon Yitzhak and Jerry Porvalen.
Hello Arya,
I hope you enjoyed reading the interesting article.
Every man in his faith. I am not ready to accept miracles as evidence, because they have never been proven. In any case, it is clear that the dispute here cannot be resolved by a simple discussion.
Thanks for the interesting and awaited discussion,
Roy.
Peace be upon you!
I read the article about Sagan that you referred to me, there was indeed a public meeting between them, I will update my source on this as well.
On the subject of interest:
The purpose of science is to explain phenomena according to the laws of nature. Indeed, according to the natural laws, the chance of the things that Velikovski claimed tends to zero. Indeed, Velikovski did not seek to prove his claims based on physical/astronomical data (even though some of his predictions in light of his claims were adjusted through space research), but through two areas: one is the study of documents Antiquities and the second is geological and other exploration of the earth's surface. Velikovsky, who was a scientist and not a religious man, had to find a "scientific-natural" explanation for the findings he discovered, and therefore asserted what he asserted. As far as I am concerned, as a person of faith, who is not committed to natural science (and this is the great shortcoming of science - he must explain every phenomenon using natural arguments, and he must not involve a factor outside the framework, i.e. the existence of a higher power. A scientist who does this will go beyond the scope of his duty, and this is again my main argument , that nothing can be proven through science regarding faith - neither positively nor negatively, since science deals with a completely different plane, and in any case there is no possibility of a contradiction between faith and science, just as there is no possibility of one of them proving the other), the lower the chance that such things happened naturally, In any case, I must come to the conclusion that these are miracles. From your point of view (like Velikovsky), as a scientist, it is impossible to introduce miracles into the existing system, therefore in the contradiction that exists between the laws of nature as they are known to us, and the historical and geological records, it is necessary to decide - or to give a different interpretation to the records (folk legends are not binding, etc.) , or to say that despite the zero probability, the chance of one happened to... You prefer the first way, and Likovsky prefers the second. I prefer to settle the contradiction in a "non-scientific" way - the existence of a higher power. This is what the argument between the three of us is based on (by the way, my belief begins with completely different things, so I do not "invent" the supreme power in order to settle the contradiction here, but since I believe in it, I have no problem accepting both your arguments and those of and Likovsky and live with both in peace).
In any case, all the rejections I have seen of Velikovsky's arguments (and not only from you) were due to the fact that it is impossible to agree with his arguments in terms of the laws of nature, and we did not examine his arguments by themselves (the main one of which is that in dozens of places in the world, at a date suitable for those periods, similar descriptions appear - although we should To know many languages for this purpose and to conduct in-depth research, but this is the reason why Lulikovsky has an advantage over other scientists, because he devoted the best of his years to the purpose of his research, and knew many languages).
And again, as I explained to you, I start from a completely different point of departure, Molikowski.
All good and Shabbat Shalom
lion
Hello Isaac,
I prefer not to enter the discussion via the network. My agenda is overloaded, and I don't see these discussions advancing us, since we also mix sex with non-sex. I will not argue about the faith of different people, and I certainly will not belittle them for their faith. There is no connection between the Torah, human 'races' and evolution.
Perhaps the day will come when I will write the book on the subject, or give a lecture on myths related to evolution. When the day comes, rest assured that I will publish it publicly for the knowledge of the curious and the knowledgeable.
I feel obliged to add one sentence, and quote two sentences from your mouth:
"You also have no explanation why such a delusional and crazy holocaust happened precisely in the 20th century and precisely in enlightened Germany."
"Have you noticed that the Heavens (Arabs), despite being barbarians, are all circumcised, and there is almost no idolatry among them?"
I think your second sentence gives an excellent answer to what you express in the first sentence. Anyone who throws stones at other people can surely understand how the efficient Germans can just shoot them.
Shabbat Shalom,
Roy.
lion,
We will continue where we left off.
You say that Sagan only proved that there is zero chance (aspiring to zero) of friction or collision of the various planets on Earth. But, the fact is that it is definitely enough to prove that it did not happen.
I will be precise.
It is possible that it happened, but the chance of that is simply zero. I don't have the exact numbers, but when we say zero, we mean a level of probability that will ensure that the event will never happen.
A quick example of the definition of a zero chance:
Quarks can pass through walls, in a phenomenon called tunneling. A tiger is made up of billions and billions of quarks. There is a chance that if all the quarks go through the wall at the same time, the tiger will also go through the wall. This chance is so small that we can determine that it will never happen for all tigers on Earth and on any other planet. But he exists. He's just… zero. This is also why any reasonable person believes he can hide from tigers behind a wall.
So when Sagan proved that the chance of the Earth hitting another planet was zero, he practically showed that there was no point in considering this possibility at all. If you believe that Earth has been hit by a planet in the past, you might as well believe in tigers walking through walls.
But you don't believe it, do you? This is basic logic, and it is the logic that guides us when we reject Volikovsky's theory.
Regarding your second comment:
Volikovsky claimed that the records of different peoples about the historical events prove that the things he claimed happened. But there are so many more plausible ways to explain everything he claimed (for example, unfounded legends or simply normal natural phenomena in the Bible), that we have no reason to believe that tigers pass through walls. It is much easier for us to accept reasonable and known possibilities about their development of cultural myths based on natural phenomena.
Response to Roy.
1- "You do not address the claims made against the Torah. If there is any problem, you say that there must be a scribal error, a Rashi error, and in fact - even if there is an error - what does it matter? The Torah is still right, even though it is wrong."
Well, I addressed at length the arguments put forward against the Torah. You have every right to claim that you do not agree with any word I said, and in your opinion it has been proven that the Torah was written by humans.
Let there be no doubt - if I thought the Torah was incorrect, I would not fulfill any mitzvah. The difficulties brought up by Michael are not significant for a person who knows the Torah of Israel. The Torah in the Bible was given from the mouth of God, but the Mishnah, Gemara, Rashi, etc. were written by humans, and from time to time mistakes are made. There are explicit verses in the Torah that deal with the case that God was wrong and... Allowed to do foreign work…. So why don't you and "Deat Emet" refer to these verses and every parenting treatise? Why do you make it difficult for the correctness of the Torah due to a scribal error or a wording error or a mistake in Rashi's understanding?! Do you really think that after 30 years of study, I haven't heard of a parenting treatise and I haven't read explicit verses in the Torah?!
Regarding the rabbit and the rabbit, things are completely simple - those who are familiar with the Torah, know that the Torah deals with the laws and not the natural sciences. The definitions of day and night of the Torah are not measured by measuring the intensity of light - 13.5 minutes after sunset the night begins when it is still possible to drive (carefully) without headlights, and the night ends about 80 minutes before sunrise. A person gets up in the morning and needs headlights to drive, and according to the Torah this is considered a day (almost) for anything and everything. The definition is also unscientific regarding predation. There is a prey animal that can live, and there is an animal prone to death that was still considered kosher.
If you want more such examples we can write a whole book. In short - the problem of the rabbit and the rabbit is not relevant to the wording of the Torah, because the law taught from it is absolutely correct: only these 4 animals are forbidden to eat, the rest of the animals (found in Israel at least) that spread a hoof or graze are allowed.
2- You were right, I did not study evolution at university, and as you noticed, I qualified my words and asked you as an expert to correct or expand, and the words were not said sarcastically or defiantly. In the Torah there is a great deal of appreciation for the sages of nature, and already during the mishna a special blessing was established when meeting a scientist.
3- I don't have a rebbe, and everything I write here is only my opinion.
4- As I explained, the expert in evolution has the right to speak first, and I have no problem with you correcting me in any matter. In order for us to move forward in the discussion, it must be understood that I really write what I think, not to defy or annoy.
To the point - it is also clear to me that there is a fundamental difference between an evolutionary creation and the creation of an egg in a laboratory. The question that many religious people ask: is it even possible to pass from inanimate to living, and if so, what are the evidences that the naturalists provide for this. (It must also be explained how an inanimate object gains the ability to feel, think, pain, joy, etc.)
The egg is just a possible example of a question. And it is clear that if there is proof that a transition between inanimate and living is possible in nature, then let's assume that a day will come and the sages of nature will overcome this obstacle.
The religious believe that this day will never come, and in our opinion there is no real proof that this is done in nature. If you have proof I would love to hear and be educated.
5- Let's assume that evolution has been proven, then how do you explain the existence of things in the Torah?
Have you noticed that most of the Indo-European race, despite all their wisdom and progress, have no real monotheistic belief. Those who believe in them, believe in refined idolatry. What makes hundreds of millions of enlightened people believe such a lame fantasy?
Have you noticed that the Shemi (Arabs), despite being barbarians, are all circumcised, and there is almost no idolatry?
I cannot say that this is explicitly stated in the Torah. But in the Torah there is a clear explanation for the phenomenon. If it were the other way around, it really wouldn't fit with the Torah.
If you want...continue to come.
6- In my opinion, it is appropriate to organize an orderly meeting on these issues. Long correspondence is uncomfortable and not always exhaustive.
Good night.
Hello Arya,
I appreciate your willingness to check my words. However, I also checked again, and I would like to direct you to the following link, which describes Sagan's meeting with Volikovsky at the 1974 AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) conference, and even contains a photo of the two together, on the podium.
http://csicop.org/si/2007-01/sagan.html
It's late and I have to get up early, so I'll leave the rest of the answer for tomorrow.
Greetings friends,
Roy.
Corrected a mistake at the end of the comment above "Those who do not study Gemara for many years do not see this."
A short response to Michael
Check your writing style, and you will see that it is condescending and hurts the feelings of believers.
As for "true opinion" - every word written by Arie Katz on the subject is absolutely correct. I will add that there are many half-truths on this site, and a shallow understanding of the topics he writes about.
Those who study Gemara for many years do not see this.
Peace be upon you!
I have no intention of arguing with you about Volikovsky, since it doesn't really matter to us, but since you claimed to me that Carl Sagan "succeeded" in refuting his claims in a public debate, I checked the matter with someone who is a bit more expert on this subject than I am, and here is his answer:
A. Between Velikovsky and Kagan there was never a public debate in the style of two people arguing, but a debate over the pages of Harper's magazine.
B. Kagan did not claim that there is no chance that Velikovsky's words are true, but proved that statistically, the chance of a collision between the planets tends to zero (note, not absolute zero, but tends to zero, also any process from the processes of evolution that happens, its chance is one in several, and so on) Against this, Velikovski argued two things: one, that there was no collision, but a rapprochement at such a level that affected what is happening here, something that raises the possibility, and two: he did not claim that the chances are one and the other, but that the things happened and the evidence that they were recorded by different peoples on the surface of the earth, as well as in various geological findings. One can argue with his claims, but to claim that the statistical chance is small and therefore it did not happen, is a debate on a completely different level and therefore not admissible.
Regarding "Deat Emet" - I went through a respectable number of their publications, and unfortunately I was very unfavorably impressed by the level of arguments there. Apart from a small number of difficulties (such as the question of the rabbit, to which they themselves give an answer, except that by means of a "correct" stylistic cover, they leave the innocent reader with the impression that these answers are stupid), the main difficulty of theirs is in the arguments that the Sages (they are our ancient sages) were not Knowledgeable in science and in reality. The Rambam already wrote these things, about 800 years ago, that the scientific things found in the Gemara should not be trusted, since the Gemara spoke according to the scientific knowledge that existed in its time, and when scientific knowledge changes (and as it probably will in another 500 years, they will treat with leniency what to divide from the scientific arguments of our time) there is no relevance to these things in any case, and things on which the halacha depends need to be checked. But what, the boss of "Torat Emet" and his people lived in ultra-Orthodox society, where the accepted norm is that everything said by the sages is the Holy Spirit and in any case they cannot be wrong Also in matters of science. I don't think so (and as the Rambam already wrote) and in any case I don't fall off the throne when it is proven to me that this is indeed the way things are. In one place it is claimed that Rashi (who lived about 900 years ago) did not know the anatomical structure of the female body. I can also prove that he did not know the geography of the Middle East. So what, does that make him a less successful commentator? I can get you very senior academics who take their hats off to him (as if he needs their approval). Only what, the one who repented because he was convinced that our ancient sages knew the average birth with the precision of a fraction of a second (and I don't deny it - they do it in value seminars), and suddenly it becomes clear to him that the peoples of the ancient world also knew it (it's really not complicated, take ranges from the eclipses, since a solar eclipse always occurs in the birth, and a lunar eclipse is always in the middle of it, and when enough observations at far ranges are averaged with great accuracy), then he realizes that he has been "worked on", repeats the question and runs to establish "Deat Emet". Take off the blatant and condescending stylistic cover from their stuff, and you won't find too much there. Moreover, a large part of their difficulties are quoted from the mouths of the rabbis themselves, only that they make sure to wrap the answers in the wrapper of a non-serious answer, as opposed to the questions that are "extremely difficult", and this is how the impression accumulates.
In short, those who really want to make difficulties difficult and get answers about them, their place is not there.
Roy:
It was not for nothing that I came to the conclusion that it was a shame to invest the efforts in Yitzhak.
I have no doubt that he knows that the quotes I gave are correct and that there are many more like them on the Daat Emet site I referred him to.
I have no doubt that he also knows that the person who compiled this material in Da'at Emet was a rabbi and head of a yeshiva - that is, he passed all the controls of the "professional" Torah system.
This does not prevent him from claiming that "the man does not understand the depth of the Gemara".
He is also not ashamed to make claims that are clearly false about what is happening in the discussion itself (as it is easy to read above) and allows himself to tell me (the man with whom he is debating - the man that the whole set of reactions he is in at that moment exists because of issues he brought up!) that I don't know what The discussion I initiated.
In short - this is a person who has no respect for the truth and therefore there is no way to convince him.
Hello Isaac,
We took a short break in our discussion, and I see that Michael was doing holy work in the meantime, as usual.
In your opinion, the main controversy about evolution is the inability of scientists to reproduce it in the laboratory. I am not going to continue the debate here, for a very simple reason: you do not address the claims made against the Torah. If there is any problem, you say that there must be a scribal error, a Rashi error, and in fact - even if there is no error - what does it matter? The Torah is still right, even though it is wrong.
That is, my friend, you are the Torah expert, or you believe that there are Torah experts who can explain every problem we raise.
Fine.
And now let me ask you: are you an expert in the theory of evolution?
The reason I ask you this is because you claim, as a person who is not familiar with the theory of evolution and who did not study it in academia (correct me if I'm wrong), that it will never be proven until a living creature is created in a laboratory.
And now I come, as a person who studied the subject of evolution in the academy and who read the subject from all sides, and tell you that - "No. This is not the necessary proof. Evolution speaks of something completely different. Creating a living creature in a laboratory will prove nothing and half-thing."
And what do you say?
You argue with me, as an expert of your own taste in evolution, believing that your opinion is equal to mine. Although it seems that you do not know the subject in depth, you dismiss everything I say with a wave of your hands, and repeat and state the problem (which is not related to the subject of evolution at all) because of which, in your opinion, evolution is not proven.
Come on…
In a real debate, there should be some acceptance of expert opinions. If you tell me that the Torah claims A and B, then I am ready to accept it from you, as a starting point for discussion. Why when I tell you, as an expert opinion, that there is no connection between creating a living creature in a laboratory and proving or disproving evolution, you don't accept my opinion?
Side note: if the information you are relying on here was given to you by rabbis, it still does not have to be true. The rabbis, their respect for the Torah stands in its place. But just as I will not ask them to interpret the Koran or the Dharmapada for me, I will not ask them for advice and information on the subject of evolution or quantum theory. They are not experts and their opinion is not acceptable here.
Before we really start talking here, I ask that you agree with me on this point as a starting point. Without that, we have nowhere to go, because you can always argue that evolution has not been proven by completely unrelated experiments.
Good Day,
Roy.
To Yitzhak Sade:
The area
Many claims, Michael's claim, unfortunately, you did not understand what we were discussing.
1- Buy the liver - you have no problem with the Torah or the Gemara. There is probably a scribal error or incorrect wording in the Rashi.
2-You sent me to the links without specifying what you want to prove. Bring the argument, and in addition attach a link. I have no intention of surfing 3 hours a day. I didn't understand what kind of animal there is in Israel and its surroundings that rears its head or spreads its hooves, except for the species listed.
The law of the Torah was very clear to the Israelites: anyone who moves his jaws, except for a rabbit, a camel and a rabbit, is allowed to eat, and anyone who breaks a hoof, except a pig, is allowed to eat. What's simpler than that?
As for the rest of the world, I don't know of an animal that is not from the family of camels / pigs / rabbits / rabbits / that meets this criterion. (Don't forget anything smaller than a rabbit, may be considered a vermin.) And if there is such an animal in Antarctica, then this is proof that the Torah is wrong?!
3- Beware of "true opinion". Some of his articles give the impression that the man does not understand the depth of the Gemara.
4-"Hypocrisy of creationists to demand that scientists produce an egg in a laboratory, or that they turn a single cell into one with organs." So how can you prove that this process is possible in nature? If in the laboratory of doctors and professors experts in genetics, it will never happen, then it does not happen in nature.
5-You can mock the Torah as much as you want. Unfortunately, the prophecies of the Torah were fulfilled, and are fulfilled even today. Your word laundry is designed to allow you to escape from reality. What do you want me to stop seeing 20 prophecies / blessings and curses that come true?! You also have no explanation why such a delusional and crazy holocaust happened precisely in the 20th century and precisely in enlightened Germany.
I must have remembered wrongly, and in the Torah it is written in Holin, page XNUMX: "Amimar said from his name, Darb Nachman, three reeds, one reed for the liver, one reed for the lung, and one reed for the liver," and after the reed enters the chest, it splits into three. That is, according to the Sage's method according to Rashi, the trachea splits into the lung, liver and heart. Minutes are extremely important.
I didn't check on the issue of raising the rumen of rabbits and rabbits, but someone who deals with zoology did check. It's even written on Wikipedia (nothing to do with religion) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabit.
Someone once said that it is very difficult to predict - especially in relation to the future.
You talked about things you see as prophecies.
All in all, I gave two examples out of a whole sea of examples that prove that before God prophesies about the future (something that is difficult as mentioned), he should learn to prophesy about the present (something that even humans know how to do).
Your words about the law being "proven to be true" are incorrect. You are welcome to delve into the matter here: http://www.daatemet.org.il/articles/article.cfm?article_id=13
I have already said that before referring to the Torah's prophecies of the future, you must check how it deals with the facts of the present. Anyone who dares to test it discovers a colossal failure. The claim about the prophecies of the future is fundamentally unfounded, and all your ability to grasp it is based on your willingness to interpret the facts according to the prophecy: "If something bad happened - it means that the Jews sinned, and therefore the prophecy is fulfilled, and if the Jews sin, something bad will happen." the subject of the holocaust and you see how people - in the name of religion - justify the death of babies of their day as a moral thing that God made sure would happen. Here it is already becoming a shame and disgrace.
When there is a scientific discovery supported by the facts - it really doesn't matter if it was discovered by a Gentile, a Jew or a monkey. The overwhelming majority of scientists (both among the Jews and - mercifully - the Gentiles. Both among those who read the "prophecies" and among those who spared themselves this nonsense) believe in its correctness. You, of course, are entitled to claim that you know better than all the scientists. Jose Ortega y Gast has already written about you in his book "The Rebellion of the Masses".
I don't know where you get the conclusion that it bothers me that the processes of evolution will be proven in the laboratory. It doesn't bother me at all. More than that - many of them have already been proven in the laboratory and many others will be proven. The very fact that you came to the conclusion that it bothers me shows how far your logical thinking goes wrong in your attempt to defend religion.
I simply denounced the hypocrisy behind the demand of the creationists that the science of evolution should provide them with nothing less than a video film that describes exactly - minute by minute - the development of life according to evolution while they do not make any such demand regarding the theory they support.
Michael made many claims, and from your words it is clear that you are not used to perusing the Holy Scriptures.
In no verse in the Torah does it say "that the trachea of the cow is divided into three parts, one of which reaches the liver".
Regarding raising the stomach in a rabbit and a rabbit - did you do an imaging test to check whether a rabbit and a rabbit, while eating, raise food from the stomach to the throat?
As far as I know, no one has done that. The infidels are content with the fact that these animals do not have 4 stomachs.
But all this discussion is unnecessary: the Torah is not a book of anatomy, the Torah teaches laws. The law written in the Torah has been proven to be true - there is no animal that moves its jaws or spreads its hoof except for these. All other animals that have one of these signs are both Ma'alot Gara and that spread a hoof and are therefore permitted to be eaten. in eating.)
Were the prophecies of the Torah also disproved?! Has the Torah's statement that there will be no peace in the Land of Israel when the Jews do not observe the mitzvot, been completely disproved, or is it completely fulfilled regardless of how many peace agreements are signed?
And from the people the rest of the prophecies? Were they also disproved?
Should I stop believing in the Torah because a gentile scientist who has never read the prophecies of the Torah, decides that the origin of species can be explained without an intelligent creation?!
Think about it.
And also think about what bothers you about the demand that the processes of evolution be proven in the laboratory of expert doctors.
I'll help you, you're afraid that scientists will never be able to reproduce the act of Genesis.
My responses to various claims raised here:
"The theory of evolution has not been disproved for a simple reason - it has never been proven"
come on?! Does anyone here really think that in order to disprove something you have to prove it? Isn't this a requirement that includes an internal contradiction?
As a principle we know that it is not possible to prove a theory but only to disprove it. Therefore, the repeated claims that evolution has not been proven are also laughable.
For example, the theory that the Torah expresses the knowledge and ability of an omnipotent being is very easy to disprove. It is enough to read in it that the rabbit and the rabbit rummage, that the trachea of the cow is divided into three parts, one of which reaches the liver, and more nonsense to see that this theory is unfounded. We don't even have to deal with all kinds of forced interpretations that try to tell us that six days are not six days and the like (although these are also nonsense). In the face of these clear contradictions that bring down the whole complex, there is no point in trying to invent all kinds of strange interpretations to restore faith in a very specific part of the Torah and explain that it actually talks about evolution.
A lack of refutation is indeed not enough to prove that God does exist, but fortunately we have, as mentioned, many refutations to the Torah and many of the factual claims of the religion. As long as God is not attributed any influence on the world, there is no problem in claiming that he exists, but there is no need for that either. Every time they tried to attribute to God some influence on the world, the refutation was not long in coming. That is why God is forced to hide in the gaps of our knowledge. This is called God of the gaps. He used to have many roles - he drove the stars in their tracks, he took care of the weather, he fertilized the fields and the animals (including humans) and the like.
As we increased our knowledge, its functions were reduced and so it will continue, apparently, forever until the believers cannot be convinced that faith by its very definition is based on accepting claims as truth without criticism.
"In order for evolution to be proven, one must observe the creation of life from a still life" (and other valid arguments).
is that so? Those who claim this must, according to the same logic, claim that in order for creation to be proven, one must expect the creation of life from an inanimate object by God!
Of course he does not make such a demand as he does not try to answer the question of how God was created and does not say that in order to prove his existence one must observe the creation of God from nothing in the laboratory. Doped demagoguery was and remains the only tool of the believers in their attempt to convince those who dare to think for themselves.
Is science a religion?
How is it possible to make such a claim without all of the lie detector's emotions jumping beyond their scale?
Science has no claims - it only has a method to find out the truth. The only thing they do to any claim made by a scientist is try to disprove it experimentally. What is religious here? Of course nothing.
I have more to say but I don't have the strength to try and convince people that it is clear that there is no way to convince them.
Hello Arya,
Thank you for your interesting answer.
I cannot comment on Volikovsky's theories in which he clashes with archaeologists and historians, as I know nothing about them. However, the science of history is indeed more fluid than the natural sciences, and relies mainly on archaeological and literary evidence.
It is more difficult for him to argue with physicists, because they recognize very simple laws that apply throughout the entire existence of humanity. When Volikovsky tries to argue with the laws of physics, I can easily understand why scientists react with such zeal. Is he any different from the 'Tsotson' boy from the children's story, who claimed he could shoot the sun with his water gun? The laws of physics clearly define for us what is possible and what is not possible.
Still, what if Volikovsky comes and insists that things happened as he claimed? What can be done with such a person? You can't even argue with him!
Thank you for the truth, Aryeh, that my opinion is biased in advance. When a guy comes along that I know claims - in all seriousness - that he can shoot the sun with a water gun (a claim equivalent to the claim that Venus rubbed the Earth and rained down mana on it), then I already form a very certain opinion about him.
When that guy comes now and disputes the accepted opinions of historians and archaeologists, I already know which side of the fence I'm on (without knowing a thing and a half about the debate). Does the negro change his skin and the tiger his friends? Such a person, who comes out as a buffer in front of all the physical sciences without even realizing the magnitude of his mistakes, I find it hard to believe that he is able to put forward established alternative theories for history and archaeology.
I agree with you that scientists, like any community, react with bigotry when you try to undermine their teachings. At the same time, we see again and again throughout science that as soon as enough evidence is gathered, change comes. This change can sometimes take decades, but when the time comes - and when the evidence comes - it comes.
All the best to you,
Roy.
Hello Roy!
Shouldn't he open a special forum for all these discussions? It's a shame that such discussions will be lost.
Regarding:
1- Apparently your honor does not understand what I am claiming (and maybe the other way around). How long does it take for a stalactite/stalactite of 3 meters in size to form in a stalactite cave? - about a billion years.
How long does it take to produce a sentinel and stalactite by human hands? - much less . Maybe a month, maybe half a year. Even if it won't be exactly the same 100%, it will be very, very similar.
How long does it take to create a cave with sea waves? How long does it take for a person to create a cave?
And for example - how long does it take to produce an egg in an evolutionary process - 3 billion years. How much time is needed to build the DNA and the protein and the yolk of the egg artificially? The materials that make up the egg are known to science, and all that is missing is to build the DNA. True, it's complicated and at the moment they haven't cracked all the processes yet. In the future, if the scientists succeed in producing an egg, it will be a very nice evidence in favor of evolution. And if they don't succeed, this will be evidence in favor of the creationists. Currently it is not possible to produce a still life.
Hope you understood me.
2-Bacteria are not animals according to the Torah, so it is of no interest to the religious. Even if you produce a dead bacterium (which is still not possible), it has nothing to do with the Torah.
3-As far as I know (and correct me if I'm wrong), changing chromosomes in the plants you write about gives the exact same species. A watermelon with more chromosomes is a normal watermelon, without seeds.
If you have any other information, I would love to hear and be educated.
4- I have heard about the creation of subspecies in the laboratory by genetic changes, or in nature through an evolutionary process, and I would love to hear more about it. As long as a seagull gives rise to another subspecies of seagull, this is considered microevolution. Their general appearance is similar, the number of chromosomes is the same, etc.
Humans also do not always give birth to each other, and sometimes a woman will die from pregnancy from a certain man. Theoretically, there can be tribes that cannot give birth to each other, and still all are human for all intents and purposes.
5- Regarding the rebuke of the Torah - it would be appropriate to open a special section on this. The Torah has about 20 prophecies (including blessings and curses).
It's amazing to see how things took place throughout history, and how some of them are emerging before our eyes.
Starting from the days of the Babylonian exile, the people of Israel completely stopped worshiping idols (which proves that the exile achieved its goal). When the Greeks tried to force this, a miraculous revolt broke out. It is clear that in every generation there were individuals who converted to Christianity or Islam, but in the generations close to the Holocaust there was a constant stream of assimilators of various types: from true Christians, to Yiddishists who lacked any connection to the religion of Israel and the Land of Israel. It was no coincidence that the center of assimilation was in enlightened Germany itself.
As mentioned above, to learn all the things, you have to open a book and spend a few days doing it. Those who do not understand ancient Hebrew will miss some of the things.
Peace be upon you!
As I already wrote in my opening, I have no interest in going against evolution, since the question of whether it is true or not does not teach us that it is for or against the faith, and therefore it is not relevant (even if there are religious people who think that it is impossible to believe in evolution and creation together).
My belief does not start from chapter XNUMX in the book of Genesis, even though, as I have already written, there is no contradiction in this chapter with the accepted theory today. If you want to expand on this, I can refer you to two books: one is Korman's Evolution and Judaism, the other is the book "Bereshit Bara" by Professor Natan Aviezer.
On the other hand, this does not contradict the fact that evolution is still a theory (although a theory that many experiments and findings indicate has emerged) that has not been proven, nor is there any chance of proving it fully (for the simple reason that there is not enough time to try and prove its truth, which requires billions of years), and therefore also Those who think that evolution and religion do not get along, can continue their belief.
Regarding Volikovsky - it is possible that what you say is true (however, I think that some of his predictions regarding astronomical findings were eventually adjusted) and indeed his theories were disproved, but that is not the point. I already wrote that there is no need to agree with the things he writes. I just commented that from reading his books you can get the impression that sometimes things that were claimed in the distant past, entire floors were built on them, and when there are sometimes contradictory findings, they prefer to ignore them, in order not to break the whole tower (I mainly mean a series of periods in chaos in which he argues with the archaeologists and historians, and less to Colliding Worlds and Land of Noise, in which he argues with the natural scientists). And with what fanaticism the scientists react when someone tries to undermine their teachings, a fanaticism that is not at all different from the fanaticism of the clergy.
In any case, those who really want to try to learn where the faith of people like me and like Yitzchak comes from, I'm afraid that the web is not the place for the in-depth study that is needed for this kind of thing.
Isaac,
If evolution had determined that eggs and chicks were created spontaneously, then that would have been a problem. But evolution does not determine such a thing, so I see no need to create chicks out of thin air in the laboratory.
I will try to 'shut your mouth', as you say, with another overwhelming evidence:
You have tuberculosis (mercifully). You can take two medicines. One of them is an antibiotic that was invented in the thirties and at the same time eliminated tuberculosis bacteria right and left. The problem is that since then they have undergone accelerated evolution, and today there are many bacteria that are immune to those antibiotics.
The second option is to take an antibiotic developed in recent years, designed to bypass the anti-antibiotic mechanisms developed by the bacteria.
So, the decision is yours. Either you believe in evolution and take the antibiotics that also work against the bacteria that have undergone proven evolution, or you don't believe in evolution. In this case you take the old antibiotics, which will not affect the improved bacteria.
If you are willing to act on your faith, pray. If you are ready to give your children the old medicine, that too - please. But don't blame anyone but yourself when you find that the evolved bacteria are unaffected by the drug.
2. There is already evidence of evolution that created plant species with different numbers of chromosomes - also in the laboratory. There are also laboratory experiments that have succeeded in creating new species of bee that cannot mate with each other, or produce offspring with the old species. Good enough?
3. This principle interests me. Is there a period in the history of the last 2000 years in which a part of the people of Israel -=no=- worked idolatry?
1- In order for billions of believers to believe in the theory of evolution, a very simple thing is needed - a chicken egg will be produced and a chick will develop from it. As long as you don't agree to manufacture it, billions of believers find this theory problematic. An egg is inanimate for all intents and purposes, and there is no reason in the world that it would not be possible to produce such a thing in a laboratory. So instead of moralizing us that we insist against scientific findings, just shut us up with overwhelming evidence.
2- Any evidence for evolution that does not produce a new species with a change in the number of chromosomes, (and as long as the new species can give birth from the old species, then at all we do not see it as a significant change) does not contradict the Torah. What's simpler than that?
3-The principle of rebuke is one - when the people of Israel worship idolatry, then a disaster will occur that will destroy many of the people of Israel. During the Babylonian exile, the people of Israel worshiped idols, so Nebuchadnezzar put an almost total curse on them. During the days of Ashkenazi Judaism, many Jews converted to Christianity (mainly in Germany).
The Nazi holocaust was much easier than the Babylonian holocaust, and it too borders on fantasy, with all its illusory race theory, and the fact that it was accepted in enlightened Germany as absolute truth.
lion,
When you write that chapter XNUMX of Genesis should be read with an open mind, a question must be asked. Who will decide what to ignore and what not? Who will determine what is true and what is a myth?
The great advantage of science is that it can be tested in a simple way. You come up with a theory, you predict what will happen in the future, and then you check if it actually happens. Evolution has passed this test in millions of experiments in biology.
The Bible? Only if you decide after the fact what the poet intended.
You are right because the question is not about the order and the very appearance, but simply whether there is a God or not. Science cannot prove or disprove God, nor does it try. I am sorry to say that on the contrary - it is religion that often tries to disprove solid scientific theories that are contrary to its worldview.
Regarding Volikovsky:
From my familiarity with Volikovsky's writings, and more precisely from my familiarity with scientists' debates with him, he is not a source you want to cite.
Volikovsky's main theory was that the planets - Venus, Mars, Jupiter and all the rest - rubbed against the Earth at a certain stage and thus he explained many natural disasters.
Although the history and myths he describes in his books are based on deep knowledge of the various cultures, Volikovsky's theories are ridiculous - plain and simple. Physicists and astronomers tried to check how his ideas fit with the laws of gravity and the orbits of the stars, and found that there is no dawn for these ideas.
Volikovsky's theories sound very beautiful in spoken language, but when you come to examine them objectively, you find that there is no logic behind them. Venus is unable to rub against the Earth. A hot star is not related to the fall of the tower of Babel. The Earth has never been - and never will be - a satellite of Saturn. These suggestions are all very colorful and very intuitive, but they have been disproved a long time ago. In fact, Carl Sagan 'rose to prominence' as a scientific explainer when he refuted Volikovsky's claims one by one in a public debate.
The theory of evolution was corrected by ideas of catastrophic evolution, but without connection to Volikovsky. We find evidence of rapid periods of evolution after catastrophes, so science has indeed changed its collective mind and given another possibility to the course of evolution. The scientific community can certainly accept hypotheses, but only if there is evidence to support them.
I understand that you have read Volikovsky's books. In order to balance the equation, I suggest you read an article by Isaac Asimov that discusses Volikovsky's ideas in all seriousness, and refutes them one by one. I'm sure you can also find the minutes of Carl Sagan's public debate with Volikovsky.
Wishing you a good week,
Roy.
It's very strange to me that at the beginning of the 21st century people are still arguing about things that were relevant in the 19th century.
First of all, I think that the period in which an aura of "holiness" was attached to everything claimed by thoughtful scientists has passed away.
As a matter of fact, whoever reads chapter XNUMX of the Book of Genesis with an open mind, I think he will find a description very similar to the order of evolution: the creation of the earth, the appearance of the land, the vegetation, the fish, the reptiles and the birds, and only after that the terrestrial animals and finally man.
The question is not about the order and the very appearance, but whether this development happened by chance or through a deliberate hand. There was not, and never could be, an answer to this question given by science, since it is beyond its scope (science is concerned with "how" and not "why").
Even the theory of evolution itself is still full of certain holes, as a result of which various "improvements" have been proposed over the years, such as neo-Dinism based on mutations, or catastrophic evolution proposed by Immanuel Volikovsky in his book Land of Noise (published in English around the sixties of the last century, in Hebrew before single years). In general, those who want to be proven that not everything that is published in the name of scientific proof means that it has been proven, and science, at least when it comes to the study of the past, is based a lot on hypotheses and half-facts, in the hope that they turn out to be true, is welcome to read Volikovsky's books, and especially the series "Periods of Chaos" ( Most of it came out in Hebrew recently). Even if you don't agree with every word he writes there, his things are fascinating. It is also recommended to read his book "Boycott in the Name of Science", which clarifies that science is also a form of religion, and those who do not follow the pattern will behave accordingly
1. Even the wretched animal is a marvelous machine that cannot be produced in nature or in a laboratory 'spontaneously'. The theory of evolution also does not claim the spontaneous creation of animals or cells. According to evolution, the primary cells arose in a series of processes driven by natural selection. Those processes are not completely clear to this day, but new studies are coming out in the mornings in an attempt to decipher the enigma of the initial evolution of organic molecules into cells capable of replicating themselves.
2. I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the specific chapters and verses in which the prophecies are described.
2. c. If the Azino poem predicts the systematic slaughter carried out by Nebuchadnezzar during the Babylonian exile, and at the same time it also describes the holocaust of European Jewry, don't you think it is possible to adapt it to any event of slaughter of Jews that happened throughout history? What is the point of such a prophecy? Do you believe that it proves the correctness of the Torah, if it can really be interpreted for a significant part of the cooks in the world?
3. Microevolution does not set such limits. If you are willing to accept microevolution, then you must also accept the fact that humans evolved from earlier creatures. You cannot say "I accept the whole theory, even the part that conflicts with the Holy Torah." It's all or nothing. Anything else makes no sense to me.
Have a good week Roy and Chen Chen for your quick response.
1-The theory of evolution claims that a still life can be produced.
Nowadays it is possible to manufacture spaceships, nuclear bombs, supercomputers, MRI, and other wonderful things. If so, why don't they produce a wretched animal in laboratories?
As long as it is not possible to produce "artificial" life from an inanimate object, there is no certainty that this is possible in nature spontaneously.
2-You can read the rebukes of the Torah:
A- You rebuke my constitution for prophesying the Babylonian exile at the end of the book of Leviticus.
In the rebuke "because you will come" in Deuteronomy prophesied the second exile.
C- The song Hearken (3 passages after that you will come) prophesied the systematic slaughter carried out by Nebuchadnezzar during the Babylonian exile. Miraculously, it is quite similar to the Holocaust of European Jewry.
In order to understand all that has been said about the reproaches, it is advisable to study it with someone who is familiar with the language of the Torah and the history of the people of Israel, but even those who study it alone will see the surprising similarity to the events that happened to the people of Israel.
3- Adam and Eve were created as individuals. And from them, in the generation of sailing, different peoples were created.
4- I would be happy to correspond with you outside of the site, please contact me at my @.
Hello Isaac,
1. Already decades ago, they were able to observe the creation of organic molecules in the laboratory, under conditions simulating the beginning of the earth. The first primitive cells could have formed from these organic molecules.
The processes in question require billions of years of evolution, so they cannot be completely repeated in the laboratory, but many indirect proofs can be obtained.
2. I would love to hear about these proofs for the Torah.
3. The same goes for microevolution written in the Torah. I would love to hear where it is written and in what form.
Thanks for your comments,
Roy.
1- For evolution to be proven, it is necessary to observe the creation of life from inanimate objects. At the moment this is not possible even under laboratory conditions.
An event that cannot be performed in a laboratory will never occur in nature by chance.
Is there a case where a single cell has been observed upgrading itself to have organs, male and female?
2- Your argument that the Torah has never been proven is very problematic. In the Torah there are rebukes that exist throughout the long history of the people of Israel.
3-"Micro evolution" is written in the Torah, so it is not a refutation to write in the Torah.
In my opinion, it is possible to formulate religious belief and the theory of evolution in such a way that they do not contradict each other. Belief in the existence of God is the "default" of the human thinking ability regarding the question: "How did it all begin"? It is clear that the concept of "divinity" is also not a good solution to the problem because it does not give an answer to the question: "Who created God"?
Unfortunately, this last question doesn't even have a default answer. Hence the question "Who created God"?
Banned by the religious establishment of all religions!!! This question, in its deepest meaning, is questionable and is a real threat to the concept of "divinity". In an interim essay, it must be remembered that the primary importance of the concept of "divinity" is not in the study of the natural sciences but in general existence Behavior in human society that is valid as "iron laws" is given to them only by virtue of being a "divine commandment". This is also the reason, from the sociological-psychological point of view, that changes in the declared position of religious orthodoxy regarding evolution and creation can be slow, so as not to create a sharp break in the opinion of the crowd regarding to these issues. In any case, it seems that the required solution to the mutual relationship between the "theory of creation" and the "theory of evolution" is the inclusion of evolution as a part of creation, or in slogan formulation "God created evolution"
I agree with your statement, Father, that there is no need to balance every Torah. At the same time as scientists we must remember what are the tools at our disposal to understand the surrounding? In the end, you will agree with me that the facts on the ground we logically put together with the help of our minds (it will be limited in one way or another) and therefore it must be taken into account that it is possible that seeing reality as it is perceived by us does not necessarily reflect reality. To say that the non-refutation is sufficient for us to understand that evolution did occur is just like saying that the non-refutation is sufficient for us to understand that God does exist. This is not science - this is an anecdote.
Scientists should always remember to be modest in their determinations which are becoming more and more decisive every day. You know very well that few (if any) scientific findings have remained true for many years. As they once thought that the world was flat and over time they discovered that it was round, so today we see the fossils and describe how one creature became another - probably in a thousand years this thinking of Darwinian evolution will appear to the scientists of the future as idolatry and they will laugh out loud at their ancestors and their strange ideas.
Your basic mistake, father, is that you think there are two competing versions here.
When it was said in the book of Genesis "And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and a body"
These words can be interpreted according to the Darwinist theory as well as according to other theories.
Anyone who thinks these words explain how man was created-
It is only because it represents God and his actions in a certain way.
Yuval Naman was a great physicist.
It is not clear to me what he was like as a philosopher.
The fact that you attack evolution all the time only shows that you know it is true.
I accept the diagnosis of Prof. Yuval Naman, who I had the honor of hearing four of his lectures on matters of evolution, that the non-refutation is sufficient for us to understand that evolution did take place.
There is no need to balance every Torah, science is not a state television channel that must balance opinions. If the chance that evolution is correct according to the experiments conducted is 99.999999% and that of the religious version is 0.000000000000000000000000000001% (and I am large), we should rely on evolution. Courts have convicted people of murder with much lower probabilities.
Avi Blizovsky says: "After 160 years of repeated proofs, the theory of evolution has never been disproved, and really its degree of correctness is just like the degree of correctness of whoever carried out the attack on the twins."
This sentence is very strong. The theory of evolution has not been disproved for a simple reason - it has never been proven. There are scientific facts in the form of fossils that support this or that logic brainchild of the former Rev. Charles Darwin and Mr. Wallace. These saw the facts and developed a thesis according to the findings. Was it really so? It's possible. Did God create us in seven days of creation? Equally possible. Did the Jews bring down the twin buildings in New York? Hmmm... to be honest - in terms of the 100% uncertainty, then yes - it's definitely possible that these were the Jews (we - I'm Jewish for all intents and purposes). There are facts of one kind or another that imply a lot!!! These were radical Islamic activists. But the truth as it really is - is not completely known to us. It is illogical that the Jews demolished the buildings just as it is illogical that God created the world. In the end it is about human logic. What constitutes our logic - this is the basic question and when we know how to answer it, perhaps we can begin to examine the fruits of this logic.
Greetings friends of the profession,
Ami
Avi!
I can introduce you to very senior scientists in the very exact sciences (mathematics, computer science, physics) who claim that the hypothesis of evolution is something between religion and science.
You are talking about 160 years of repeated proofs - but in fact these are "only" facts that today point towards the truth of the aforementioned theory. This absolutely will not necessarily remain the case in the future.
Also know that there are quite a few people (like me) who see the religious value of the Darwinist interpretation of the creation story.
The ridiculous story in the whole matter that the leaders of the Christian religion never tire of confronting moral truths with scientific truths.
Happily, the religion of Israel has a long tradition of respect for science and an understanding that these are quasi-parallel planes.
(an understanding that is not always prevalent in the Jewish street).
Best regards
pleasantness
The religious person is not ready to accept that he is a part of nature, he must and needs mentally to think that there is some "someone" who created him personally.
That is, what a religious person thinks about issues related to this need of his belongs to psychology and not to the natural sciences.
Yes, any person who doubts this theory or even parts of it will find it difficult to contribute, at least in the natural sciences (there are religious scientists in other fields and those of them who deal with the natural sciences know how to get along with a universe of billions of years and also with evolution).
After 160 years of repeated proofs, the theory of evolution has never been disproved, and really its degree of correctness is just like the degree of correctness of whoever carried out the attack on the twins.
The previous pope had already determined, the current pope received funding from the people of the Discovery Institute for his election. As far as I'm concerned, the previous one closed the matter and now it's only a matter of time until they recognize it. It's just a shame that we'll lose a few generations of scientists along the way.
To my father
Are you ready to explain the many fanaticisms that you keep revealing in everything related to Darwin's theory of evolution?
Why is it good?
And if there will be a number of people who will question this theory or even parts of it, doubt? Does it offend you personally? Will it harm the development of science or something similar?
The problem with this type of fanaticism is that it may lead, even when it comes to developed and educated people, not only to simple mistakes but also to blindness and delusion. Like for example the relevant examples you gave above.
Do you really believe that the degree of proof of the theory of evolution is similar or approaching that of the proofs regarding the centrality of the sun or regarding the twin attacks?
From the quotes you brought, it appears that the Pope, being a serious and careful man, probably consults with people who understand something in science, and therefore he did not say anything that a serious scientist could prove to be untrue.