The manifestation of Supreme Intelligence

One of the greatest disservices that evolution's blind watchmaker thesis has done to mankind is to deprive it of that which should be manifest to any thoughtful person, that the universe is saturated with plan and purpose.

Molecular machines, although it may often seem so, are not made with a blueprint at hand. Yet, biochemists and molecular biologists (and many scientists of other disciplines) are used to thinking as an engineer, more precisely a reverse engineer. But there are no blueprints … ‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’: we know that Dobzhansky (1973) must be right. But our mind, despite being a product of tinkering itself strangely wants us to think like engineers. (Walter Neupert, "Highlight: Molecular Machines," Biological Chemistry, Vol. 386(8):711, August, 2005. Emphasis added.). 

I actually don't know why Dobzhansky must be right? As a professional engineer with a PhD in Electrical Engineering, I am astounded at the coded information (surpassing anything that we engineers have been able to do even with Shannon communication theory, control theory and Turing machines) in the DNA nanotechnology molecular machinery of the cell. Wherever we have checked into the origins of systems of coded-information/Turing machines, intelligence is always implicated (check the manufacturer's label on your PC). So when we see the same systems (without the manufacturer's label) in the DNA of the cell, then we are entitled to conclude that intelligence is implicated.

Here is what would convince me that Darwin and his successors were on to something: provide a detailed Darwinian pathway for the emergence of the molecular machinery in the cell with probability greater than 10^(-150) starting from dead chemicals (*). A detailed Darwinian pathway is one that may use any chance or natural processes, but it may not appeal to intelligent guidance. The outcome should be judged by qualified experts on both sides of the evolution-creation controversy. Alternatively, see here.

In Chapter 19 of Challenge of Creation, the author writes that some scientists admit they do not know how life originated via naturalistic processes but that other scientists feel that "there is a viable naturalistic explanation" for the origin of life". The question is not what scientists believe or feel. The question is what have they actually demonstrated? Come to think of it, if R. Slifkin is correct, he might be able to win a million dollars here.

(*) There are about 10^80 elementary particles in the universe. The properties of matter are such that the transition from one state to another cannot occur faster than 10^45 times per second corresponding to the Planck time, the smallest meaningful unit of time. Assuming an age for the universe of 13.7b years according to the evolutionists, that is about a billion times younger than 10^25 seconds. Putting that all together, there could not be more than 10^150 events in cosmic history. So a probability bound of 1 in 10^150 is a universal probability bound using all the probabilistic resources of the cosmos according to consensus science. Emil Borel provided a more stringent bound of 1 in 10^50, but we want to make it as easy as possible for evolutionists to provide the requisite scientific demonstration. Dobzhansky was talking about biological evolution but scientists have extended the blind-watchmaker thesis to chemical evolution as well. Any combination of biological and chemical evolution are addressed in this post, and that is what is meant by a Darwinian pathway).

Creator or Blind Watchmaker?

Darwin's Blind Watchmaker Thesis is the current scientific consensus explanation that accounts for the origin of the species. It claims that the diversity and complexity of life (e.g. eyes, wings, and the mammalian brain) is an accidental result of an unguided purely natural process.  R. Slifkin claims that evolution’s Blind Watchmaker Thesis is compatible with traditional beliefs about G-d. There are four problems with this claim.

1. Is evolution as defined by the scientists true? Scientific evidence for this claim has not been produced to the level of confirmation standard in the hard sciences. Only when the scientific evidence has been produced, need we ask if it is compatible with Torah,
2. As a religious Jew,  R. Slifkin’s view of science is actually something quite different from the scientific consensus. His view is that G-d guides evolution---contradicting the scientific consensus of accidental unguided evolution. Indeed, contra R. Slifkin, evolution’s Blind Watchmaker Thesis is incompatible with Torah.
3. If R. Slifkin allows himself leeway to contradict the scientific consensus then the same leeway should be allowed  to those who believe in the historicity of the Torah’s account of creation. Yet R. Slifkin consistently insists that we are bound by the vaunted objectivity of the scientific consensus.
4. Both theistic and atheistic forms of evolution are committed to scientific naturalism, something that contradicts the Torah’s account of the meta-natural Creation Week ending with the first Sabbath of creation.

The last objection is critical because it shows R. Slifkin’s claim to be in violation of fundamental principles of Torah. When we make kiddush every Friday night, the one thing we are not doing is celebrating evolution’s Blind Watchmaker Thesis.

Tables 1 and 2 (here) compare the Torah's meta-natural creation week with Science's Blind Watchmaker Thesis (Table 1) as well as with R. Slifkin's approach (Table 2).

The tables are tentative. I hope that readers might comment on them (producing prooftexts where they disagree). While I am unable to commit to respond to all of the comments, I will PG try to read all of them, and I'll change the tables in response to pertinent new information. I truly appreciate all our readers for taking the time to comment to this post and all the previous ones.

Latest developments: R. Slifkin’s refusal to debate

This is a brief update as readers are probably familiar with some of the details of this issue (also summarized in the attached letter).

On the extended series of posts and comment threads, NS presented 12 reasons/excuses for not debating the scientific validity of the evolution of the species. Those reasons were already analyzed in the summary letter; nevertheless NS has not accepted to debate.

NS wrote that should I send new comments inviting him to debate or to answer my summary letter, he is not going to post them. He also wrote he is not going to allow me to use his forum to elaborate on the evidence supporting or refuting the evolution of the species. In fact he did not publish my last answers regarding these issues although he continued publishing other bloggers questioning me on this subject. NS has repeatedly refused to answer my summary letter. Recently he published his own summary. So I wrote to him:

“I read your summary letter. Again you are misrepresenting my position (and even your position). Are you ready to discuss your summary letter point by point?”

He refused to discuss its contents. I am still willing to discuss in an intellectual, multimedia (sources on screen), respectful, protocolized, neutral, public forum with NS or a representative (Jewish or not) of his choice, on any scientific issue relevant to his 5 controversial books, i.e.

1. Creation of the universe (Big Bang Cosmology).
2. Chemical evolution (increasingly complex elements, molecules and compounds developed from the simpler chemical elements that were created in the Big Bang).
3. The age of the universe.
4. Biological evolution (of the species).
5. “Dr. Betech's own model of recent special creation” (as NS named it).
6. The accuracy of science-related statements made by Chaza”l.
7. After the debate on the scientific issues will be concluded, I am also ready to debate the validity of the theological sources presented by NS on these issues.

At the end of Masechet Sotah we have a description of the pre-messianic times, including the prophetic statement “vehaemet tihye neederet” (the Truth will be absent). Shenizke bekarov lebiat Goel Tzedek berachamim.

Guest Post: Is the Purim story a model for Theistic Evolution?

The comparison of theistic Darwinian evolution with the providence behind the Purim story is faulty for the following reason. The classic commentators to Megillas Esther typically pinpoint which events in the story proved to be pivotal and directly providential. Examples include: the unlikely refusal of Vashti to appear at the feast, The fortuitous overhearing of the plot against the life of the emperor by Mordechai the sleeplessness of the emperor together with the merit of Mordechai read to him precisely when hamman pays the emperor an unusual early morning visit the stumbling of hamman upon Esther at the moment the emperor returns from his walk. etc.,etc. 

The commentators imply that the Divine providence behind the Purim story is not merely perceived through the ultimate salvation of the Jews from extreme peril at the hands of Hamman. It is the specific timing and manipulation of specific events and characters involved as the story unfolds which make the divine providence manifest in the Purim story. True, they aren't open miracles which defy any law of nature, but the Purim story serves to explicitly place G-d within the human world and serves to illustrate His active interest and ongoing involvement in human history and the fate of the Jews. It is not just a story about faith in the unseen hand Divine Providence. It is a story which serves as confirmation and vindication of that faith in the real world. The events cannot be adequately explained by an observer, without invoking a Providential hand. 

The Divine providence which Rabbi Slifkin is attributing to Darwinian evolution is abstract and completely imperceptible to any theoretical close observer. One only "sees" G-d's involvement in these events (or in their final result) as purely an expression of faith. From an observer's point-of-view, this faith is arbitrarily inserted by the believer and contributes nothing to the understanding of the events in practical terms. This is not how the commentaries describe the Providence behind the events of the Purim story. Thus, ID is more closely parallel to the Purim story inasmuch as it pinpoints those precise areas where the materialistic explanations fall short and an Intelligent force becomes manifest in the development of life. 

And just as the classic commentators certainly do not exclude the expression of faith that G-d is ultimately behind all events of history and all natural processes, even if they are not manifest, the proposition of ID similarly does not rule out such a faith. It merely analyzes if and when Divine providence upgrades to a more open and manifest level--when materialistic forces decisively fail to deliver a cogent explanation for the phenomena and it is scientifically compelling to invoke a non-material manipulation. But Rabbi Slifkin's charge that the ID approach is heresy reveals a deep misunderstanding of the cautious, critical method of identifying those demonstrable areas of a higher manifestation of Providence evident in the development of life.

(The above was submitted as an anonymous comment, but seems important in its own right. Comments to it will be open as usual. I very much appreciate the respectful tone that those who have contributed comments have adopted. This is not to say that vigorous critiques of our posts are not appreciated. They are and they allow us to achieve clarity, if not agreement. Also, as is usual on this blog, authors of our posts are unfortunately unable to guarantee a response, much as they would love to do it)

Legitimate Torah Attitudes

Post deleted (Oct, 17, 2010) at the request of R. Lampel due to errors in in it (see comments). R. Lampel will revise this article. With our sincere apologies to our dear readers. YSO

What's Wrong With Rabbi Slifkin's Theology?

In apparent response to criticism on this blog, Rabbi Slifkin replies with a passionate, vigorous, well-considered theological argument in favor of theistic evolution. And although I think he invokes the "k" word a bit too much for my tastes, his argument seems otherwise compelling, at least ostensibly. So I suppose the question is: What’s wrong with Rabbi Slifkin’s theology?

Rabbi Slifkin writes that he "cannot see any difference - any difference at all" between attributing the hidden Hand of God to "the [apparently] random, unplanned, circumstantial luck of history" and attributing it to "the neo-Darwinian evolutionary mechanism of random genetic mutation plus natural selection, which most scientists see as explaining how life evolved".

But the difference is obvious. It is glaring. And it is inescapable. Nowhere in the Torah are we enjoined to understand the natural phenomena of our universe in meta-natural terms. On the contrary, as Rabbi Slifkin so eloquently puts it, "The entire purpose of Purim is to teach us that even seemingly chance events are seen by their eventual results to have been part of a greater plan, and not as random as they superficially appeared" (Challenge pg. 292-3).

On the other hand, and in diametric opposition, the Biblical account of ma’aseh bereishis is described in purely meta-natural terms. Furthermore, every single pre-evolutionary massoretic source known to us describes it in precisely the same terms! The reason the Torah bothered to describe the particulars of ma’aseh bereishis (as opposed to just stating the fact of Divine Creation, as it does several times later on) is precisely this: to inform us that ma’aseh bereishis is impossible to describe via currently operating, seemingly random chance mechanisms. The story of ma’aseh beresihis is an open testimony to Hashem’s presence, not a hidden one.

Now, there are several possible responses Rabbi Slifkin can avail himself of but none of them are capable of defeating this argument. Let’s explore the possibilities.

1) There are some post-evolutionary Rabbinical sources which entertain the possibility of evolutionary theory as a model for the unfolding of Creation.

At the risk of invoking the wrath of my dear readers, I maintain that a tiny smattering of post-evolutionary sources do not possess the ability to unseat our long-standing mesorah. Especially when their statements can easily be attributed to pedagogy and especially when their real opinions are indeed aligned with the mesorah.

2) There is overwhelming physical evidence proving the evolutionary model of common descent ("my studies of zoology have led me to the conclusion that the evidence for common ancestry is overwhelming") thus justifying a rejection of our 3000 year uncontested mesorah and a reinterpretation of the verses in the Torah.

This is simply false. Rabbi Slifkin himself asserts that the primary lines of evidence for common descent are no stronger than those supporting the mechanisms. Here’s a quote from his book The Science of Torah page 144. (my emphases).

Scientists consider evidence for common ancestry to be very strong indeed. Futuyma even rates common ancestry as fact, relative to explanations of evolutionary mechanisms, which he terms theory. Actually, scientists are often being presumptuous when they give such a status to the evidence for common ancestry, as they generally are not giving serious consideration to explanations for it in light of other possibilities (such as Divine creation, panspermia, or some other unknowable process).

He also admits that primary lines of evidence for common ancestry are sometimes equally consistent with Special Creation and sometimes actually point to Special Creation! Here are the quotes. (my emphases)

Homology

A separate line of objection to the concept of homologous similarities being used as evidence for common ancestry is that it has to be considered in light of alternative possibilities, such as that each species was separately created by God. But with this scenario, homologous similarities also make sense. Since the pentadactyl limb (Rabbi Slifkin is referring to the limb possessing a five-fingered construction found in a variety of vertebrate creatures such as humans, bats, whales, dogs, etc.) is a good component for a bodyplan, why shouldn’t God use it for all sorts of different functions? Indeed, homologous similarities were understood well before Darwin, and were explained in precisely this way.

Fossil Evidence

David Raup of the University of Chicago, one of the world’s most respected paleontologists, wrote as follows in a letter to Science magazine: A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low level textbooks, semi popular articles, and so on. Also there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions… In general these have not been found – yet the optimism dies hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks… One of the ironies of the evolutioncreation debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this "fact" in the Flood geology (Science, vol. 213 p. 289).

On page 150, he writes. (my emphases)

In fact, it was largely the paucity of the fossil record that led to Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge’s theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. As Gould writes, the fossil record does not show the predicted gradual sequence of transitions:

The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed." The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change, in The Panda’s Thumb. p. 180

Gould and Eldredge therefore theorized that evolution occurs too fast to leave a trace in the fossil record. (It should be noted that "fast" in their terms does not mean over a few years; it means over a few thousand years rather than over a few million years.)

… Futuyma states that because we know evolution progresses rapidly, it is to be expected that the fossil record will show few transitional forms! Whereas the truth is the reverse: Because there are so few transitional forms, it is therefore theorized that evolution progresses rapidly. Punctuated Equilibrium is an apologetic for the fossil record, not a prediction of it.

Incredible! Rabbi Slifkin openly admits that Punctuated Equilibrium is merely a desperate attempt by evolutionists to avoid the glaring contradiction to evolutionary theory from the rocks.

3) The global community of scientists asserts that common descent is a fact.

This final response is frequently invoked by Rabbi Slifkin and is easily the most maddening response to those with even a modicum of exposure to the Philosophy of Science.

Let’s analyze this claim for a moment.

a) Rabbi Slifkin seems to be aware of the materialistic philosophy which attends the mainstream scientific enterprise and is thus willing to go on record and battle their assertion that science proves evolutionary processes are entirely blind (Blind Watchmaker Thesis). Instead, he asserts that God is somehow behind the whole thing (theistic evolution).

b) He is also willing to question the validity of the scientific mechanisms proposed by evolutionists to accomplish the prodigious feat of speciation although absent the mechanisms the theory is actually incoherent (as any evolutionist will admit to you).

c) Yet, when it comes to questioning their assertions re common ancestry, his brain suddenly turns to mush! What happened? Did the clock suddenly strike twelve?

What principled distinction can Rabbi Slifkin possibly possess which would account for his animated rejection of a) i.e. the scientific assertion that evolution is, per-force, entirely G-dless, and b) i.e. that evolution has valid mechanisms accounting for macro-evolutionary prossesses, while simultaneously accepting c) i.e. common ancestry is unquestionable? Don’t forget, #3 merely states that "the global community of scientists says so", nothing more. There is no attempt to investigate the evidence, no attempt to question the science. Just a blanket acceptance of scientific dogma. Why Rabbi Slifkin, why?

In light of the latter objection, YSO's criticism on this blog is especially poignant: "The blind watchmaker thesis is supposed to account for eyes, wings, the mammalian brain and everything else. What utter nonsense! There is not a single shred of evidence in support of it." Now YSO might be right and he might be wrong. But one thing is for sure; he never gets intimidated enough to turn off his brain. For the life of me, I can’t figure out what "mechanism" was responsible for Rabbi Slifkin’s unilateral submission.

I have much more to say on this topic but we will have to save it for another time.

The Betech-Slifkin Debate: As it Stands Now

The following is a synopsis of the activity relating to the ongoing Betech/Slifkin debate saga.

Rabbi Slifkin has authored several books which attempt to reconcile the modern theory of evolution with the Biblical Creation Event. In these books, Rabbi Slifkin takes the theory of evolution for granted and thus resorts to reinterpreting the verses in the Torah such that they accord with the dictates of the theory.

Dr. Betech has challenged Rabbi Slifkin on numerous occasions to defend his evolutionary model of Creation by publicly debating the merits of evolutionary theory but Rabbi Slifkin has consistently refused to engage Dr. Betech in debate.

Rabbi Slifkin then challenged Dr. Betech to publicly defend his Biblical model of Creation to which Dr. Betech agreed providing Rabbi Slifkin first acquiesce to Dr. Betech’s prior request and debate him on the merits of evolution.

As it stands now, Dr. Betech is willing to publicly defend his version of the Creation model providing Rabbi Slifkin first responds to Dr. Betech’s request.

And as it stands now, Rabbi Slifkin is not willing, under any circumstances, to defend his own publicly disseminated view of Creation and insists that Dr. Betech forgo his own request and acquiesce to Rabbi Slifkin’s challenge.

(See here for Dr. Betech's account of the exchange.)