Blog Comments Policy

We do want to thank all our readers for the polite way in which the discussion and comments have been undertaken. This is particularly noteworthy given the significant disagreements on fundamentals and the controversial nature of the topics treated.

Given the polite (lashon-hara free) tone of the discussion,  we have seen no reason to moderate comments. The blogger policy we have invoked is that comments are posted immediately (I hope we can continue to do this). However, comments go to the moderation queue after 14 days. We just noticed some comments in that queue and have enabled them (but this is an error prone process as someone has to remember to look at the queue). Please provide us with feedback on this policy. 

Irrefutable Proofs & the Case of the Panda's Thumb

The national project of the Jewish people has been to study the Torah (received from G-d at Sinai), to put it into practice, and to transmit it intact (to the best of our abilities) to the next generation. The Rambam (MN II.25) goes so far as to say that only an irrefutable proof (by Aristotle or Plato, for example) would be grounds for reconsidering the simple reading (peshat) of the first chapters of Genesis. The essential historicity of the first chapters of Genesis is accepted by all our b'aalei mesora.

On each day of the six day creation week, novel entities were formed outside of the system of nature currently in operation and, on the seventh day (Shabbos), the state of the world became lasting and established just as it is at present. [Rambam, MN 1:67]

“The geographical location of the mizbeach was extremely precise; it’s location is never to be altered…It is a tradition in the hands of all that the place Dovid and Shlomo built the mizbeach in Goren Arvinah is the same place that Avraham built the mizbeach to which he tied Yitzchok. It is the place which Noach built upon when he exited the ark. It is the mizbeach which Kayin and Hevel offered upon and Adam haRishon sacrificed a korban when he was created. And from there he was created. Our sages have said, ‘Adam was born from the dust located at the place of his atonement’”. (Rambam, Hilchos Beis haBechira 2:1-2)

Proofs against our mesora, needless to say, have not been provided. Following the Rambam, we are committed to rational discourse. We have a well authenticated national tradition -- so the burden of proof is on those who wish to contest our baalei mesora.

In his books R. Slifkin has taken a view contrary to our baalei mesora including the Rambam (see above). Following Darwin, R. Slifkin believes that man evolved from primitive ape-like precursors, and he thus aligns himself with Darwinians who believe in vestigial organs, embryological debris and poorly designed structures such as the Panda's thumb. Evolution's Blind Watchmaker Thesis claims that we are here by unguided processes (e.g. random mutation and natural selection) that did not have us in mind. While this type of belief is supportive of atheism, R. Slifkin believes that we can nevertheless be "religious Darwinists". “Naturalistic Darwinian evolution is fully compatible with religion” (Challenge p. 294). “The blind-watchmaker thesis need not be incompatible with God” (Challenge p. 297). Consider a section titled "Imperfect Design from a Perfect Creator" in which Rabbi Slifkin writes as follows: 

Stephen Jay Gould [Harvard University] has elaborated upon this argument in his work The Panda's Thumb [1980]. Pandas do not have an opposable thumb that is one of the five digits, as do other animals with grasping hands. Instead, they have a modification of the wrist bone, which serves to help grasp bamboo. Such a "thumb" makes sense in light of Darwinian evolution; the thumb was already pressed into use as a finger, leaving natural selection to operate with the wrist bone. But, argues Gould, this is too inefficient a limb to be the work of a wise Creator. There are other features of organisms that not only appear poorly designed, but are even potentially detrimental. ... Evolutionists correctly argue that these indicate descent from earlier species; atheist evolutionists incorrectly argue that they disprove the existence of a wise Creator. ... 

We can therefore plausibly contend that He [the Creator] would use the simplest means to obtain the complex goal of the world in which we live. It is a mark of genius to create a system that can produce a panda from a non-panda (even at the cost of having an inflexible thumb), rather than having to design one from scratch. Far from being a menace to religion, boundless Darwinian evolution assists in explaining an age-old problem of why there are so many features of living things that seem poorly designed, useless, or even harmful. [Challenge p. 303-304, Emphasis added]

The above style of reasoning (common in evolutionary biology) is very far from the standards of the hard sciences (and even further from the standard of proof demanded by the Rambam when it comes to our mesora). For example, even if it is true that the Panda's thumb is poorly designed, there are no detailed testable Darwinian pathways that can explain the origin of wrist bones, thumbs, the muscle, nerve and the brain mechanisms needed to run all this machinery (robots that perform these functions are the product of advanced intelligent design techniques).

However, a 1999 study in Nature analyzed the giant panda's thumb using computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and related techniques. Contrary to R. Slifkin's and Gould "poorly designed" panda's thumb, the study shows that the radial sesamoid bone (its "thumb") is "one of the most extraordinary manipulation systems" among mammals.

The way in which the giant panda, Ailuropoda melanoleuca, uses the radial sesamoid bone — its ‘pseudo-thumb’ — for grasping makes it one of the most extraordinary manipulation systems in mammalian evolution. ...

The three-dimensional images we obtained indicate that the radial sesamoid bone cannot move independently of its articulated bones, as has been suggested, but rather acts as part of a functional unit of manipulation. The radial sesamoid bone and the accessory carpal bone form a double pincer-like apparatus in the medial and lateral sides of the hand, respectively, enabling the panda to manipulate objects with great dexterity. ...

We have shown that the hand of the giant panda has a much more refined grasping mechanism than has been suggested in previous morphological models.

[Endo, H., Yamagiwa, D., Hayashi, Y. H., Koie, H., Yamaya, Y., and Kimura, J. 1999. Nature 397: 309-310. Emphasis added]

For more on the Panda's thumb see here.

R. Slifkin should consider adding the case of the Panda's thumb to the errata list he has compiled for his book. In the preface to Challenge of Creation, R. Slifkin writes that he is "following the approach of the Rambam". This too should be added to the errata list. More to the point, R. Slifkin has embraced "theistic evolution". But, theistic evolution is a new (or at least different) religion whose dogma is contrary to the essence of our mesora. 

Strange parallelism

In a recent post entitled: Forcing the Opposition, NS criticized his opponents with the following paragraph:

The traditional way of arguing one's case - citing Rishonim and Acharonim - ceased to be relevant. All that was important was what the Gedolim say. This was a revolution which cannot be underestimated.

I tried to substitute a few words and found a telling parallelism:

The traditional way of arguing one's case - citing scholarly sources and scientific experiments - ceased to be relevant. All that was important was what the Global consensus says. This was a revolution which cannot be underestimated.

I hope this revolution will be reverted and NS will be ready to discuss the validity of the evolution of the species.

What's Wrong With Rabbi Slifkin's Theology - Part 2

In our original post, we drew a clear distinction between belief in the doctrine of theistic evolution and the message of Purim which teaches that God is behind the affairs of our universe albeit in a hidden fashion. We demonstrated how the former doctrine is openly opposed by the verses of the Torah and the clear consensus of our ba'alei mesorah, whereas the latter is firmly grounded in normative Jewish theology. The current post aims to clarify some issues which came up subsequently in the comment section of the aforementioned post.

An interlocutor stated as follows:

Rabbi Coffer - do you only see the Hand of Hashem in the creation of nature? You don't see it in our lives today - in historical events, in how nature operates, in your personal life? Surely you must be aware that science explains all these things without recourse to a Creator; just in terms of random, blind processes. And I'm sure that you don't deny these scientific explanations. So if you believe that such scientific explanations deny seeing the hand of Hashem, aren't you ruling God out of the picture?

His question can be broken down into the following four components.

1) Surely we see the hand of Hashem in all of the affairs of our universe, not just its Creation.

He is, of course, correct

2) Surely we recognize that just as evolutionary theory appeals exclusively to random blind processes, so too do all forms of scientific endeavor appeal solely to unguided processes.

Although superficially this might seem to be true, it is in fact false and highly misleading as will be demonstrated shortly.

3) For the most part, we accept scientific explanations which explain the current events of our lives.

True, although as in the previous assertion, highly misleading. Our interlocutor then goes on to make the following leap of reasoning.

4) Since we’ve eliminated evolution due to the fact that it appeals exclusively to unguided forces, what gives us the right to accept other forms of scientific endeavor (I believe meteorology was one of the examples given)? By accepting some forms of scientific explanation, are we not tacitly admitting that God is not behind these explanations? And if we respond that we accept the science but reject the idea that God is not behind it, then why can we not adopt the same approach to evolution?

The truth of the matter is, this is little more than a paraphrase of Rabbi Slifkin’s argument and was directly addressed in the last post. As we mentioned there, evolution – inasmuch as it addresses the scientific view of the origins of multi-cellular life – is entirely incompatible with the Torah which clearly states that multi-cellular life originated via direct meta-natural fiat. He commanded the vegetation to begin sprouting on Day Three before the process of photo-synthesis was enacted on Day Four. He commanded the waters to generate fish on Day Five and the earth to generate animals on Day Six. In short, God wasn’t hiding behind the laws of nature. He was creating them!

On the other hand, at the completion of ma’aseh bereishis, Hashem did establish the laws of nature and then receded behind them. From that point on, the laws of Nature remain immutable. They remain consistent. And they remain predictable. Only at this point can science begin playing a role.

In order to grasp this idea fully, a few things must be explained up front. There are two distinct branches of science.

1) Operational / Technological

2) Historical / Origin based

The former category is primarily concerned with defining the physical properties of a given entity and defining the laws of nature which govern it. The reason we accept the conclusions of scientists in these fields is because they are nothing more than technical descriptions of physical reality. They have no bearing at all on theology. Their conclusions are all empirically observable and verifiable in the laboratory, and the byproducts of their research are productive and useful in promoting the welfare of mankind and the general human condition.

When it comes to these types of fields, theism is not a contradiction. Some of the greatest scientists in these fields were theists, such as Newton and Einstein. They didn’t feel that their religious beliefs in any way contradicted their work in science. But obviously they never appealed to "God" when attempting to formulate their theories. Just as a plumber doesn’t open up a chumash when he is learning how to thread a pipe, so too an engineer doesn’t look for assistance in thermodynamic theory by opening a mishna berura.

On the other hand, the conclusions of scientists in the Historical/Origin based sciences are an entirely different story. First of all, by their very nature their conclusions are not empirically observable. They theorize about what happened in the past by making backward extrapolations, sometimes vast extrapolations, which are based on the unfounded premise that the current laws of nature were exactly the same all along. This alone should give any intelligent individual pause; how can I possibly justify the unmitigated acceptance of scientific conclusions in these fields without even questioning them? Especially since their conclusions change as often as a baby’s diapers.

Second of all, their field of enterprise has everything to do with theology. For instance, let’s take evolution. Evolution is concerned with attempting to describe precisely how we can account for the incredible variety of endlessly complex life forms present on earth. Evolutionary theory is one theory but Intelligent Design is at least an equally valid theory. Yet the majority of scientists insist that Intelligent Design not be granted any credence at all. Any objective individual would have to ask himself "why not"? But the answer is obvious and is echoed by practically every philosopher of science. Here’s what famous evolutionist Richard Lewontin of Harvard University has to say.

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. (Richard C. Lewontin, The New York Review of Books, Billions and Billions of Demons, January 9, 1997)

There's the problem! Intelligent design sounds too much like God. After all, God would be a perfect candidate. And therefore, under no circumstances can we allow a Divine Foot in the door. It’s not that Intelligent Design is inherently flawed in any way. It’s that it countermands their philosophy of materialism. So why shouldn’t we reject their scientific conclusions in these fields? Especially when the Torah openly implies that the evolutionary model is entirely false!

Once we’ve gotten to this point, theistic evolution becomes irrelevant for two reasons. First of all, it is entirely unnecessary and second of all it openly contradicts the Torah’s description of recent, rapid Creation via meta-natural fiat.

This concludes our treatment of the Blind Watchmaker Thesis and why it is not compatible with the Torah. In our next post, we will deal with what I personally feel is most objectionable about Rabbi Slifkin’s theology.

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.