Dialogue – The Hoax of Geology Part 4

In our previous post, we made the following assertion:

If the relative position of the strata in question does not conform to the dictates of evolution, it is ignored.

In other words, whenever supposedly "older" beds are found on top of "younger" beds in contradiction to evolutionary theory, the physical evidence is explained away by appealing to a fantastic (and thus far unobserved) mechanism called "overthrusting". Here are some quotes in the published scientific literature which shed some light on this issue.

Sir Archibald Giekie was one of the great geologists of the early twentieth century. His textbooks were still being reprinted as late as the 1970’s. He struggled with the idea that "older" beds were routinely found atop "younger" beds but eventually came to accept this evolutionary "fact of life". His comment is interesting.

Had these sections (meaning the ones that contain fossils in the "wrong" order and therefore must be understood as having been displaced) been planned for the purpose of deception, they could not have been more skillfully devised… and no one coming to this ground would suspect what appears to be a normal stratigraphical sequence is not really so. (R. K. Stevens, Department of Geology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland - Sir William Logan and the Taconic Problem, History of Canadian Geology – 1974, available online here)

When the famous Swiss geologist Albert Heim was challenged with the following question "But all such incredible movements of the strata are necessitated by the simple fact that the fossiliferous strata happen to be found in the wrong order" he responded as follows:

the most incredible mechanical explanation is more probable than that the evolution or organic nature should have been inverted in one country, as compared with another (ibid)

Amazing! The most incredible mechanical explanation is preferable to admitting that the evolutionary succession might be wrong.

It may even be said that in any case where there should appear to be a clear and decisive discordance between the physical evidence and the paleontological evidence [i.e. the evolutionary claims of simple to complex--sc], it is the former that is to be distrusted rather than the latter. (H. Alleyne Nicholson, Ancient Life-History of Earth, Kessinger Publishing, 2007, p. 40 (first published in 1900)

So, physical evidence is actually discarded in favor of evolutionary theory! This is the nonsense which Rabbi Slifkin invests all of his trust in.

The thrust-planes are difficult to be distinguished from ordinary stratification planes… One almost refuses to believe that the … summit (of the mountain) does not lie normally on the rocks below it, but on a nearly horizontal fault by which it has been moved into its place. (A. Giekie, Nature, November 13, 1884 pp. 29-35, available online here)

If one is not overwhelmed by evolutionary dogma, one actually has the reasonable option of disbelieving the mechanics of overthrusting…

The problem of the overhrust is one of our greatest difficulties, and all explanations hitherto proposed are so hopelessly inadequate that we have sometimes felt compelled to doubt whether the facts really are as stated… Any real doubt as to the facts is out of the question, and we must still look for some adequate method by which the ovrerthrusting could have been brought about (W. W. Watts, Annual Report 1925, Smithsonian Institute)

So, a problem of the greatest difficulty is simply swept aside by invoking the materialistic counterpart of an "ani ma’amin"; the writer simply asserts that "any real doubt as to the facts of evolution is out of the question…"

The upper rocks of the thrust-plate are only 1500 feet thick, and thus are too thin to stand being pushed from behind at a distance of 28 or 30 miles, as the local conditions would demand…a detailed study of this locality fails to disclose proof of the mechanics of thrusting or of the direction of the thrust mass (E. H. Stevens, Journal of Geology Vol. 44, p. 729-736)

If they fail to disclose proof, this indicates disproof!

At Ust-Waga on the Dvina, late Tertiary beds are found in absolute conformable superposition on the horizontal Permian sediments (Professor Edward Suess, Face of the Earth, Volume 2 p. 543)

What happened to the beds in the middle (Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous)?

I have many more quotes from the published scientific literature but all of them say the same thing.

I specifically made a point of choosing scientific quotations from Rav Avigdor Miller ztz’l. Every single quote above, without exception, appears in the written works of Rabbi Miller or can be heard on his recorded lectures. Rabbi Miller began his battle against evolution over 70 years ago so most of the quotes are garnered from early to mid twentieth century sources but all of the material quoted is still entirely relevant today.

This concludes our treatment of Assertion #1. Our next post will address Assertion #2 bi’ezras Hashem…

To be continued shortly…

Dialogue – The Hoax of Geology Part 3

This post is a continuation of an ongoing series. For maximum benefit, please read the previous posts.

Rabbi Slifkin writes:

The fossil evidence clearly shows that there were dinosaurs and all kinds of other creatures which lived before people (since no fossils of contemporary creatures are found in the same strata). These animals lived and died and fought and ate and bred - we even find dinosaur nesting sites. Did all that happen in the space of twelve hours?

Of course not! All life forms were created simultaneously during ma’aseh bereishis. Dinosaurs eventually went extinct perhaps because they were hunted by humans, perhaps because of the flood, perhaps for a thousand reasons. Who knows? Why did the Wooly Mammoth go extinct? Why did the Saber Tooth tiger go extinct? Why do hundreds of species continue to go extinct right now, in modern times? Over 750 species went extinct in the past 500 years alone. Species go extinct; that’s a fact of life.

As far as Rabbi Slifkin’s claim that "no fossils of contemporary creatures are found in the same strata [as dinosaur bones]", this is just plain false. More on this shortly.

Rabbi Slifkin writes:

And it's not as though there was only one period of prehistoric creatures. The fossil record shows beyond doubt that there were numerous distinct periods. The therapsids lived before the dinosaurs; the dinosaurs lived before the mammoths. And even amongst dinosaurs, different layers of rock reveal distinct eras. Stegosaurus, Brachiosaurus and Allosaurus are never found in the same layers of rock as Tyrannosaurus rex, Triceratops, and Velociraptor. The conclusion is that each existed in a different period; the former lived in a period which has been termed the Jurassic, while the latter lived in the Cretaceous period. This is not part of some evil conspiracy by scientists, nor the result of mistakes on their part.

True. What it is the result of is Rabbi Slifkin’s unmitigated lack of knowledge regarding the facts of geology as delineated in the professional literature. He believes that "the fossil record shows beyond doubt" that therapsids lived before dinosaurs who lived before the mammoths etc. But this is the furthest thing from the truth. Here are the facts.

The age of sedimentary beds is established by evolutionary geologists based solely on the fossils found therein.

1) If the relative position of the strata in question does not conform to the dictates of evolution, it is ignored.

2) If the composition of the strata in question does not conform to evolutionary theory, it too is ignored.

3) If fossils from disparate time-periods (according to evolutionary theory) are found in the same beds, the beds are arbitrarily cut up, horizontally, and sometimes vertically(!), in order to conform to the theory. Thus, the evolutionists can never lose!

This is a lot to digest (or believe) for the uninitiated layman so let’s tackle each of the three above-noted assertions, one at a time.

Assertion #1: If the relative position of the strata in question does not conform to the dictates of evolution, it is ignored.

Before we turn to the appropriate scientific literature for clarification, the following question should be broached. Rabbi Slifkin maintains that the science of geology has shown us that "the same strata of rock are always found in the same order of superposition, and they always contain the same fossils". So, if it could be shown that, say, a Devonian limestone bed was covered over by a Cretaceous bed (older covering younger in evolutionary terms), would this not constitute a solid refutation to the theory? According to Rabbi Slifkin’s assertion regarding the facts of geology, the answer should be yes; kal va’chomer if this inverted superposition occurred on a regular basis. Unfortunately, according to evolutionists the answer is a resounding no!

Whenever the relative position of the beds does not conform to the theory of evolution, evolutionary geologists invoke a nebulous mechanism referred to as "overthrusting". This refers to the wild assumption that huge geographical surfaces were somehow inverted or otherwise displaced and now lie uniformly atop younger sedimentary layers. These surfaces are referred to as thrust-planes, or thrust faults, and are identified solely by the type of fossils imbedded in them. Geologists have no idea what type of mechanism could possibly be responsible for the displacement of hundreds of thousands of square miles of mineralized sediment. What compounds the outlandishness of this suppostion is that often-times the thrust-planes lie in prefect uniformity with the layers below, without any evidence of displacement or inversion! To be sure, never has such a process been witnessed in the history of recorded Geology.

In the following post, we will, bi’ezras Hashem, investigate the scientific literature which pertains to Assertion #1.

To be continued shortly b'H…

Dialogue – The Hoax of Geology Part 2

In these two posts, Denying the Dinosaur Eras and Presumptions or Conclusions, Rabbi Slifkin claims that paleontology and geology clearly demonstrate the antiquity of the world. This series of posts aims to debunk his uncorroborated claims in the name of science. But before doing so it is imperative that we make note of the following.

Rabbi Slifkin believes in evolution. This is a fact. Can he be criticized for maintaining a heretical opinion? This blog does not purport to answer such questions. But one thing is clear. As a layman his opinion can easily be understood in light of the fact that the scientific community adheres to same. This author is aware of the scientific consensus and acknowledges Rabbi Slifkin’s reliance on such. Nonetheless most professional paleontologists will freely admit that transitional fossils are not merely rare, they are entirely absent. Accordingly, we must distinguish between the evolutionary claims of the scientists and the evidence they possess for these claims. This distinction shall guide, indeed define, the very nature of this series of posts.

Another thing. In his books Rabbi Slifkin appeals to several different lines of evidence for evolution such as homology, embryology and vestigial organs. However, in the aforementioned two posts he sticks to geology and paleontology and makes a passionate argument for the evolution of the species over huge periods of time specifically from the evidence found in the rocks. The reason he does this is simple. Fossil evidence is the only form of direct evidence for evolution. It is the only way evolutionists have of asserting anything about the past history of life. Any of the other lines of evidence already assume the fact and can just as easily be understood in light of Special and Rapid Creation. As well-known French paleontologist Pierre-Paul Grassé writes:

Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms... only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms. (Pierre Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 82.)

Or as Geologist C.O. Dunbar writes:

Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more complex forms (C.O. Dunbar, Historical Geology, page 52)

This idea is crucial. If upon studying the strata it is determined that the fossil evidence does not support evolution, it then turns out that the loggerhead between Torah and Evolution is not scientific at all. Rather, it is philosophic in nature. Evolutionists support a materialistic paradigm for the unfolding of the universe whereas the Jewish nation insists that it was entirely supernatural. This should come as an epiphany to anyone looking for chizuk in support of our Torah. It did to me.

On a personal note, I grew up with the concept of evolution and although I didn’t think much about it, had I been asked I would have responded that surely scientists possessed empirical evidence that humans evolved from monkeys. I even had a beautifully colored picture book describing the exact process. And then the atom bomb exploded. I heard Rav Avigdor Miller’s seminal lecture on this topic (tape #87) when I was about sixteen years old and it bowled me over! It turned out that evolution was not a fact! It turned out that evolution did not possess the evidence so confidently asserted by popular media and low-level textbooks. (I’ve listened to that lecture at least twenty times! I am personally willing to send a copy to anyone requesting it and pay for it out of my own pocket. Please email me privately at rivkyc@sympatico.ca Furthermore, I purchased every single book on evolution referenced in that lecture and personally verified the quotations he made and the context in which they were made. I am willing to scan in any quote mentioned in that lecture and email the entire page directly from the original source to anyone requesting it)

Unfortunately, not everyone reacts the same way to such revelations. Many people find it impossible to resist the overwhelming influence exerted by the academic community. People tend to be impressed with degrees and doctorates. They are greatly impressed with the tangible accomplishments of science and therefore swallow the materialistic propaganda of the academicians lock stock and barrel. Rabbi Slifkin is one of those people. In his books he admits that the individual lines of evidence are tenuous at best and yet he can’t shake the feeling that the scientific community is correct and thus, in direct contradiction to what his mind knows, asserts that the lines of evidence taken together constitute overwhelming proof for an ancient universe which evolved over billions of years.

One final note on the geological column before we proceed.

In order to determine how old a fossil is, geologists have broken up the earth into imaginary layers and supplied them with fancy geological names. According to the theory of evolution, complex life first appeared on earth approximately 570 million years ago. In geochronology, this period is referred to as an Eon. Every Eon is broken up into sub-categories referred to as Eras which are further broken down into Periods and which are finally broken down into Epochs. Our current Eon is broken down into three distinct Eras; Paleozoic (approx. 290 million years), Mesozoic (approx. 190 million years), and Cenozoic (approx. 65 million years). These Eras are further broken down into approximately 10 periods represented by ten strata deposited one on top of the other in a geologic column tens of thousands of feet deep. Beginning from the bottom up, they are as follows: Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary and Quaternary.

The preceding ten or so categories supposedly mark the evolution of life as it branched out in the Cambrian period from unicellular life to multi-cellular life to vertebrates and invertebrates, to fish, to reptiles, to birds, to mammals, to hominids to man. Accordingly, visitors of the Science Centre in Toronto (where I live) must first pass through a long hallway which regales them with a detailed geologic history of the world as they walk along the "timeline" of evolutionary history (at least that’s the way it was when I was a kid).

Here’s the kicker. The only place this geologic column exists is in the imagination of evolutionary geologists! (And in the Toronto Science Centre…) In fact, many strata are often found in reverse of the order stated above! This point is obviously crucial. It belies the claim that certain species must have lived before others because of the (supposedly) consistent layering of the strata. This point will be further developed in the upcoming posts along with the appropriate source material in the scientific literature.

I meant to begin treating Rabbi Slifkin’s posts directly but this post is already too long so we shall adjourn for the time being…

To be continued shortly bi’ezras Hashem…

The Nature of “The” Rakia

PREFATORY REMARKS 

On his blog, “Rationalistic Judaism,” Rabbi Natan Slifkin’s expressed desire is to convince us that Chazal universally held, as a mesorah (a teaching revealed through prophecy, especially that of Moshe Rabbeynu’s), that “the” rakia is a solid dome over the earth. He uses that false foundation to allow his argument that since this alleged mesorah has been proven erroneous, we must concede that not every mesorah is necessarily true. Citing the Rambam and many others as lending legitimacy to such an approach, he concludes that he too is therefore free, indeed forced, to declare erroneous as well Chazal’s mesorah that the Creation process defied natural mechanisms (and he thereby declares himself free to follow the current thought that the universe, earth and life developed through allegedly natural—albeit divinely guided—mechanisms of evolution). He thereby creates a radical overhaul of the concept of what the force of mesorah is, contradicting the concept as it has been understood for millennia by all classical authorities: 

Chazal (and most of the Rishonim) universally interpreted various words in the Torah to be describing the heavens as a solid firmament above us. And yet, nobody today believes that such a structure exists. … [T]his means that the mesorah was reinterpreted in light on modern science. Hence, we can do the same with regard to the mesorah about the nature of creation.”

(Rabbi Natan Slifkin, Rationalist Judaism blog, Thursday, January 6, 2011, “The Big Picture of the Firmament”). 

In fact, Rabbi Slifkin admits that he is claiming that the rishonim did not merely reinterpret, but actually rejected the mesorah: 

The Big Picture of the Firmament (Thursday, January 6, 2011) yakov r said... this view of the sky (rakia) found in the Gemara is Chazal's view of the firmament as described in Tenach. And in a subsequent post, I pointed out that this means that the mesorah was reinterpreted … When you say reinterpret, do you mean simply dismissed? [1] January 6, 2011 3:32 PM  Natan Slifkin said... Yes, you are correct, I meant to say that the TORAH was reinterpreted. The mesorah was rejected. January 6, 2011 3:35 PM

Not Part of the Mesorah

It has been pointed out before. Rabbi Slifkin fails to recognize a fundamental distinction. The Rambam—joined by the other authorities upon whose license Rabbi Slifkin relies[2]—explicitly denies that Chazal’s statements about the celestial rakia’s substance are part of the mesorah,[3]—in marked contrast to what is a matter of mesorah: [4] the description of Creation as a meta-natural process, utilizing mechanisms that ceased regular function upon the arrival of the first Shabbos.[5] 

The Tanna Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai provides evidence for the Rambam’s position that statements by Chazal explaining what makes the stars move as they do, and the very necessity to postulate the existence of spheres responsible for such, were speculative and not received through the mesorah:

אמר רבי שמעון בן יוחאי אין אנו יודעין אם פורחין הן באויר, ואם שפין ברקיע ואם מהלכין הן כדרכן, הדבר קשה מאד, ואי אפשר לבריות לעמוד עליו.

 

Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said, We do not know if they fly in the air, if they  glide in the rakia,, or if they go their way on their own [self-propelled—ZL]; the matter is exceedingly difficult and it is impossible for humans to determine. [6]

 

The Radak (Breishis 1:1) too, tells us that the Torah teaches us details only about the creation of things that were to be located below the moon—nothing about the universe beyond that point. The Light and the celestial bodies, he says, are mentioned only insofar as the role they play in what they provide for the Earth.

ולא נזכר בסדר ימי בראשית אלא מגלגל הירח ולמטה, והאור והמאורות לא נזכרו אלא לענין להאיר על הארץ ... וכן כתב החכם רבי אברהם בן עזרא ז"ל כי לא דבר משה רבינו ע"ה רק על העולם ההויוה וההפסד, והשמים הם הרקיע הנברא ביום שני.[7]

 

Only that which is below the moon’s sphere is mentioned in the Torah’s account of Creation. The Light and the celestial bodies are only mentioned for their role in providing light on the earth. …The chacham Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra also wrote that Moshe Rabbeynu spoke only about the temporal world; and [when the Torah says Hashem created the Heavens and the Earth,] the “Heavens” refer to the rakia (sky) created the second day [ not to the spiritual Heavens, nor the heavens containing the stars, sun and moon].

 

So, for his license to differ with some statements of Chazal, Rabbi Slifkin invokes the Rambam et al, but ignores the limits they place. Whereas all bearers of Torah tradition maintain and strive to defend the axiom that something is either (a) a mesorah and true, or (b) not a mesorah and not necessarily true, Rabbi Slifkin illegitimately claims to be within bounds when he declares that something could be a mesorah yet not true. No representation of Judaism that rejects the mesorah can be considered legitimate.

Weak Evidence That Chazal Universally Believed the Rakia is Solid

But let us put aside the fact that there was no mesorah that the earth is covered by any kind of a solid dome (opaque or otherwise). Was this even something that Chazal universally thought was so? Rabbi Slifkin’s “proofs” that it was…are extremely wanting:

1. He claims, “Since in the ancient world everyone believed that the sky is solid, there is no question that when each of the Sages received their Torah education from their parents and teachers, they were taught that the rakia is a solid firmament - as were their parents and teachers in turn.” Besides his unfounded assumption that the sages failed to distinguish, for themselves and for their disciples, between what they actually received as mesorah and what they speculated about it, his premise about the beliefs of the ancient world is tenuous, if not false.[8]

2. In another venue, he attempted this “proof”: “What do you think the spheres are made of? They are certainly solid, as the stars and planets are embedded within them!” (Natan Slifkin on September 7, 2010 at 2:50 pm Hirhurim blog, “Rabbis And Traveling to the Moon” comment section). Rabbi Slifkin fails to note that the Rambam, while maintaining that the stars are embedded in the spheres, also characterizes the spheres as weightless, colorless, and so ethereal as to remain unimpressionable by physical entities:

אינם כמו החומר הזה אשר בנו, ולפיכך אין אנו יכולים לתארם אלא בשמות בלתי מוגדרים לא בחיוב המוגדר. שאנו אומרים כי השמים לא קלים ולא כבדים ולא מתפעלים, ולפיכך אינם מקבלים רשמים, ואינם בעלי טעם ולא בעלי ריח וכיוצא בשלילות אלו, כל זה בגלל אי ידיעתנו אותו החומר.

…they are not made of the same matter that is with us, and we are therefore only able to describe them in terms negating the properties they lack. Thus, we say that the heavens are neither light nor heavy; they are not subject to outside influences, and therefore are not subject to impressions; and that they do not possess the sensations of taste and smell, and similar negations of attributes. All this us due to our lack of knowing that substance. (Guide For the Perplexed, 2:48)

So, it does not at all follow that “They are certainly solid, as the stars and planets are embedded within them!”

Evidently, Rabbi Slifkin reasons that massive, heavy bodies such as stars can only be contained by a body if that body is a very hard solid. This is poor evidence, because (a) the “Chachmei Yisrael” argued that the stars were not embedded within the spheres, but simply glided along them; and (b) more importantly, as stated in my reply loc. cit, it is more likely that Chazal held, as the rishonim did, that the spheres were ethereal, so their grip on the (less ethereal) stars was not thought to be that of a simple corporeal solid material.

3. He cites the Gemora Pesachim 94a, dealing with the path of the sun, which I shall treat later.

4. His main focus is Chazal’s treatment of a verse in Iyov. This shall be the main focus of this paper as well.

---

[1] There comes a point where a concept can no longer be considered an interpretation of something, but an alternative to it. The assertion that the world has eternally existed, for example, is not a “reinterpretation” of the mesorah that it was first created a finite number of years ago. Similarly, in both contrasts at issue here—(a) non-solid vs. solid rakia, and (b) the mesorah of a meta-natural development of the world and its inhabitants vs. an allegedly natural development—the latter assertion is not a reinterpretation of the former, but an opposing view. 

[2] See the survey in the “Rationalist’s” monograph, “The Sun’s Path at Night.

[3]

ואמנם כל מה שבשמים לא ידע האדם דבר ממנו אלא בזה השעור הלמודי המעט, ואתה תראה מה שבו. ואני אומר ע״צ מליצת השיר, "השמים שמים לה׳ והארץ נתן לבני אדם," ר״ל שהשם לבדו ידע אמתת השמים וטבעם, ועצמם, וצורתם, ותנועותם, וסבותם על השלמות, אמנם מה שתחת השמים נתן יכולת לאדם לדעתו, מפני שהוא עולמו וביתו אשר ירד בו והוא חלק ממנו וזהו האמת, כי סבות הראיה על השמים נמנעות אצלנו, כבר רחקו ממנו ונעלו במקום ובמעלה. והראיה הכוללת מהם שהם הורונו על מניעם, אבל שאר ענינם הוא ענין לא יניעו שכלי האדם לידיעתו, והטריח המחשבות במה שלא יניעו להשגתו ואין כלי להם שיגיעו בו, אמנם הוא חסמן דעת או מין מהשגעון, אבל נעמוד אצל היכלת ונניח הענין כמה שלא יושג בהקש, למי שבאהו השפע האלהי העצום עד שיהיה ראוי שנאמר עליו פה אל פה אדבר בו, זה תכלית מה שאצלי בזאת השאלה, ואפשר שיהיה אצל זולתי מופת יתבאר לו בו אמתת מה שסופק אצלי, ותכלית בחירתי לאמת שאני בארתי בלבולי אלו הענינים, ואני לא שמעתי מופת על דבר מהם ולא ידעתיו

MN 2:24

What I said before (2:22) I will repeat now, namely, that the theory of Aristotle, in explaining the phenomena in the sublunary world, is in accordance with logical inference. Here we know the causal relationship between one phenomenon and another; we see how far science can investigate them, and the management of nature is clear and intelligible.

But of the things in the heavens man knows nothing except a few mathematical calculations, and you see how far these go. I say in the words of the poet," The heavens are the Lord's, but the earth He hath given to the sons of man" (Ps. cxv. 16): that is to say, God alone has a perfect and true knowledge of the heavens, their nature, their essence, their form, their motions, and their causes; but He gave man power to know the things which are under the heavens: here is man's world, here is his home, into which he has been placed, and of which he is himself a portion. This is in reality the truth. For the facts which we require in proving [anything about] the existence of heavenly entities are withheld from us: the heavens are too far from us, and too exalted in place and rank. Man's faculties are too deficient to comprehend even the general proof the heavens contain for the existence of Him who sets them in motion.

מורה נבוכים, ג:י”ד

MN 3:14

Now, do not ask it of me to conform everything our Sages say respecting astronomical matters to the situation as it is. For mathematics were lacking in those days, and their statements on those matters were not based on a mesorah from the Prophets, but on the knowledge which they either themselves possessed or derived from contemporary men of science. But we should not on that account say, about those things that do conform to the truth, that they are incorrect, or only conform coincidentally. Rather, it is preferable and proper for every educated and honest man to explain a person’s words in such a manner that they agree with fully established facts.

[4] Moreh Nevuchim 2:17: “For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and Avraham Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being in such-and-such a form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya kach mi-kach), and such was created after such.”

What specific, existing Jewish belief of things coming onto being (in full form—as the Rambam explains in Moreh Nevuchim 2:30, where he also says that all was created simultaneously, and then, one-by-one "set apart") should we suppose he was referring to, when writing of things becoming "such-and-such from such-and-such"? It is clear that he meant that part of the belief the Jewish community received from Moshe Rabbeynu is the meta-natural formation of, say, Adam from the adamah, and not from the beheima. 

[5] The “Rationalist” is aware of the distinction, but finds it “funny” for us to follow it: “As for quoting Rambam that there was no mesorah on astronomical matters - first of all, the idea of my opponents taking Rambam as the final word on mesorah is quite funny. Rambam, who claims that the mesorah of Judaism is largely identical to Greco-Muslim philosophy?!” (Sunday, November 28, 2010 Rationalist Judaism The Firming and Flattening of the Firmament). 

On the contrary. The claim that the Rambam largely identifies the mesorah as identical to Greco-Muslim philosophy only strengthens the veracity of his teaching that—despite his attributing the Greek view of the spheres to Chazal—the mechanics and nature of the celestial bodies (taken in a literal, physical sense) were a matter of speculation and not mesorah. 

And absolutely no reading of the Rambam, or any of the others who license disagreement with Chazal in some situations, excuses disagreement with the correct interpretation of Chazal reporting a mesorah. 

The inconsistency is actually the other way around. It is from the Rambam, and those who agree with him, that the “Rationalist” claims license to differ with Chazal. (His major monograph devotes much space to listing these authorities who allegedly give him this license.) Yet he dismisses their essential distinction. See also my essay, “How The Days of Creation Were Understood By Our Sages” 

The “Rationalist” goes on to make a distinction which my citation shows is simply untrue:  

“In any case, Rambam's statement is with regard to astronomical matters that Chazal had to figure out in order to create and apply halachos, not with regard to cosmology - the basic structure of the world and the meaning of basic words and concepts in the Torah.”) 

See next paragraph for rishonim who disagree with the “Rationalist’s” whim that Chazal’s must have considered as part of the mesorah their statements “about cosmology, the basic structure of the world and the meaning of basic words and concepts in the Torah, such as rakia.” 

[6] If the stars do indeed “fly in the air,” or are “self-propelled,” rather than moved by or along spheres, there is no point in the existence of a rakia which the philosophers postulated as a mechanism for the sun’s, moon’s and stars’ movements. Such a rakia would be an empty, purposeless entity. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai’s proposition renders talk about the sphere’s solidity or opacity irrelevant, because there is no physical celestial sphere to speak of. And he explicitly identifies the determination of what makes the stars move as a matter of human speculation, not mesorah. 

[7] I thank Rabbi Dovid Kornreich for pointing this out.

[8] Wikipedia, “Celestial Spheres”: “Through an extensive examination of a wide range of scholastic texts, Edward Grant has demonstrated that scholastic philosophers generally considered the celestial spheres to be solid in the sense of three-dimensional or continuous, but most did not consider them solid in the sense of hard. The consensus was that the celestial spheres were made of some kind of continuous fluid” (Grant, Planets, Stars, and Orbs, pp. 328–30). The very person the “Rationalist” names the expert on ancient cosmology contradicts his claim that “in the ancient world everyone believed that the sky is solid” in the sense of hard, rather than a fluid, or vaporous substance. See also my essay, “A Not-So-Solid Proof About The Spheres.” 

Dialogue – The Expression of Fundamental Beliefs Part 2

In his post entitled Denying the Dinosaur Eras, Rabbi Slifkin writes as follows.

Forget abstract talk about events taking place on a molecular level. Think about something tangible and familiar, such as animal life. The fossil evidence clearly shows that there were dinosaurs and all kinds of other creatures which lived before people (since no fossils of contemporary creatures are found in the same strata). These animals lived and died and fought and ate and bred - we even find dinosaur nesting sites. Did all that happen in the space of twelve hours? Did it happen in a universe in which the laws of gravity, the speed of light, and everything else - the very fabric of natural law - was drastically different from what we see today?

In future posts, we intend on analyzing this paragraph from the perspective of science. But for now I would like to treat Rabbi Slifkin’s final statement in the above-noted paragraph. It is the opinion of this blog that "the very fabric of natural law" during ma’aseh bereishis is identical to the current fabric of nature. In both cases, the essential fabric is the Ratzon Hashem, the Will of the Creator. The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (1:69) writes that Hashem is referred to as "Chai Olamim" because He is the Source for the ongoing existence of the universe. If so, what distinguishes the period of ma’aseh bereishis from the post ma’aseh bereishis period?

Maharal writes as follows: (my translation)

Know that He, may His name be blessed, caused all of reality to materialize into existence during the six days of Creation Himself, in His own Glory, and not through the agency of nature, as opposed to the period which ensues after the six days of Creation in which Hashem, may His name be blessed, governs his creation via the intermediary of nature. (Maharal – Be’er haGola 4, London Edition, pg. 83)

What is Maharal saying? Does he mean to imply that the "intermediary of nature" is an independent entity and Hashem merely "uses" it to govern his world? What about the Rambam’s assertion that even the current laws of nature are infused with "existence" directly by Hashem Himself? Surely the Maharal does not argue with this.

The answer can be found in the following ma’amar Chazal (my translation).

Rav Yehuda stated in the name of Rav, at the time that Hakadosh Baruch Hu created the world, it continued to expand like two clues of warp until Hakadosh Baruch Hu rebuked it and brought it to a standstill as it states "the pillars of heaven were trembling, but they became astonished at his rebuke" (Iyov 26:11) This accords with Raish Lakish’s statement; the verse states "ani E-l Shakai" (Bereishis 35:11), "ani hu she’amarti laolam dai" which means "I am the one who has instructed my world, enough. (Chagiga 12a)

Before the culmination of the six days of creation there was no limit to the expansion of the universe, ergo, the laws of nature were still fluid, still in a state of flux. With the advent of Shabbos the boundaries of nature finally became fixed. Hashem "told" the universe "enough" and firmly established the limitations of physical law.

What Maharal means to say is that after ma’aseh bereishis Hashem decreed that the laws of nature would remain static. So although the very fabric of nature is still dependant on the Will of the Creator for its ongoing existence, Hashem never alters the physical parameters of his Creation. Everything He does in the world is done in accordance with the boundaries He set for the world at the end of ma’aseh bereishis. When Maharal refers to the "agency/intermediary" of nature, he means that Hashem does not violate His Own restrictions; He works within them. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, such as the episode of the Mabul and the miracles of Yetzias Mitzrayim. But even these incidents in the Torah do not necessarily violate the "Law of the Fixity of Nature" as Rambam notes in Avos 5:5 (although there are Rishonim who explain the phenomena of miracles in terms of a temporary suspension of the laws of nature).

So, were the "the laws of gravity, the speed of light, and everything else - the very fabric of natural law… drastically different from what we see today"? Not necessarily. What was different was the idea that they were not yet fixed and therefore were subject to change at any time during the period of ma’aseh bereishis.

Note to our readers: The hashkafic ideas articulated in this post are subtle. They are also of paramount importance to the proper understanding of the mitzvah of Shabbos. I am not entirely confident that I have expressed them properly. Comments are welcome, indeed, encouraged. If considered discussion results in the apparent need for refinement, it will be noted in a future post dedicated specifically to the clarification of the ideas found herein.

“NO REASON TO SAY HE DISAGREES”

In the previous analysis, I noted Rabbi Slifkin’s contradicting descriptions of what he claims was a mesorah about a celestial sphere. Another issue is Rabbi Slifkin’s mode of reasoning. 

Rabbi Slifkin admits that in reference to one midrashic opinion,* it can be misleading to call “solid” a rakia that came about through “congealed water.” This is because, he explains, congealed water is not a scientifically-acknowledged phenomenon. This is in contrast to the other opinions which, Rabbi Slifkin alleges, do maintain the rakia is a scientific, hard solid.**

So, the terminology of the proto-water “congealing”  does not necessarily mean that the celestial sphere was considered literally solid and hard. 

But the fact is that the depictions of the rakia by other individuals among Chazal as “made strong” and “made into a plate” are in the very same passage! So where is the “proof” that any of Chazal they thought the rakia is “substantive” in a scientifically-acknowledged sense—meaning “firm” and “hard” in a literal, scientific, earthly, mundane, physically coarse way?! And where is the proof that other talmudic and midrashic passages comparing “the” rakia to cloth tents in tautness, or cast iron mirrors in “strength,” are speaking in the sense of solid and opaque substance?

This is especially significant in view of Rabbi Slifkin’s frequently called-upon sevara of “there is no reason to say he disagreed.” 

It was called to Rabbi Slifkin’s attention that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (Breishis Rabbah 6:8)*** disagreed with other tannaim and said we simply do not know whether the stars move by means of the galgal, as they suggested, or of they “fly in the air,” are self-propelled, or what. This is not something that people could easily determine. I.e., the matter was unknown, and certainly was not a mesorah. Bar Yochai thus welcomes the possibility that the movement of the stars is not tied to any sphere at all—opaque, solid or otherwise. I indicated that this would render purposeless the existence of an actual celestial sphere relating to stars, and that this tanna therefore questions that such an entity exists. 

Rabbi Slifkin responds that “there is no reason to say” bar Yochai disagreed with the others who spoke of a celestial sphere that is allegedly solid and opaque. 

Now, back to our passage* about the rakia having been “frosted/congealed” (held by the “Rabbanan” in the name of Rabbi Chanina, and Rabbi Pinchas, and by Rabbi Yaakov bar Abin in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman) and/or “made strong” (as per Rav, coining “יחזק הרקיע”) or into a “plate” (as per Rabbi Yehuda b’Rabbi Shimon):

 

Rabbi Slifkin admits that the first opinion is manifestly not speaking about “frosting/congealing” etc., in a scientific, physical sense of hardness and firmness or substance, despite the literal meaning of the term “גלדה.” Yet, regarding this passage, Rabbi Slifkin selectively does not use the reasoning that “there is no reason to say that the others disagreed.” He does not “reason” that those in the very same passage who presented other depictions of the rakia (as being “congealed” and made “strong,” or “like a plate, as can be derived from the posuk  ‘they made thin sheets of gold’ “) were likewise speaking in such a sense.

 

So one wonders, what makes this logic of “there is no reason to say they disagree” legitimate only for damaging the mesorah’s integrity and rejecting it?  

However, to avoid even more confusion, we will put aside this “one view in Chazal” that the rakia is “made out of congealed water.” (More precisely, the view is that the rakia was formed from one miniscule drop of “water” that was then stretched out over the entire earth.) Assuming this is indeed just one view, we should be interested in analyzing the other view[s] as to the nature of the rakia. 

In future posts, bli nedder, I will further demonstrate that Rabbi Slifkin’s assertion that any among Chazal subscribed to the view that the rakia is a “hard” substance—or that the rakia is  a substance in any way more solid/substantive/firm than the atmosphere (Rabbi Slifkin maintaining the atmosphere is not solid/substantive/firm)—holds no water. 

I will also deal with the Gemora in Pesachim that has been brought as evidence that Chazal universally believed in an opaque celestial dome. 

======================

* מדרש רבה ד:ב

                                                                                                                                                  "ויאמר אלהים יהי רקיע בתוך המים."

 

 רבנן אמרין לה בשם רבי חנינא, ור' פנחס, ורבי יעקב בר' אבין, בשם רבי שמואל בר נחמן: בשעה שאמר הקב"ה "יהי רקיע בתוך המים," גלדה טיפה האמצעית, ונעשו השמים התחתונים ושמי שמים העליונים.

 

רב אמר לחים היו מעשיהם ביום הראשון, ובשני קרשו. "יהי רקיע"-- יחזק הרקיע.

 

ר' יהודה בר' סימון אמר: יעשה מטלית לרקיע היך מה דאת אמר (שמות לט) וירקעו את פחי הזהב

.

The Rabanan said in the name of Rabbi Chanina, and Rabbi Pinchas and Rabbi Yaakov bar Abin said in the name of Rabbi Shmuel Bar Nachman: When Hashem said "Let there be a rakia in the midst of the waters," the middle drop frosted/congealed (גלדה), and the lower heavens and higher “heaven of heavens” were made.

 

Rav said: The way they were made on the first day, they were in fluid form, and on the second day they congealed (קרשו).—”Let there be a rakia” means: the rakia should become strong.

 

Rabbi Yehuda Bar R. Simon said: [It means] A plate should be made, to be the rakia--just as you say, “they beat out thin sheets of gold.”

 

 

**Unless he doesn’t hold this, but that all Chazal agreed the rakia was not solid, but only “substantive.” His view fluctuates—see my previous post. But assuming that Rabbi Slifkin means “hard solid” when he says so, read on…

 

 

            ***בראשית רבה ו:ח

 “ויתן אותם אלהים ברקיע השמים.” כיצד גלגל חמה ולבנה שוקעים ברקיע?--ר' יהודה בר אלעאי ורבנן. 

 רבנן אמרין: מאחורי הכיפה ולמטה. 

ור' יהודה בר אלעאי אמר: מאחורי הכיפה ולמעלה. 

 א"ר יוחנן: נראין דברי ר"י בר אלעאי--דהוא אמר מאחורי הכיפה ולמעלה--בימות החמה, שכל העולם כולו רותח, ומעיינות צוננין. ומלהון דרבנן--דאמרינן מאחורי הכיפה ולמטה--בימות הגשמים, שכל העולם כולו צונן ומעיינות פושרין. 

אמר רבי שמעון בן יוחאי: אין אנו יודעין אם פורחין הן באויר, ואם שפין ברקיע, ואם מהלכין הן כדרכן--הדבר קשה מאד, ואי אפשר לבריות לעמוד עליו.

 

 

 

 

 

Dialogue – The Hoax of Geology Part 1

This post is continuation of our post entitled Dialogue - The Expression of Fundamental Beliefs

I would like to reiterate that the comments found in this series of posts are not meant as a defense of Rabbi Meiselman’s essay. They are directed solely at Rabbi Slifkin’s stated opinions on his blog.

Rabbi Slifkin quotes Rabbi Meiselman as follows:

One of the main points of this article will be that all current tools for measuring the passage of time presume stability in the relationships between natural processes, similar to what we observe today. In fact, our entire outlook on time reflects this presumption... The presumption of stability in the oscillations of the cesium atom underlies all notions of time measurement today, as well as their projection into other epochs.

Rabbi Slifkin then goes on to make the following comment.

This paragraph gives the impression that the scientific assessment of the universe being billions of years old are all based on the oscillations of the cesium atom. And most people are not very familiar with cesium atoms, which we can't even see, so he can get away with saying that cesium atoms used to act differently.

But what about the dinosaurs? And the therapsids? And the woolly mammoths?

What about them? It is important to understand that "dinosaurs" does not automatically = billions of years. When dinosaur fossils were first classified by paleontologists in the early 1800’s, they did not assume they were millions of years old. But to the uninitiated layman the very presence of dinosaur fossils bespeaks age. For instance, T-Rex, the worlds greatest land predator in history, is automatically presumed by the average person to have lived an inconceivably long time ago (65 million years). Why? Because that’s what evolutionists have been preaching for over 150 years. By now evolutionary dogma has so firmly established itself in the collective consciousness of Western culture it would take a miracle to dislodge it.

Notwithstanding, it goes without saying that Rabbi Slifkin does not appeal to the "uninitiated layman" for support. He makes a well-considered argument from the presence of dinosaur fossils in the geologic record. In the following 2-3 posts we intend on analyzing Rabbi Slifkin’s arguments from Geology to see if they can withstand close scrutiny.

To be continued…