Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Evolution IV

The scientists who believe in G-d do so because it is clear from nature that there is a Creator.

The scientists who do not, do so because even though it is clear that there was a creator, that conclusion has "undesirable philosophical implications" (that's a quote from an atheist scientist I saw quoted in Time magazine a while ago). Meaning, they will have to be religious, and they have no interest.

Scientists are no better able to resist temptation or to think past vested interests than lawyers or businessmen. The evidence is there, in front of their eyes. It is up to their strength of character - not their scientific abilities - to accept it or not. Unfortunately, their degrees are NOT in strength of character. In that area, they are the same baalei taavah as anyone else.

They still have no answers at all against the proofs to G-d from nature. They just have no interest in bringing those proofs to their logical philosophical conclusion.


There are two different definitions of "scientific": (a) solid, logical, rational, and (b) acceptable by the official self-imposed rules of the scientists.

Scientists have created self-imposed "rules" regarding what proofs they will accept and what they won't. This was done in order to ensure that scientists don't cheat. But it does not mean that those proofs are less correct.

Example: If something cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, it is not acceptable as scientifically "proven". But of course, if 100,000,000 witness a miracle, their testimony is logical proof, even if the scientists cannot officially let it go on record, since miracles cannot be "reproduced."

So in other words, the scientists decided on their own that they will not accept anything supernatural or miraculous into their list of proven items (miracles by definition are not things you can reproduce in a lab) but not because the proof is any less reliable.

In a court of law, you cannot "scientifically" prove someone guilty, since witnesses are not considered scientific proof, and you cannot reproduce the scene in a lab, but still, logically, it is considered "proven beyond a shadow of a doubt."

So the response to the scientists is that not all logical proofs will be considered officially proven by "science", but that is due to the self-imposed rules of the scientists, not because of any problem with the proof.

---


It's simple math: the world is either accident or intelligence. If you want to be an atheist, your choice is accident.

If accident, it was either at once or in stages. But that such a highly developed world can accidentally all come at once, like "boom!" there’s people, males and females. Food, water, air, sunlight etc" all suddenly and at the same time is currently inexplicable.

That leaves graduality, which means evolution.

The exact mechanism whereby the graduality supposedly took place - survival of the fittest, sudden mutation, etc - is where the theories come in. But if you’re going to be an atheist, you’re going to have to find some way to validate evolution, because until they find something else, evolution is the only way to explain a G-dless world. That’s why it’s worth spending our time showing what nonsense evolution is, because today, that’s all the atheists have to hang their hats on. Once that’s not an option, there is nothing left for them.

And if they come up with some other silly idea, that too, will be worth spending our time to expose. But right now, this is all they have. And it is nothing.

---

Judaism does not commit itself to whether there is such a thing as evolution. The problem with evolution is that it makes no sense.
The fossil record contradicts evolution as does nature itself - put a monkey at a typewriter and see if he randomly comes up with the World Book Encyclopedia. That is more likely to happen - much much more - than a single DNA cell evolving.

There is no device in the evolutionary process that demands a certain amount of time for a species to become another (not that even a million years would accomplish that). Evolution is random, sudden mutations. The odds are whatever they are, but randomness has no time frame. What you're saying is like saying "it takes 100,000 years to win the lottery 10 times". It may be according to averages, but if someone wins 10 times in a row, that is not a contradiction to those statistics.
But that’s all academic - evolution has not produce a new species ever. There is no evidence of such a thing at all. Please understand that the only reason the scientists hold on to this theory (which even they agree is only a "theory") is because no matter how illogical it is, their only other option to how we came here is G-d, and they wont accept that because it means they have to believe.

Labels:

1 Comments:

Anonymous l-l said...

Through all this, the word obviously and any synonyms, in terms of proof, appear only once.

4:37 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home