YWN Coffee Room

YWN Coffee Room » Decaffeinated Coffee

51. 
    

    Scientists are involved in finding "scientific fact", which is not the same as "truth", or even plain "fact." This is because scientists - not science - have agreed to restrict "scientific proof" to things that fulfill their own self-imposed criteria, which limits the type of truth they will find. Example: If an experiment cannot be reproduced in the laboratoy, it is not considered scientifically proven.

    Now while I understand the need for such restrictions in order to weed out charlatans, it also weeds out much truth. So that if you have a miraculous event, witnessed by millions of people, such as Kabbalas HaTorah, and documented meticulously, that is still not considered "proof" to the scientists.

    There are many methods of reaching truth that are not considered "scientific". Philosophical, logical, and intuitive thinking is not "scientific proof".
    Consider the following example of confusing "scientific proof" with "truth."
    You have 100 impeccable witnesses stating that the defendant stabbed his victim to death, his fingerprints are on the knife, there are 100 contradictions in his own testimony, and he has been convicted in the past of committing the exact same type of murders, 30 times. None of that constitutes "scientific proof." So "scientifically", the defendant would be found "Not guilty".

    Ironically, there is no scientific proof that the scientific method of proof is the most valid method of proof. Science finds truth to an extent. But only to an extent. The problem is, that often, philosophy, logic, and intuition also play a role in the quest for truth. And there, scientists are not trained, and worse, they are trained not to be interested.

    Science does not claim, really, to find "truth". It is based on theory and falsification thereof. That is not enough for "truth." The practice of science is the same as the practice of Law. You can have irrefutable evidence that the defendant committed the crime, but he will be found innocent because the evidence was obtained without a warrant. Here, too, there is a need for these self-imposed restrictions to maintain long term control over how law is practiced, but the practice of law does not always equal justice and the practice of science does not always equal truth.
    So proofs like Kabbalas HaTorah are inadmissible to the practice of science but science does not say that these proofs aren’t irrefutable. And a conclusion like Creation by a supernatural Muchrach Hametzius, which is not falsifiable is not scientifically admissible, at the same time science does not claim that the proofs that lead to such a conclusion are in any form or manner refutable.

    The problem is, that this “philosophy of science” has backed the scientific community into a corner. Because if the correct and proven answer to a question - such as “How was the world created” - is inadmissible to science, then by definition science is not capable of accepting the correct answer. In such a case, obviously, science should not be bothering with the question, since it doesn’t pay to ask a question if you are locked out of the correct answer.

    But because there is no obligation in the scientific community to accept theological or philosophical truths – why should they? – they continue in their futile efforts to find the answers to the questions whose real answers they are not allowed to accept, so they come up with ridiculous answers like evolution etc. Not that they have a choice. To the scientific community, it’s either stop asking this question, or don’t expect a normal answer. If the correct answer is not in the realm of science then neither should be the question.

    As long as they keep asking the question and using their self-imposed limitations of what they can accept as an answer, they are going to continue running around in circles, coming up with the wackiest things.

    And evolution should have long been considered "falsified" by now, since the world clearly had a Designer, and so there is no question left that the theory of evolution is needed to answer. The fact that evolution is still around, merely shows that science is an incomplete method of seeking truth.

    Posted 2 years ago #

52. 
    

    That Hashem first made man from dirt and then blew into him a Neshama is not in question. But to say that the Torah can agree with the theory of evolution is another matter entirely. The theory of evolution - and the word itself, which means slow change, the opposite of "revolution," which means sudden change - requires many generations of gradual development, and man was already functioning on the day he was created.

    But perhaps even more importantly, the only reason anyone would want to say that humans evolved from monkeys is the lack of any better way to explain the existence of humans, as well as monkeys and other species of life. There is no scientific evidence that humans evolved from monkeys - there is not even any evidence that things evolve altogether. No evolutionist has ever seen or brought any evidence that even a single new organ has ever appeared through evolution, never mind a new species.

    And the evidence against evolution is so obivously compelling - the dependence on the completeness of biologial systems for the survival of the organism has evolutionists nailed to the wall. The first male member of the species had to already have available counterpart with a fully functional female reproductive system, and vice versa, else the species would not have had a chance to survive long enough to develop into anything; the first chicken egg had to be just thick enough to contain the newborn during the incubation period, but thin enough to allow it to break free.

    The reason the evolutionists created and still cling to that theory is because they have no better way to explain how we got here. If the world is accident, then evolution is the best they can come up with, even though it is unreasonable; if the world was created, then it is simply unreasonable.

    So for example, "evidence" such as "vestigial" organs is only evidence if you assume that the world is an accident. But if Hashem created the world and (c"v) "guided" evolution, it would mean that He sloppily provided humans with useless organs that He neglected to "guide" through the evolutionary process. And if you will give G-d enough credit that these organs actually do have a purpose that we do not know of, then the vestigial-organ evidence is down the tubes to begin with.

    The whole idea makes no sense.

    There are those who like to talk this way in a Kiruv situaiton when encountering the naive or unsophisticated who will not think outside the box they were placed in by trendy pseudo-science and will not open their minds to more logical, yet unfashionable thinking. People say such things in order to save the souls of the closed minded. But as an actual possibility, this idea does not qualify.

    The requirement to believe Torah MiSinai includes of course, not only Torah shebiksav but Torah shebaal peh. That includes Midrashim. However, Agados can be interpreted not literally. Rav Saadia Gaon writes that an Agada can be interpreted as Mesholim in 4 instances: If it contradicts reality, reason, Gemara or Rabbinic tradition. The Ramchal, in Maamar HaAgadta also writes that some Agados are mesholim. (See also Radak Shmuel I end of ch. 28)

    Not accpeting a Maamr Chazal is not accpetable - but to reinterpret it in a way that makes it more palatable is OK. Theoretically, that is. In order to interpret any Chazal - Halachah or Agada - you need to benefit of Rabbinic tradition throughout the ages. If the Rishonim considered an Agada literal, you would be fooling yourself by saying that it is not. They surely had the same measure of common sense as we do, and so if they were not bothered by the credulity of a specific statement of Chazal, we should not be, either.

    Another thing: There are people who refuse to accept what seems to them incredulity even in Pesukim of the torah and they therefore interpret them allegorically. That is Apikorsus for sure. And to say that well, I will trust the Torah and the prophets but not Chazal makes no sense. Chazal didnt make up stories. But rather the Agada was said, sometimes, as a Moshol. But to know when it is a Moshol and when it is literal is as difficult as properly interpreting any Torah passage. And here, too, the same logic that tells you the literal meaning of the CHazal is hard ot accept also tells you in even stronger tones, that we are nothing but foolish to reject the opinions of our Rishonim, who understood both reality and Chazal much better than we do.

    I have a better idea, then, for such cases, when you come across such a Chazal. Invoke Rav Chaim Brisker's dictums: "Fun a kasha shtarbt mir nisht". You wont die from a [an unanswered] question. And "S'iz besser to beiben by a kasha vi tzu zogen a krumer teretz" - "Its better to remain with a quesiton than to have the wrong answer."

    So say simply, "I don't understand this Chazal." You dont have to interpret it any way at all. Maybe one day you'll see something in a sefer or someone will explain it. In the meantime, there is no need to jump to conclusions that our predecesors did not reach.

    Posted 2 years ago #

53. 
    

    Evolution, by definition, means "slow progress", the opposite of revolution, which means sudden progress. When did this "evolution" supposedly occur?

    Besides, there is no viable evidence for evolution. The evidence is evidence only assuming there is no Creator. All the similarities between us and monkeys are, to us, meaningless, because theres no reason to assume that one Creator did not create many of His creations with similar physicality. But if you assume there is no creator, then the quesiton arises: how do you explain the similarities between us and lower species? And besides -- how in the world did such complex "animals" such as humans get here anyway? There are two options" fast or slow. Fast makes no sense if there is no creator. And the whole vestigial thing makes no sense also, as you noticed.

    The Torah says the world was created in 6 days. And that Rashi says explicitly that when the Torah says Vayehi Erev Vayehi Voker Yom Echad it means 24 hours.

    The 6 days of creation were in fact 24 hours. How could they not be? Aren't days 24 hours now? So when did this change? Where does it indicate in the slightest that the first Sunday after creation (or the first Shabbos?) was suddenly shorter than previous days??

    On the contrary - it's clear that on the fourth day Hashem said the sun should shine during the time-period that was called "day" and the stars/darkness should rule during the time-period called "night". Since then, that hasnt changed, and obvisouly, as we can see today, the sun and the stars have decided that the time period called day plus the time period called night, are 24 hours.

    The Gemora says this expicitly. It describes 10 things that were created on the first day of creation, one of which is the "length of the day and night" - as it says, "vayehi erev vayehi voke yom echad". So the time span of the day was created on the first day of creation. And, as Rashi states, it means "[the day and night together] - i.e. 24 hours between them".

    G-d does not leave "room for doubt" in the sense that there is something for an objective person to doubt, when it comes to the existence of a Creator. All it means is that we have Bechirah to deny or to dount even though our denial or doubt make no sense.

    It's a simple as a judge presiding over an open-and-shut case where the defendent is guilty. Open and shut, nothing to discuss. But the defendent is the judge's own brother. The question is, will he say the truth or deny the truth - either to himself or to the public.

    Same with our Emunah. The existnece hashem is na open-and-shut case. But all the Yezter Horahs in the world tell us to deny it, in order to throw off all our restrictions. The question is, will we fool ourselves.

    The Ran says that the reason the aseres hadibros starts with Anochi Hashem, as opposed to "Thou shalt believe in me", is because they certianly did believe before kabbalas hatorah, because anybody who is not an idiot (or willing to fool himself into being one) surely believes, since G-d's existnce is so obvious. So it was meaningless for Hashem to tell them "thou shalt bleieve". Instead, He introduced Himslef, as if to say "The G-d that you believe in -- I am He!" Anochi hashem. And the Mitzvah of Emunah is therefore to believe not that G-d exists, since that's simplicity - but to believe that the G-d that surely exists is the entity that took us our of Egypt and gave us the Torah -- to bleieve that "I". i.e. the One talking to us on Har Sinai, is in fact the G-d that we all know must exist.

    And no, I dont believe that people would find plenty of "scientific proofs" that there is no Hashem. I say that because they havent done so before or after evolution, since the idea of Kadmus Haolam, which has been logically disproven long ago.

    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 accidently all come at once , like "boom!" theres people, males, 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 youre goign to be an atheist, youre goign to have to find some way to validate evolution, because until they find somethgin else, evolution is the only way to explain a G-dless world. Thats why its worth spending our time showing what nonsense evolution is, because today, thats all the atheists have to hang their hats on. Once thats 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.

    Posted 2 years ago #

54. SJSinNYC
    always pleasant

    Proud Tatty,

    Isn't claiming that evolution is not possible a limiting factor on Hashem? Isn't it possible that's the way Hashem chose to develop the world? If you read through the days of creation, there is a definitely a sense of evolutionary developement (meaning, development of land then animals in the water etc. Its a progression, which is essentially what evolution claims to be.

    Granted, I personally am very skeptical that evolution is the way the world was created, but I understand that its a possibility. I also understand that scientists may have missed the boat in certain areas (for example, maybe Hashem used evolution up until he got to Man and then created Adam seperately). There are a lot of unknowns.

    Its important to realize though that even IF evolution were true, it doesnt negate Hashem/Torah in any way. And thats a misconception that causes a lot of arguments.

    Posted 2 years ago #

55. feivel
    talmid

    sj and ames

    SCIENTIFICALLY AND LOGICALLY speaking, evolution is absurd and impossible. whether or not it can be compatible with the Torah is not a question that can even be asked.
    i have tried to demonstrate this in previous posts and could go on for weeks with more demonstrations of its ridiculousness. it is only through the vast cunningness and darkness of the Yetzer HaRah that so many could be fooled into embracing it.

    Posted 2 years ago #

56. 000646
    Member

    Feivel,

    Lets forget about all the proofs there are that evolution happend for a minute.

    Microevolution (small physical changes in animals shapes and colors caused by genentic mutations) has been observed in nature many times over.

    Do you have any logical reason for beleiving that these small gentic mutations would stop adding up at the point were the animal would be so changed in appearance (and geneticly for that matter) that we would calassify the animal as another "specie"?

    (Please note that the changes i am reffering to are genetic in nature and cannot be compared to say, working out your muscles.)

    Posted 2 years ago #

57. DeliberatelyEsoteric
    Member

    if apes evolved into humans, why did some apes remain apes? and why are humans not continuing to evolve?

    and where did the apes come from in the first place?

    Posted 2 years ago #

58. mepal
    Member

    DE, not all apes got the mutated gene. Humans keep changing; no 2 look alike!

    Posted 2 years ago #

59. WolfishMusings
    The Wolf

    OK, I did a little research. Four *consecutive* posters -- Toras Moshe, Hill of Beans, Bogen and Will Hill, simply copied and pasted posts from Frumteens without attribution. That four consecutive posters did so from the same site gives me strong reason to think that they are one and the same.

    So, do me a favor "guys." Read the Frumteens moderator's posts, summarize them in your own words (and under one name), and then I'll be back to debate you. If I wanted to argue with the FT moderator, I would have gone to his site directly. I'm too busy and have no desire to debate a copying machine.

    The Wolf

    Posted 2 years ago #

60. WolfishMusings
    The Wolf

    DE,

    You've read a (possibly purposely) distorted version of the theory. No one states that humans came from apes. The theory states that humans and apes have a common ancestor.

    The Wolf

    Posted 2 years ago #

61. 000646
    Member

    "if apes evolved into humans, why did some apes remain apes?"

    No one says humans evovled from apes. Rather they say that apes and humans share a common ancestor.

    "and why are humans not continuing to evolve?"

    Who said they arn't?

    Posted 2 years ago #

62. SJSinNYC
    always pleasant

    Feivel, the exact conclusions that scientists have come up with may be correct, but a general evolutionary process may be the way Hashem set up the world. Just because scientists have looked at certain evidence and come up with a conclusion, doesnt mean the evidence is wrong. It could just be their conclusion.

    Microevolution is seen in nature all the time. So why couldn't Hashem have used a macroevolution process to create the world? We really do not understand enough about creation to make an accurate conclusion.

    Do I think man came from monkey? No. But I do think the way the Torah has creation listed does sort of lend itself to an evolutionary process. Albeit, on directed by Hashem, not random happenstance.

    Posted 2 years ago #

63. gavra_at_work
    Member

    SJS & Feivel:

    Who really cares how we got here? (To paraphrase the gemorah) Now that we are here, we have to make the best of it & serve Hashem.

    Wolf: That actually makes sense. I wonder if it's DK. If it is, please post as FKM.

    Posted 2 years ago #

64. SJSinNYC
    always pleasant

    GAW, ultimately, it doesnt. But its interesting to look at.

    Posted 2 years ago #

65. 
    

    Wolfie comment now and not the 1st time I posted it?

    http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/all-science-and-astronomy-comes-from-the-torah/page/2?view=all#post-57537

    Posted 2 years ago #

66. 
    

    Mr. Wolf I'm insulted it took you over two months to realize the initial source

    http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/all-science-and-astronomy-comes-from-the-torah/page/2?view=all#post-57766

    Posted 2 years ago #

67. 
    

    Wolf, maybe I was the one who posted them on the other site as well

    http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/all-science-and-astronomy-comes-from-the-torah/page/2#post-57783

    Why did you only notice now?

    Posted 2 years ago #

68. 
    

    We missed you WolfishMusings during the previous chat

    http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/all-science-and-astronomy-comes-from-the-torah/page/2#post-57797

    Posted 2 years ago #

69. WolfishMusings
    The Wolf

    I could have sworn there was a rule about only one username per person...

    The Wolf

    Posted 2 years ago #

70. WolfishMusings
    The Wolf

    Wolf, maybe I was the one who posted them on the other site as well

    Okay, Will (or whatever you're calling yourself for now): Are you the FT Moderator?

    The Wolf

    Posted 2 years ago #

71. gavra_at_work
    Member

    :)

    Nominate for post of the year!

    Posted 2 years ago #

72. feivel
    talmid

    ok zero
    you said you did not want to argue evolution again
    i also do not
    this will be my last post in this thread

    Lets forget about all the proofs there are that evolution happend for a minute.
    i forgot all the "proofs a long time ago, one by one as they crumbled.

    Microevolution (small physical changes in animals shapes and colors caused by genentic mutations) has been observed in nature many times over.
    yes, of oourse, you are talking about natural selection. they basically took the essential concept and called it by a new name "microevolution" as if this implies it is simply a small step towards "macroevolution" very clever indeed.
    of course there is natural selection! it simply means that given variation within a species, the variations that engender increased survival capabilities, will slowly develop higher concentrations in the gene pool. this is logical and Pashut.

    (by the way these changes are far more extensive than "shapes and colors")
    (and by the way very very few of these changes are caused by "genetic mutations", the vast majority are preexisting genetic variations and a few by errors during meiosis such as crossing-over and translocation errors. genetic mutations, which are the only mechanism capable of adding something truly "new" to the gene pool are almost ALWAYS injurious)

    "microevolution" (i even hate to write that deliberately misleading doublespeak word) does not add anything NEW (with rare exceptions, and of course the new characteristic has to function symphonically with the complex harmonious preexisting system of characteristics)

    Do you have any logical reason for beleiving that these small gentic mutations would stop adding up at the point were the animal would be so changed in appearance (and geneticly for that matter) that we would calassify the animal as another "specie"?
    well let me ask you a rhetorical question: do you have any logical reason for believing that making gradual small improvements in the microsoft word program could add up until the software would become an aviation simulation program?

    Posted 2 years ago #

73. 000646
    Member

    Feivel,

    If you made a microsoft program that copied itself with mutations, and the mutations that more closly resembled an aviation program (by no matter how small an amount) were more likley to copy themselves that those that didnt then yes, given enough time you would eventualy be producing aviation programs.

    Posted 2 years ago #

74. areivimzehlazeh
    Member

    Did I log into the wrong site?
    We’re in The Yeshiva World Coffee Room and members are arguing (there's actually a debate on this?!) about this, this, this… APIKORSIS! for real??
    Admittedly, not all posts are so terrible. But too many here are unacceptable for this site and open our minds to twisted, crooked ways of thinking.

    This is not the place to argue with people that are having trouble believing in the Torah and Hashem. There are special sites that cater to this

    I'm already feeling sorry for those that will sneer or chuckle at my post and think: This areivim is completely naive, narrow-minded, uneducated and simple-minded

    Posted 2 years ago #

75. 
    

    Did I post under the wrong username again?
    MAN O' Man!!

    Posted 2 years ago #

76. WolfishMusings
    The Wolf

    Can't you just answer a simple question? Are you the FT Moderator (in which case I will apologize for the accusation of plagiarism), or not (and therefore, you plagarized)?

    The Wolf

    Posted 2 years ago #

77. 
    

    This gets so confusing I'm not as quick with this as I used to be.

    Posted 2 years ago #

78. 000646
    Member

    Feivel you said,

    "and by the way very very few of these changes are caused by "genetic mutations", the vast majority are preexisting genetic variations and a few by errors during meiosis such as crossing-over and translocation errors."

    When evolutionists use the word "Mutation" it includes errors during meosis and gene replication as well.

    Posted 2 years ago #

79. absamso
    Member

    Feivel,

    I'm a little confused. You keep claiming that evolution has no logical basis. Then you point out that it's foundations are entirely logical, up to one point you don't explain. So let's see:

    1) There exist variation in nature
    2) Variations are passed down
    3) Those variations best adapted to the environment of the organism will be most successful, and thus the organisms will move in that direction.
    4) Repeat 1-4.

    You're fine with this, but claim it could not possibly lead to grand scale change between species. With enough time, how could it possibly do anything else?

    Your Microsoft Word analogy is dishonest; you're looking for it to turn into something else. Evolution doesn't aim to turn sheep into zebras, though. The point is that an organism keeps changing in slight ways, and those changes as up, as they would have to. So can you please pinpoint the illogic here? It seems you earlier admitted that evolution poses no real problem to anyone who believes Hashem is guiding it, and now you have here shown no case for why it is "illogical" (actually, you outlined the logic of natural selection fairly nicely).

    As to whoever asked why there are still older species around today--natural selection is more complicated than that. The point isn't that one species "defeats" another. That's a misperception of it. The question is which groups are best adapted to a particular environment, so a species can "splinter."

    Posted 2 years ago #

80. 
    

    and maybe I'm not

    Posted 2 years ago #

81. WolfishMusings
    The Wolf

    Forget it. Have fun knocking yourself out with multiple user names. I have no time for sock puppets who simply cut and paste. When you're ready to seriously debate an issue, feel free to drop me an email.

    The Wolf

    Posted 2 years ago #

82. feivel
    talmid

    the following is a quote from my last post
    i hope it will not be considered as a new post
    i do not wish my word to be questioned

    ok zero
    you said you did not want to argue evolution again
    i also do not
    this will be my last post in this thread

    Posted 2 years ago #

83. Pashuteh Yid
    Modern Chareidi Zionist

    Feivel, obviously by starting a thread, you are going to get a discussion going.

    Areivim, you must specify what exactly it is that you ocnsider apikursis. Nobody here has denied HKBH as the Borei Olam. However, we need to divide this thread into subthreads to analyze that claim.

    1) Is saying that species evolved from other species apikursis, If so, why?

    2) Is saying that the first life form randomly self-assembled from inanimate elements (abiogenesis) apikursis? (Sounds like it, but still leaves room for the Borei to have created the elements and the laws of nature which caused that reaction, so not necessarily.)

    3) Is saying dinosaurs once roamed the earth apikursis? (Note there are some chareidi families who will not allow any mention of them, and will take away stuffed toy dinosaurs from little kids?)

    4) Is saying that the earth can be more than 6000 years old and the days of bresihis are non-literal or begin from Adam considered apikursis? Again, why? Aren't there some shitas which hold this way? Don't Chazal say that the whole Sefer Iyov was only a mashal?

    So you need to back up that any of the above is apikursis. (I understand that many people have been conditioned to scream apikursis at any mention of the word evolution, but as before, there are many aspects of the whole theory, and not all or even any may necessarily be considered apikursis. Again, bring rayos. Note that R. Slifkin does bring rayos that many of the above points are found in Chazal. Again, mas somebody mentioned, what do we care what mechanism and intermediates Hashem may have used to create us. As long as we believe he did, what is the problem?

    Posted 2 years ago #

84. absamso
    Member

    Very well put, Pashuteh Yid.

    Posted 2 years ago #

85. gavra_at_work
    Member

    I can answer point 1 (which is quite obvious). A mule is not a horse or a donkey. but offspring of both. Obvoiusly species can be created from other species. We also see genetic mutations passed down to offspring, which are "different species".

    What we see happen can not be "Apikorsus".

    Posted 2 years ago #

86. anon for this
    Member

    GAW, two mules cannot mate & bear young, so I don't think they'd be considered a new species. (There have, hoever, been documented cases of female mules producing offspring when mated to male horses or donkeys).

    Posted 2 years ago #

87. areivimzehlazeh
    Member

    PY- I give you credit for breaking it down clearly. However, I still feel this is not the place to even consider this direction of thinking. The implications of this thread are poisonous for those that do not have solid hashkofos and/or enough info/backing.

    We don’t have enough teens with too many questions? Enough yidden with weak emunah?

    This thread is completely defeating the purpose of an exclusively FRUM Jewish website.

    Why are we trying to dig past basic beliefs? This is not a debate between Rabbi & Priest.
    This discussion rings too many alarm bells in my brain. I stand by my conviction that this topic does not belong on YWN.

    Posted 2 years ago #

88. Pashuteh Yid
    Modern Chareidi Zionist

    Areivim, I hear your concerns. As I mentioned before, I never believed that evolution was mathematically possible. However, the issue you raise of kids with shailas can go two ways. On one hand we don't want to raise questions in the mind of children. But on the other hand, the reality is that many kids have questions on their own. If we stifle all talk of evolution, then some kids who can't get answers may leave the fold. Most kids these days are too sophisticated to simply listen to someone telling them they are not allowed to ask, or that all scientists are fools and liars. For those kids, I think that R. Slifkin's approach is a life-saver. For other kids, it may be detrimental. I think the key is we must be honest with our kids. If they have questions, then we can tell them that there are Torah approaches to dealing with these matters which do not involve negating current scientific thought in any way.

    As an aside, my own hashkafa is that the RBSH gave us the Torah for only one reason which is to teach us how to live in shalom with each other and appreciate every yid. All the other details are secondary (as per Hillel). So it matters not a hoot whether there were dinosaurs or not. Teach the kids to appreciate the warmth and kindness of the Torah, and the friendship and fun of having so many relatives (extended family). They will not want to stray if this message is constantly reinforced. You can tell them that in public school, there can be the most vicious taunting by classmates of any random child. It happens all the time. It does not generally happen in any yeshiva in which midos are the core. It is one big happy family. Most yeshiva kids have happy memories of school, which I have read is not at all the case in public school.

    When a child is made to understand that this is the ikar of yiddishkeit, he will realize how fortunate he is to have teachers and classmates that care about him, because they learned that from Avraham Avinu. Similarly, if it is stressed that the discipline of learning Torah has led to Jewish success in many other areas as well, he will develop a sense of pride in his religion. All this positive is what keeps kids on the derech. I don't believe that taking a negative, sarcastic approach to the outside world or to scientists is the approach that is most likely to lead to a lifelong commitment. This is why I always say the RBSH gave us the Torah for our sake, not for his ego.

    I always used to believe that the fossils don't show anything, because they would find a small bone fragment, and construct a model 100 feet tall. However, I am indebted to R. Slifkin for alerting me to the possibility that we should consider the evidence honestly and unbiased, because it doesn't contradict the Torah either way. If there are enough bones to really piece together a dinosaur, then fine; if there seem to be too few, and too much personal creativity on the part of the modeler, then that's also fine. Let us just look for the emes.

    Posted 2 years ago #

89. 000646
    Member

    Feivel said,

    "genetic mutations, which are the only mechanism capable of adding something truly "new" to the gene pool are almost ALWAYS injurious"

    This statement is simply just false.

    For example the average human being typicly has about 50-100 mutations of which 3 actually change a protein (they are not what are known as "silent" mutations which dont change any proteins and have no real effect on their organisim whatsoever),if the vast majority of mutations were injurios as you claim, humans (and all other life for that matter) would have been extinct long ago.

    Most mutations that actually change a protein are neither harmfull or beneficial in of themselves, rather are simply diffrent.

    If the vast majority of mutations will prove to be harmfull or not would depend on the enviroment were the organisim which has any particular mutation finds itself.

    (For example a mutation that causes an animal to have darker skin will prove beneficial to the animal if it finds itself in an enviroment with a dark surface as it would make it harder to spot but harmfull if it finds itself on a light one were it will make it easier to spot.)

    Posted 2 years ago #

90. Jax
    Member

    i'm with areivim, i've been reading this thread & not posting, since seeing the way it spun after a few posts! this is YWN & a topic like this should be shut down!

    Posted 2 years ago #

91. areivimzehlazeh
    Member

    PY- this will go a bit off topic. Your position vs. mine is a common chalukei dayos that applies across the board.
    Some believe it's ok to expose the "good guys" in order to save the ones "going off". Yet some feel this is not at all valid & we're only furthering the problem by dragging everyone into this “doubt mode”.
    I obviously side with the position that we should go main-stream, especially on a public forum!
    Those with questions should get their answers- but in an appropriate time, place, forum and- from the right PEOPLE (not your local CR'nik).
    I won't downplay the wealth of knowledge here- but it's simply counterproductive and extremely dangerous for those that don't have this need for “answers”.

    Posted 2 years ago #

92. Jax
    Member

    ames: did they[the school] rip the pages of evolution out of your science books in school?!

    Posted 2 years ago #

93. SJSinNYC
    always pleasant

    Areivim, I understand your point, but I think anyone who uses a thread like this to veer off the derech is looking for excuses. Also, I think its important to point out that everyone in this thread has unequivically stated that whatever happened, Hashem was the ultimate catalyst. I think thats a point many people miss - however the world was created, it was done so at Hashem's will and direction.

    Ames, I am totally with you on that. Even in my modern orthodox high school they really wouldn't discuss this. They didn't outright call it kefira, but they were not open to discussion. I think the teen years are when most people start really questioning life and Judaism. If you make a topic so taboo and just give people mussar, they will never be satisfied. Unfortunately, teens have many questions that just do not get answered and I think that leads to so many of them going off the derech.

    Now, my childhood Rav thinks evolution as presented is 100% garbage. I never asked him if it was the man-monkey connected or just the general theory. I think I'm going to discuss this with him the next time I see him - he is well educated in biology so he has a lot more insight than I do!

    Posted 2 years ago #

94. areivimzehlazeh
    Member

    I agree Rabbeim and Teachers should be equipped. However, the major difference in our opinions is: discussing it outright for ALL vs. making available to those that need. There's a big gap between the two

    Posted 2 years ago #

95. areivimzehlazeh
    Member

    I just wanted to add the following:
    If there was someone in the CR with real questions, I would say to answer them; and maybe even guide them to an appropriate authority figure where they can get more of what they seek. But to open up a discussion that leads to these questions of doubt....

    Posted 2 years ago #

96. squeak
    Makes smalltalk with the 2 most intellegent beings on Earth

    SJS - the topic is taboo for one simple reason: The teachers and rabbeim that you ask do not know the answers (or even the questions). Rather than saying "I don't know but you can ask so and so" they tend to brush off the questions one way or another.

    I agree, these topics should be discussable. There exists no question that cannot be answered properly. In fact, some of the theories (such as the expanding universe theory related to the BB) logically leads to the idea of a Creator (the expansion had to start at some point). But I also agree with areivim - these topics are very complex and should be answered thoughtfully and carefully - NOT in a public forum. Books have been written addressing these questions, though.

    Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.