- This topic has 124 replies, 42 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I just heard that BYA girls H.S. in Flatbush canceled the 9th grade bio regent under orders from Hagon R’ A. Schechter Shlita due to apikorsus and other questionable material. I can’t understand why all other yeshivisha schools are not following suit.
superlamdon- in my school we took the bio regent in 12th grade instead of ninth. All evolution questions were censored out, and the other materials that other schools censored out is appropriate for 12th graders to learn.
I just heard that BYA girls H.S. in Flatbush canceled the 9th grade bio regent under orders from Hagon R’ A. Schechter Shlita due to apikorsus and other questionable material. I can’t understand why all other yeshivisha schools are not following suit.
This is Superlamdon on Slab.
Biology is required by NY state in order to graduate high school. The regent has gotten better over the years by limiting the number of Darwin and evolution questions. They also allow religious students to skip questions pertaining to evolution.So there should really be no problem with the biology regent. I don’t understand why a school would cancel the scores especially after the students did all the work and took the test.
Because they want their students to get into college
This makes no sense whatsoever. Get us more info.
This isn’t the thread for me to rave about how much I loved AP Bio, is it?
No, this is the thread for me to complain about how my school reduced all of our grades by a couple of points because we weren’t allowed to answer certain questions.
+1
making like an ostrich isn’t how you deal with theories you disagree with. a btw denying evolution entirely is straight retarded. I challenge any one to defend it.
Brony: I can (and have) successfully defended the story of Chumash as told in B’reishis against current scientific theory. Yes, evolution happens. That is in no way a disproof of the story of B’reishis as we believe it.
I think we learnt it the best way. My teacher just spoke to us before and said this is not how the world was created, we dont believe in it, etc… I highly doubt anyone in my class learned evolution and started believing in it!
fkelly- People don’t believe in evolution. There is evidence to back it up. Belief is only in something that does not have tangible evidence.
I meant that no one like starting to think that evolution is how the world was created. We learned that there still is evolution but certain aspects we dont believe in…
sam2: do you believe that the world is legit 6k years old, or do you peddle the “long day” theory? or something else? genuinely curious, i haven’t given this issue much thought.
This is great, so the girls won’t be able to get a regents diploma, thereby diminishing their ability to get into a decent college thereby decreasing their ability to make enough money so their husbands can learn forever. Really great idea.
Sam2: I don’t think Brony was arguing against your position, just against the position that evolution is made up.
My AP Bio class was taught evolution in much the same way. (Actually, evolution was an optional take-home unit in case anyone would get offended and not want to do it, but this should only be done at your own risk, as it comes up on the AP exam and you can’t exactly skip.)
Evolution isn’t even that hard to memorize just to put on the test- it’s pretty much intuitive, except for the terms.
Also- people who say that something’s just a “theory”- in science, the word theory does not mean what we think it means. When you think of something as a theory, a scientist would call it a hypothesis. Once a hypothesis is tested and accepted to be true, it’s called a theory, and it’s pretty much the same thing. (Not to be confused with a law, which is just a rule to which no exceptions have been found. Though they’re not to be confused, I have often done so anyway. I hate terminology.)
Luna, you’re not required to take any particular science. You must take three years of science. You must pass one science Regents exam to get a Regents diploma (there’s no such thing as a Regent). One of the years of science can be something like computers. I’m not familiar with the state standards for Earth Science, Chemistry, or Physics, but I suspect there’s stuff in Earth Science and maybe Physics that might be considered apikorsus.
Of course Brony is correct in saying that a total denial of evolution is contrary to common sense — it’s how antibiotic-resistant bacteria develop. But it’s a big jump from that to the idea that humans started out as something swimming around in primordial slime.
fkelly- Again, you just don’t understand what evolution is. It is not there to show how the world was created. It simply shows how organisms as we see them today arose from smaller simpler organisms. Science is still wondering how the first independent life-form came to be.
Writersoul: Right, I was going to say the same thing. Gravity is also a theory.
Evolution is a mishegas. The biggest proof is how they misrepresent to us that “all biology is based on evolution”, which is patently untrue.
Very little biology is based on evolution. The only part of evolution that is at all relevant to biology is the basic idea of natural selection, which is obvious (like when only the strongest bacteria survive). The idea that new species can evolve is not necessary for any biology, and is pure conjecture.
Moreover, it is not science. Science is things we can observe about the world, and can be proven or disproven with experiments. While experiments can show basic obvious natural selection, you cannot show a new species by experiment since it takes a gazillion years, so it is not science. The fossils and junk they dig up is just history.
The fact they teach it is science classes is absurd and outrageous.
OblateSpheroid: Exactly.
Just to clarify one of my sentences, even though I doubt anyone reads my posts to care, but I realized that this sentence doesn’t make sense
“Once a hypothesis is tested and accepted to be true, it’s called a theory, and it’s pretty much the same thing.”
and instead it should end
“…it’s called a theory, which means that it is accepted as true and proven with a scientific reason for why it is true.”
PBO: “you cannot show a new species by experiment since it takes a gazillion years”
Definitely not true. I think it’s yehudayona who referred to types of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which can develop VERY quickly. Remember MRSA? How long did that take to develop? Because yes, that is a new species- the bacteria has completely different properties.
I could also go into endosymbiotic theory and phylogenies, which show how different species are related due to how many structures and functions they share due to evolution, but let me just say that when the College Board set up evolution as one of the four “Big Ideas” in their new curriculum, they had reasons. It’s EXTRAORDINARLY important.
Looking at the NYS Dept of Education website, I don’t even see a “biology” regents exam only a “Living Environment” exam
Writer:
I could be wrong; I haven’t studied biology beyond the high school level.
I don’t know what you mean the Methicillin resistant staph has completely different properties than its non resistant cousin. I assume it has a genetic aberration within the range that is normal for what it aberrated from, and those are the ones that survived the methicilin.
That fits within what I call the obvious type of evolution. If I walk among my herd of goats and take out all the spotted ones, after a few years, there will be no more spotted ones in my herd. But they will all still be goats.
When your bacteria evolves into a virus, then we’ll talk.
PBA- You are almost there, in terms of understanding. Just think about how natural selection has played out for several billions of years. If one bacteria can gain antibiotic resistance in such a short amount of time (basically since humans have been smart enough to come up with medicine that inhibit the production of the peptidoglycan wall of the gram positive bacteria to which you are referring), just think what can happen over many magnitude more of years…
Secular: I’m not debating the feasibility (in this thread). But what you refer to is not part of science, since it cannot be observed, and cannot be verified with experimentation. And is certainly not important for understanding how living things work today.
And bacteria can’t evolve into viruses. Viruses are obligate intracellular pathogens that require a host cell’s DNA replicating or RNA translating machinery in order to “infect.” Bacteria are indepedant life-forms that can reproduce on their own.
It is however, theoretically possible for a bacteria to be lysed and some of its genetic material find its way into a protein coat, and become a virus like entity.
And bacteria can’t evolve into viruses. Viruses are obligate intracellular pathogens that require a host cell’s DNA replicating or RNA translating machinery in order to “infect.” Bacteria are indepedant life-forms that can reproduce on their own.
Oh, ok. So then when they evolve into people then we’ll talk.
It most certainly is important to how we live today. When someone you love becomes infected with an exotoxin produced by a staphylococcus bacteria, scientists use their understanding of these organisms and the molecules they secrete to come up with a way to kill those bacteria and inhibit their further growth.
PBO: I took the AP course (college-level- at least, if I do well I’ll get college credits for it), and we learned a great deal about how evolution is behind so much of biology.
First off: evolution doesn’t mean one thing necessarily turns into another- it can also be something more complex developing from something simpler. This is why bacteria will never turn into a virus- they are two entirely different types of organisms, to use your example (viruses are arguably not even living).
Second: You’re spot-on about how MRSA developed, and this is where it gets murky, as what makes two different groups different species as opposed to differently mutated groups of the same species is whether the two groups are able to mate, and viruses reproduce by infecting cells, which doesn’t require mating. However, I’m pretty sure MRSA is a different species from what preceded it. (Help, anyone?)
Your example with the goats doesn’t really work, because the reason why there are no spotted goats is not necessarily because you don’t want spotted goats- it may be because there is a factor selecting against goats in general and one random goat (which has reproduced) has a random genetic mutation to help it survive this selection, so that it and its offspring can now survive. If this happens enough times, and you suddenly brought back one of those original spotted goats (Idunno, maybe they’ll be able to clone from fossils, whatever), if there are enough mutations that their genetic pools are exclusive, that is the creation of a new derivative species.
This can, of course, happen with multiple mutations, leading to multiple species developing alongside each other (as in the case of Darwin’s finches).
They have evolved into people. You are evidence of it. As am I. So I guess we can talk about it.
It most certainly is important to how we live today. When someone you love becomes infected with an exotoxin produced by a staphylococcus bacteria, scientists use their understanding of these organisms and the molecules they secrete to come up with a way to kill those bacteria and inhibit their further growth.
You are failing to understand the distinction I am drawing.
They have evolved into people. You are evidence of it. As am I. So I guess we can talk about it.
I certainly am not. I believe in G-d.
It is possible that evolution is consistent with G-d, but the existence of G-d definitely negates any proof to evolution from our existence.
writersoul- MRSA can be classified a different species, but it is a bit tricky when dealing with bacteria because a single genetic mutation which can lead to a methicillin resistance can possibly be on a plasmid which would not necessarily be an entirely new species, but a “different type” of an existing organism. If however this mutation was introduces to the bacteria genome (ie, not a plasmid) it may be considered a new species.
A similar parallel can be draw from humans. Humans have restriction fragment length polymorphisms. All because you and I don’t have the exact same DNA sequence does not mean that we are different species.
PBO is correct, of course.
Evolution is, at best, a theory, and most likely trash.
Regardless, Rav Elchonon Wasserman HY”D said it is clear, to anyone who is not an idiot, that Hashem created the world.
I saw a great point, at a different Torah web site that, during the 6 days of creation, Hashem created a developed world, not a barren one, as we can see from the pesukim. This includes the Earth, vegetation and animals, not to mention Adam and Chava.
So any carbon dating or any other methods that scientists use, for whatever those methods are or aren’t worth, will anyways not reflect the actual age of the world since the world was already dated at creation.
PBA- You are incorrect in saying that G-d would negate any proof of evolution, because evolution is a series of “accidents” that could have been set up by G-d.
PBA- You are incorrect in saying that G-d would negate any proof of evolution, because evolution is a series of “accidents” that could have been set up by G-d.
That’s ok. You are mistaken when you use the word “proof”.
And you are mistaken when you use the word “mistaken.”
That is, you are positing that the existence of humans proves evolution. I am responding that since G-d exists and could make humans without evolution if He so chose, our existence cannot prove evolution.
Your response was that G-d could have chosen to use evolution.
Thus, you can no longer claim a proof to evolution. You can only claim a reasonable theory.
??? ?? ????
Hakatan, how do you explain vestigial organs such as the appendix, wisdom teeth and vestigial behaviors, like getting goose bumps?
SecularFrummy: That makes sense. I also feel really dumb because in my whole megillah, right after I said that viruses and bacteria are different, I called MRSA a virus :(.
The whole thing with it being on a plasmid or the main chromosome never occurred to me- that makes so much sense.
What do restriction endonucleases have to do with it? Isn’t the whole point whether the gene pool is similar enough for two organisms to mate? Sorry, I’m just not getting it.
PBA- I stand corrected. You are right.
Thank you; you are a mensch.
They have evolved into people. You are evidence of it. As am I.
How can our existence prove evolution vs. creation (or even that evolution is possible)? There seems to be no logic in that statement. It’s like saying that the existence of my car proves that it was made in Japan. It may very well have been, but it may have been made in the US. The existence of the car doesn’t even prove that there’s a factory in Japan.
Edit: I see it’s been retracted. I’ll keep the post up, though, because I know how much popa loves a good moshol.
HaKatan- the people here defending evolution are not claiming that this precludes the existence of Hashem. For instance, let’s take the Big Bang. Do we know the actual method that Hashem used to create the world? Neither do scientists- a G-d is not outside their realm of possibility, however much many disbelieve it.
The whole thing with the “anti-G-d” attitude of scientists is that it’s not even necessarily true- I mean, you get examples like Dawkins but it’s not a fairly applied stereotype- scientists don’t take G-d into account because such concepts are not empirically testable, and empirical testability is the whole point of science. All those Jewish scientists believe in Hashem and understand science at one and the same time- because spirituality and science by definition don’t overlap, there are no contradictions.
Does anyone know if they really cancelled it or if this is just speculation?
writersoul- I didn’t mention restriction endonucleases. Those are enzymes that bacteria use as a primitive immune system to distinguish self from non-self DNA. Basically, those endonuclease enzymes cut DNA sequences that are foreign to that organism. It is analogous to human (or most Eukaryotic complex organisms) that use major histocompatibility complexes to display peptides on their cell surfaces to “notify” the humoral (NK cells) and adaptive (T-cells, many different subtypes) immune cells of foreign proteins being produced.
When it comes to bacteria, prokaryotes don’t “mate.” They can horizontally transmit genetic material through processes known as conjugation or transformation, but the only way they reproduce is through binary fission.
DaasYochid- I wasn’t saying that our existence proves or disproves Hashem, I was responding to a previous comment that said when bacteria evolve into humans, we can have a discussion. And I proceeded to say that such events have already taken place, so we can have the discussion.
its true
In a letter written in Jaffa in 1905, Rav Kook responded to questions concerning evolution and the geological age of the world. He put forth four basic arguments:
1. Even to the ancients, it was well known that there were many periods that preceded our counting of nearly six thousand years for the current era. According to the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 3:7), “God built worlds and destroyed them,” before He created the universe as we know it. Even more astonishing, the Zohar (Vayikra 10a) states that there existed other species of human beings besides the ‘Adam’ who is mentioned in the Torah.
2. We must be careful not to regard current scientific theories as proven facts, even if they are widely accepted. Scientists are constantly raising new ideas, and all of the scientific explanations of our time may very well come to be laughed at in the future as imaginative drivel.
3. The fundamental belief of the Torah is that God created and governs the universe. The means and methods by which He acts, regardless of their complexity, are all tools of God, Whose wisdom is infinite. Sometimes we specifically mention these intermediate processes, and sometimes we simply say, ‘God formed’ or ‘God created.’
For example, the Torah writes about “the house that King Solomon built” (I Kings 6:2). The Torah does not go into the details of Solomon speaking with his advisors, who in turn instructed the architects, who gave the plans to the craftsmen, who managed and organized the actual building by the workers. It is enough to say, ‘Solomon built.’ The rest is understood, and is not important. So too, if God created life via the laws of evolution, these are details irrelevant to the Torah’s central message, namely, the ethical teaching of a world formed and governed by an involved Creator.
God limits revelations, even from the most brilliant and holiest prophets, according to the ability of that generation to absorb the information. For every idea and concept, there is significance to the hour of its disclosure. For example, if knowledge of the rotation of the Earth on its axis and around the sun had been revealed to primitive man, his courage and initiative may have been severely retarded by fear of falling. Why attempt to build tall buildings on top of an immense ball turning and whizzing through space at high velocity? Only after a certain intellectual maturity, and scientific understanding about gravity and other compensating forces, was humanity ready for this knowledge.
The same is true regarding spiritual and moral ideas. The Jewish people struggled greatly to explain the concept of Divine providence to the pagan world. This was not an easy idea to market. Of what interest should the actions of an insignificant human be to the Creator of the universe? Belief in the transcendental importance of our actions is a central principle in Judaism, and was disseminated throughout the world by her daughter religions. But if mankind had already been aware of the true dimensions of the cosmos, and the relatively tiny world that we inhabit, could this fundamental concept of Torah have had any chance in spreading? Only now, that we have greater confidence in our power and control over the forces of nature, is awareness of the grandiose scale of the universe not an impediment to these fundamental ethical values.
To summarize:
Ancient Jewish sources also refer to worlds that existed prior to the current era of six thousand years.
One should not assume that the latest scientific theories are eternal truths.
Some ideas are intentionally kept hidden, as the world may not be ready for them, either psychologically or morally.
(Gold from the Land of Israel pp. 23-25. Adapted from Igrot HaRe’iyah vol. I, pp. 105-107)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.