Kingdom of Priests

Kingdom of Priests


Maimonides on Intelligent Design, According to New Biographer

posted by David Klinghoffer

Gosh, I get so tired of cliches from religion-friendly mush-heads. According to one such cliche:

Maimonides was a physician. A physician is a kind of scientist. Maimonides was therefore a religious scientist. Consequently any attempt to merge any science-flavored idea, such as Darwinism, with Judaism would meet with Maimonides’ approval.

You think I’m kidding. I’m not. This is how many Jewish people, hungry for social and intellectual approval, really think. And in their own respective context, so do many Christians.
So what a breath of fresh air it was for me over Shabbat to open the relatively new and admirably lucid Maimonides biography by Joel L. Kraemer at the University of Chicago, Maimonides: The Life and World of One of Civilization’s Greatest Minds (Doubleday). Professor Kraemer asks what should a student of Rambam (Maimonides) like himself reply if asked, “What is the most important idea taught by Maimonides in his scientific and philosophic writings?”
Answers Kraemer: “A good answer would be that it is the idea of an orderly universe governed by laws of a cosmic intelligence.” Contemporary relevance, please?

Replies Kraemer:

Maimonides grasped the great divide between monotheists, who believe that an intelligence guides the universe, and Epicureans, who believe that everything happens by chance. The argument continues nowadays between intelligent adherents of intelligent design and Darwinian atheists who believe in chance mutation.

There you have it: Maimonides was fighting the good intellectual fight for intelligent design almost 800 years ago. It was his top philosophical and scientific concern. For heaven’s sake, do you need any further proof that ID, right or wrong, is at any rate an authentically Jewish cause?


Advertisement
Comments read comments(56)
post a comment
Alan Stillman

posted July 20, 2009 at 9:49 am


David:
this is how one Jewish person, potentially “hungry for social and intellectual approval”,thinks. just as I would not want anyone to read what you write and report that ‘this is what all Jewish people (or even the very observant) think’.
many members of my family are very very orthodox. yet, they believe in evolution with or without the guiding hand of deity. they also attend same-sex marriage ceremonies of the people they care about. your opinions do not in any way reflect their view of the world.
I for one would not assume that Mameonides would embrace Darwin’s ideas. nor would I assume that he would embrace ID. I would hope that he would embrace that evolution should be taught in Science class and that ID be taught in a philosophy or religion class. but I would not necessarily assume that, either.



report abuse
 

Anderson

posted July 20, 2009 at 10:35 am


Kraemer loses a ton of credibility when he writes “Darwinian atheists who believe in chance mutation.”
This should be obvious to you by now, but “Darwinist” and “Darwinian” are pejorative terms—people who adhere to evolution are not followers of Charles Darwin. And they aren’t necessarily atheists, which should be obvious to you since you spend so much time attacking theistic evolutionists. “Believe in chance mutation” also is a distortion. Scientists have identified several reasons why mutations occur and would never describe them as the result of “chance.”
And I don’t understand why you’re putting so much effort into arguing about Thomas Jefferson and Maimonides’ views on theories that didn’t even exist during their lifetimes. This is really a fruitless exercise.



report abuse
 

Anderson

posted July 20, 2009 at 10:37 am


Also, if this really is a cliché . . .

Maimonides was a physician. A physician is a kind of scientist. Maimonides was therefore a religious scientist. Consequently any attempt to merge any science-flavored idea, such as Darwinism, with Judaism would meet with Maimonides’ approval.

. . . you should be able to link to several examples of people making this or a very similar argument. You shouldn’t have to create a strawman version of it.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted July 20, 2009 at 10:45 am


1. The Mainmonides-was-a-physician thing is unutterably silly and not at all representative of the questioners here. Really now. In any case, none of us here are “hungry for” any kind of social, intellectual, or other approval. We’re trying to get at the truth and to get you to respond to our questions.
2. I’m not clear on whether the quoted text is from the book, or from an interview with Kraemer. It would be nice to know which it is, and where (page number, website, etc.) it can be found, so we could check the context.
3. I notice that instead of replying to the actual quotes I gave from Guide for the Perplexed, which you quoted only in part, you give a one or two sentence assessment by an author of a book on Maimonides. That is not how one makes an argument.
Just to refresh: David gave a brief quote from Maimonides which indicated that he (Maimonides) rejected an eternal universe as incompatible with Judaism. If you look at the whole context for the quote, however, Maimonides says that it is Aristotle’s conception of such an eternal cosmos that is objectionable, but that Plato’s conception of such a cosmos is OK. I gave the full quote and the translation and page number. David could at at least acknowledge this, don’t you think?
4. From the editorial reviews I’ve found from a brief bit of superficial surfing, it seems that Kraemer is reasonably respected and did a lot to research the biography of Maimonides. However, he is not a scientist, and thus no matter how expert he is on the Rambam, he is not qualified to speculate on evolution vs. intelligent design.
Anderson, I agree with you, by the way. If the quotes from Kraemer are correct (and the track record around here on correct quotes ain’t good!), that does seem to damage his credibility, though he may still be expert on the milieu of Maimonides. Of course, evolutionary theory came about over half a millennium after Rambam, so as you point out, citing him on this is not really relevant, anyway, although from what I’ve read of him, I think he might be much more flexible on this were he alive than David seems to think.
5. The boldfaced part of the quote you give, David, is one more example of your usual straw man. Not everyone who believes in evolution is an atheist!!! And theistic evolutionists believe in “the idea of an orderly universe governed by laws of a cosmic intelligence” just as much as IDers, or for that matter, young-Earthers, do! The way in which that intelligence works in the cosmos is the point of disagreement, not that it does so. Why can’t you seem to grasp that?
6. David, in his post on Francis Collins: “On the other hand, that life has an evolutionary history including billions of years of change — that is unassailable as science and unobjectionable to me as a Jew.” Please explain to me how this is one whit different from theistic evolution. David, you said on that same post that you’d like to see someone debate Collins or ask him some pointed questions; yet you resolutely avoid all such questions and attempts at debate here. This one, which seems to me a statement of what almost anyone would refer to as theistic evolution, is especially egregious. I think I’m going to re-post it on every thread, if that’s what it takes to get you to speak to it. I mean, really!
7. For heaven’s sake, do you need any further proof that ID, right or wrong, is at any rate an authentically Jewish cause?
Then why is it that, except for a few of the more fringe Haredi groups, that the vast majority of even Orthodox Jews have no problem with evolution? Which doesn’t seem to be turning them into crazed, relativist secularists, does it?
7. Finally, this does not count as a response to what we’ve been asking you about Maimonides (as I said above, a one-sentence quote from an author of a biography about him isn’t arguing his philosophical statements!). We’re still waiting. Also, I’m still waiting to hear you speak to the issues of randomness and alien intelligence vis-à-vis the “image of god”.



report abuse
 

LazerA

posted July 20, 2009 at 10:56 am


It is interesting how nominally observant Jews become “very very Orthodox” when people want to use them to legitimate non-normative behavior or ideas. Being someone who actually lives in the Orthodox world, I know for a fact that the (A) most Orthodox Jews are on David’s side on the evolution issue (actually, his approach would be seen by many as far too accepting of evolution) and (B) attending a same-sex marriage would be absolutely scandalous in the Orthodox community.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted July 20, 2009 at 11:09 am


LazarA: Not being Jewish, Orthodox or otherwise, I can’t say I have direct knowledge of the Orthodox views on evolution. My understanding from what I’ve read on it is that the majority of Orthodox rabbis and associations are on record as favoring it or seeing it as no problem, and that it is mostly some Haredi groups that reject it. Of course, this does not necessarily correlate with the beliefs of the congregants. Also, as a non-Jew whose finger is hardly on the pulse of Orthodox Judaism, I make no claims to be right about this.
However, let’s concede, for the sake of argument, Lazar’s proposition that most Orthodox Jews are “on David’s side on the evolution issue”. That still doesn’t make them right! At one time everyone on Earth, Jews and Gentiles, thought the Earth was flat–that, of course, didn’t make it so. Thus, all of us, myself included, should probably drop arguments based on what most Orthodox believe about evolution. The truth or falsity of evolution (or any other scientific system, for that matter) has to be argued on different grounds.
As to B, I’m sure it’s correct, but it’s completely irrelevant to the issue at hand here.



report abuse
 

Glen Davidson

posted July 20, 2009 at 11:44 am


Maimonides was a physician. A physician is a kind of scientist

Sorry, that just sounds like DI claptrap, given its list of typically irrelevant “scientists” and physicians who are ignorant enough to embrace ID.

Consequently any attempt to merge any science-flavored idea, such as Darwinism, with Judaism would meet with Maimonides’ approval.

Yeah, right. More like, as a Scholastic, he tried to show that the science of his day, Aristotelian science, was compatible with the Torah. That’s because Scholastics, medievalists though they were, happened to believe that god would not contradict himself in nature, while David simply ignores nature’s message and tries to make Maimonides into a similarly ignorant and uncaring religionist.
What could make Maimonides not an especially likely candidate for saying that evolution is compatible with Torah is the fact that he was a Scholastic, however, since in both Plato and Aristotle there are matters not highly compatible with present-day science. Aristotle’s species as eternal forms would be one of these. So I don’t think it’s obvious that Maimonides would be sympathetic to modern science, although he was far from the unthinking position that David wants to ascribe to him.

This is how many Jewish people, hungry for social and intellectual approval, really think.

More pathetic attempts to smear those who have very good reasons to accept modern science. Gee, maybe Jews tend to actually prefer meaning to worthless prejudices (which have often been aimed at them), hence they accept Enlightenment values against the DI’s Dominionist-inspired propaganda.

who believe that everything happens by chance. The argument continues nowadays between intelligent adherents of intelligent design and Darwinian atheists who believe in chance mutation

A completely disingenuous connection between the unscientific Epicurean position (not entirely chance, either), with the rule-driven science of evolution. While we certainly accept that mutation occurs by chance (not completely randomly, but via chance), the point of evolutionary theory is that it explains how mutations by chance are preferentially preserved by very real, causal, and essentially deterministic processes. Hence the analogy with Epicureans, an old dishonest ID trope, is nothing but a prejudicial snarl against meaningful Newtonian science (which evolutionary theory mostly, not entirely, still is).

For heaven’s sake, do you need any further proof that ID, right or wrong, is at any rate an authentically Jewish cause?

Jews are somehow externally or internally excluded from the Enlightenment? The latter may be true for some like David, but he has no business telling Jews that one of the most friendly-to-Jews Western developments, the elevation of reason by the Enlightenment, is off-limits to Jews as a people.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 20, 2009 at 12:26 pm


Maimonedes used the cosmology of his day to demonstrate design. Cosmologists today are trying very hard to explain the exquisite fine tuning of the Cosmos to accomodate life. They even have a name for it, the Anthropic Principle. So far, the best explanation they’ve come up with is multi-verse.



report abuse
 

LazerA

posted July 20, 2009 at 12:42 pm


Turmarion,
I was not actually responding to David’s post; I was responding to the comment by Alan Stillman about his “very, very Orthodox” relatives. Obviously, what most Orthodox Jews believe about evolution does not prove anything about the scientific validity of the theory.
On the issue of the acceptance of evolution in the Orthodox community: Orthodox Judaism is based on the belief that the Torah is absolute truth. The critical issue for accepting evolution in Judaism is therefore simply if the concept can be found congruent with the Biblical narrative.
An approach may be considered “acceptable” (i.e. non-heretical) without generally being considered correct.
For example, some Orthodox thinkers (Gerald Schroeder is a good example) have argued that, with some effort, the Biblical narrative can be understood in a manner consistent with evolution. This is a problematic approach for a variety of reasons but it is clearly not heretical.
On the other hand, some have argued that we can understand the opening chapters of Genesis as entirely metaphorical. This approach is generally viewed as bordering on heretical (many see it as well over the border). The issue is to what degree can we interpret the Torah as metaphor, we certainly can to some degree and we certainly can not to another degree. Where exactly do we draw the line? The fact that this approach flies in the face of virtually all traditional understanding of the Biblical narrative is a major argument against its acceptability.
Another approach commonly found in the Orthodox community is that the world was created in a fully developed state, and as such evolution could be scientifically valid, even though it never actually happened. This approach is fully consistent with the Biblical narrative and scientifically unassailable. There are those who criticize it on philosophical grounds.
Finally, there are those who see evolution as entirely false and fundamentally antagonistic towards the Torah and religious belief in general.
Of these approaches, the metaphor approach is least accepted. Very few committed Orthodox Jews would consider it an acceptable approach. All of the other approaches clearly assume an active involvement by the Creator in the Creation. They would generally reject the approach of theistic evolution (and many of the approaches of ID), not because of philosophical issues, but because the approach is not consistent with the Torah narrative.
Generally, the Chareidi community does not accept any approach that would move significantly from the literal meaning of the Torah narrative. Thus, they are generally most comfortable with either complete rejection of evolution or the idea of the fully developed creation. In general, most Chareidim are skeptical of the validity of evolution, even when they do not see it as a Scriptural problem.
BTW, the Chareidi community is far from “fringe” in the Orthodox world.



report abuse
 

Olorin

posted July 20, 2009 at 4:23 pm


DK quoting Kraemer’s answer to what is Maimonides’ most important idea: “A good answer would be that it is the idea of an orderly universe governed by laws of a cosmic intelligence…. Maimonides grasped the great divide between monotheists, who believe that an intelligence guides the universe, and Epicureans, who believe that everything happens by chance. The argument continues nowadays between intelligent adherents of intelligent design and Darwinian atheists who believe in chance mutation.”
How can Kraemer be that authoritative about Maimonides’ science when he (a) understands so little about science, and (b) makes such a glaring logical fallacy?
(a) The lack of understanding is Kraemer’s statement that Darwinian evolution is confined to chance mutation. First, mutation is only the first leg of Darwin’s theory; the other leg is selection, which is not driven by chance at all. Second, mutation itself is driven by physical laws, not by chance. “Chance” in this context means only that mutations are random only as to whether they are beneficial or detrimental, not as to whether they are law-abiding.
(b) Equivocation seems to be David’s strong point recently. Both theistic evolutionists and ID proponents would agree with the first two sentences. Yet the last sentence implies that all those who agree with the first two sentences are followers of ID. Not true. Not true at all.



report abuse
 

Olorin

posted July 20, 2009 at 4:30 pm


(b’) The second part of Kraemer’s equivocation, of course, is equating the Epicureans with Darwinists as beievers only in chance. As shown above, Darwinists do accept natural law as governing evolution. Therefore Kraemer’s last sentence is not true.
If Kraemer is so demonstrably illiterate in this matter, why should we trust any of his other statements about Maimonides?



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted July 20, 2009 at 4:32 pm


LazarA: Thank you for an interesting and detailed follow-up. As I said, I’m not conversant with Orthodox Judaism in depth; as such, it was interesting to learn more about its views on this matter.
I misspoke in referring to the Chareidim as “fringe” from the Orthodox perspective. You are right that they are significant within Orthodoxy. I think in the larger Jewish world, which is largely secularized, there would be a perception of their being fringe, but that wasn’t the context here. Pardon the error on my part.
Another approach commonly found in the Orthodox community is that the world was created in a fully developed state, and as such evolution could be scientifically valid, even though it never actually happened. This approach is fully consistent with the Biblical narrative and scientifically unassailable.
On the other hand, I’m not sure how this perspective is even coherent from either a scientific or philosophical angle. For a scientist, to say that the scientific evidence for evolution is valid though it never happened would be like saying the scientific explanation of gravity is valid though gravity doesn’t actually exist.
They would generally reject the approach of theistic evolution (and many of the approaches of ID), not because of philosophical issues, but because the approach is not consistent with the Torah narrative.
This is interesting and shows the different mindsets. Neo-platonism always had a strong influence in Christianity and the Scholastic method was highly influential in Catholic (and indirectly, Protestant) theology. In all of these cases, Christian theology was apparently much more willing to follow Greek modes of exegesis and to make heavy use of metaphor and allegory. The content of Scripture was important, and in some respects normative, but there was the ultimate need of interpretation in light of Tradition, the Fathers of the Church, and the theological and philosophical systems they used. It would appear that these modes of reading Scripture were less influential or less trusted in the Jewish context. In any case, I’ve learned something, which is always a good thing!



report abuse
 

kernestm

posted July 20, 2009 at 7:09 pm


Alan Stillman posted
July 20, 2009 9:49 AM
I for one would not assume that Mameonides would embrace Darwin’s ideas. nor would I assume that he would embrace ID. I would hope that he would embrace that evolution should be taught in Science class and that ID be taught in a philosophy or religion class. but I would not necessarily assume that, either.
Why would you want the religious assumptions of evolution taught as if science, and the latest scientific discoveries showing ID is essential to the creation of life taught as if philosophy or religion? Get real! Go and do research on the scientific discoveries showing ID.
Escape from Egypt, 40 years in the wilderness, all wasted as they still won’t believe. They should read the last few of their prophets to see what is about to happen.
From Turmarion
Then why is it that, except for a few of the more fringe Haredi groups, that the vast majority of even Orthodox Jews have no problem with evolution? Which doesn’t seem to be turning them into crazed, relativist secularists, does it?
It really upsets me that Jews are not reading and believing the word their creator gave them, it is totally incompatible with millions of years. How can they expect their messiah to come if they refuse to accept word? They will be needing Him soon, as the UN and USA back their enemies in an effort to destroy them and take all of Israel for the Moslems.
From LazerA
For example, some Orthodox thinkers (Gerald Schroeder is a good example) have argued that, with some effort, the Biblical narrative can be understood in a manner consistent with evolution. This is a problematic approach for a variety of reasons but it is clearly not heretical.
It is clearly heretical. Many have excelled in twisting the word of God, but why call, or infer, Him a liar when you want His help in protecting your country?
“Another approach commonly found in the Orthodox community is that the world was created in a fully developed state, and as such evolution could be scientifically valid, even though it never actually happened. This approach is fully consistent with the Biblical narrative and scientifically unassailable. There are those who criticize it on philosophical grounds.”
Are you claiming the evolution is “scientifically unassailable” in spite of science proving that life cannot come about by unguided chemical reactions, and therefore must have been guided by some external force?
From Olorin
(a) The lack of understanding is Kraemer’s statement that Darwinian evolution is confined to chance mutation. First, mutation is only the first leg of Darwin’s theory; the other leg is selection, which is not driven by chance at all. Second, mutation itself is driven by physical laws, not by chance. “Chance” in this context means only that mutations are random only as to whether they are beneficial or detrimental, not as to whether they are law-abiding.
Science has shown that mutations are usually harmful, and seldom make an improvement, which is usually by disabling some process, but never produce an increase in useful complexity, so can never account for the rise of complexity from the assumed first simple life.



report abuse
 

Olorin

posted July 20, 2009 at 9:31 pm


kernestm: “Get real! Go and do research on the scientific discoveries showing ID.”
Yes, please. We’ve been waiting for decades, and nothing has yet turned up. Promises, promises. But no evidence. William Dembski was finally forced into an end run, inferring intelligent design by pure force of logic, with no need for evidence. (Guffaw.)
Kernestm: “Science has shown that mutations are usually harmful, and seldom make an improvement, which is usually by disabling some process, but never produce an increase in useful complexity,…”
I’d sure like to see your refutation of the experiments and observations that show otherwise. Yes, almost all mutations are harmful; yes, they seldom make an improvement. But no increase in complexity? Please tell that to the banana, which evolved in a couple of years from an almost inedible 3″-long herb by automultiploidy of its genome. The eye has long been an icon of intelligent design. Yet many computer simulations have evolved complex eyes with lenses from simple light-receptive skin patches in less than 400,000 years. No wondeer it has evolved so many times.



report abuse
 

kernestm

posted July 21, 2009 at 1:26 am


To Olorin
kernestm: “Get real! Go and do research on the scientific discoveries showing ID.”
Yes, please. We’ve been waiting for decades, and nothing has yet turned up. Promises, promises. But no evidence. William Dembski was finally forced into an end run, inferring intelligent design by pure force of logic, with no need for evidence. (Guffaw.)
There is plenty of evidence, but you have to move your fingers to get it. At http://www.iubmb-nicholson.org/gif/11.html there is the diagram of the ATP motor which is in every cell from the simplest to every cell in your body. No work can be done in the cell without energy being converted by the motor to ATP, which is the only fuel for the cell. The DNA cannot be read without this ATP, the motor cannot be made unless the instructions in the DNA can be read, then it cannot be built unless the motor is operating to produce the ATP. No simpler process will produce the ATP, everything must be in place for the cell to survive, and the only way that can happen is by being formed by a previous cell that has all the equipment, it cannot form by natural chemicals, as they won’t form all the pathways for the chemicals.
Also another good science source is:
http://www.trueorigin.org/ There is a long list of science papers, of which ATP: The Perfect Energy Currency for the Cell and Why Abiogenesis is Impossible are most relevant, but the others are important if you are actually interested in science.
Kernestm: “Science has shown that mutations are usually harmful, and seldom make an improvement, which is usually by disabling some process, but never produce an increase in useful complexity,…”
I’d sure like to see your refutation of the experiments and observations that show otherwise. Yes, almost all mutations are harmful; yes, they seldom make an improvement. But no increase in complexity? Please tell that to the banana, which evolved in a couple of years from an almost inedible 3″-long herb by automultiploidy of its genome.
This is the usual misleading claim, multiple copies are not an increase in the sense of microbe to man, as they only have the same data, but the plant in this case has to form according to the confusion of the repeated instructions, and it will only ever be a banana. This process or mutations will not ever add useful complexity that will change one species to different one, just as dogs are wolf/dog and not cat as well though they are similar, 4 legs head and tail.
The eye has long been an icon of intelligent design. Yet many computer simulations have evolved complex eyes with lenses from simple light-receptive skin patches in less than 400,000 years. No wondeer it has evolved so many times.
Yes perhaps “computer simulations have evolved complex eyes” but it is all BS (bad science) just stupid story telling to try to support the lies of evolution. Can you produce proof that eyes evolved many times? You cannot, as it all depends on believing evolution as a faith, the science and fossil record do not show clear progression from one species to another.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 21, 2009 at 8:28 am


If eyes evolved somany times, why isn’t there some record of evolution of eyes in the fossil record? A whole bunch of different organisms show up suddenly in the Cambrian with complete eyes.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 21, 2009 at 8:30 am


And computer simulations can be made to produce anything.



report abuse
 

Zevulun

posted July 21, 2009 at 10:48 am


“Gosh, I get so tired of cliches from religion-friendly mush-heads.”
Read that statement and feel the irony.



report abuse
 

Alan Stillman

posted July 21, 2009 at 10:56 am


@ your name:
the eye is made of soft tissue. soft tissue rarely fossilizes. just a few weeks ago there was an article about an extremely rare finding of fossilized dinosaur skin. how exactly is the eye going to survive decay so that it may be fossilized?
@ kernestm:
the scientific method can not PROVE the existence of an intelligent designer. the ID ‘proof’ is to look at the complexity of life and then label that the proof that a designer made it happen. that is faith, the stuff of religion and philosophy, not science. faith can not and should not be held to the burden of proof. science can not and should not be taken on faith. they are two very different, but valuable, disciplines.
the evolutionary record may indeed have some gaps, but it is capable of inspiring theories that can be examined and tested and proven or revised as newer evidence is discovered. those who have faith in ID will point to the gaps or attempt to discount or discredit the evidence of evolution. or they will claim it to be the ‘proof’ they need of the existence of the designer. regardless, ID is not science.
when we look at the vastness of the universe (or multiverse) and the countless number of galaxies and solar systems and planets, there is no doubt in my mind that the complexity we find on Earth is inevitable. there is likely similar situations on other planets – life that is identical or very different than how we experience it. but even if there is not, life as we know it is not that astonishing given the incalculable opportunities. and yet, at the same time it is amazingly astonishing and worthy of awe.
if the ‘designer’ were so intelligent and we were the penultimate product of the design, why is there so much other — seemingly unnecessary — stuff out there? I am sure many would say that this stuff is part of the balance, part of what needed to happen in order to create existence for us. but really, if the designer were that intelligent and powerful, would there only be a need for one planet circling one sun? or better yet, just one flat plane of existence for the designer’s perfect critter and the other life forms that critter needed to survive?
yes, life is improbable and improbably complex. but as vast and the universe is the factors that make the probability more likely are present. and we just happen to be the lucky ones who get to experience it all.
and regardless of whatever assumptions you may make of me and my “Darwinist” ways, I still find that amazingly awe inspiring and worthy of contemplation and celebration.



report abuse
 

Unapologetic Catholic

posted July 21, 2009 at 12:23 pm


“For heaven’s sake, do you need any further proof that ID, right or wrong, is at any rate an authentically Jewish cause?”
Are you saying that if ID is wrong, Jews should still take up the cause?



report abuse
 

Xavier David

posted July 21, 2009 at 1:13 pm


Maimonides and you… meannnnnig E1 here in this planet… For the past 800 years…
Doesn’t anyone see beyond the era we live in? …And give it to US’s if not only the writings of De Leon or Maimonides say to us something to see and discuss beyond or for the next 800 years and looking back then, again to US and more to come??? Or more to the past just look at the rumors Abraham and Moses spell in the writings they finally conceived? Are they not divine or more scientific than any ever wrote? Look at the Torah commandments, all of the 538 of them….or be simple and… look at the week created since then… without name? Yes, there was not mention of the first day G-D created… And may I say it was Monday?
“No, it must be Sunday,” right? We actually don’t know if G-D our Lord of the Universe as its call….created it on Sunday or Monday ….However we assummmmed it as seven days since then… and formulated a week from no where in time… just right out of there without questioning the roots…and disssscussssed it without being very scientific about the outcome, because we give it for granted? Or just because we want to use common sense? The alternative is not to be deep, profundly involved in thinking or mystical and philosophical battling our brains about any answer and question…sure is there an easy way to grasp and understand… for some… others got a problem about it and leave the Genesis alone?? But it’s simplicity at it’s best…claim and it said about seven days? Yes! Then we can assummmmmmmed that Moses and Abraham were more scientic oriented than Albert Estein… or De Leon Or Maimonides? Looking back to 5,700 years and beyond, is it scientifically proved the existence of the Jews tribes? And their seven days week? YES, but again today as it is just so simple and everyday lives and calendars and rolex that we see it as ordinary… Well, try to live the ordinary life without TV, paper, radio, or music 5,700 years and see how scientific and great it probably was seven days at the beginning of genesis writings… that I call the greatest Jewish science at its best.. however since we now live in a calendar week and a calendar year we don’t have the ability to think how great and fantastic it was the genesis beginnings the creation of the week. Just again go back 5700 years and try to live a live around the sabbath of those years without electricity, cooking stove and so on and on… Just TRY… So then you would may understand Maimonides thinking De Leon or Albert Estein thinking… or even the atheism of Carl Sagan, whom was probably more of a believer than all of us.
Is that a scientific proof to divide days into a week and leave the Shabbat for G-D? Just to think about the secrets of the mysteries into the torah and the teachings… flowering thinkers fields… they count, they can be not more scientific as any however it is a tremendous thinking you never find anywhere but in the torah, too… And the speak of an order we still don’t want to accept… From future 3,000 year century, we still be questioning the g-d inspiration give it to US by Maimonides in a spasm of back to the future, I can say there will be another Albert Estein and another Maimonides trying to explain the simple rules of the universe, the Torah, the Shama, the Kabbalah, the Jewish wisdom…



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 21, 2009 at 3:31 pm


Alan Stillman:
the Ediacaran fauna were entirely soft, yet they fossilized. And they found Cambrain fossils with eyes in the Burgess shale. And the hardparts that fossilize have eyespots. And the trilobites had eyes made of cakcite crystals. Fully formed eyes exist in the fossil record. What’s missing are eyes in process of forming.



report abuse
 

Olorin

posted July 21, 2009 at 4:39 pm


kernestm: “There is plenty of evidence, but you have to move your fingers to get it. “
You seem not to understand the concept of “scientific evidence.”
Re the bacterial flagellum and ATP motors, gosh-ain’t-it-all-just-wonderful is not evidence of anything. Why Abiogenesis Is Impossibale is not evidence FOR intelligent design. Can you understand why not?
kernestm: “as they only have the same data, but the plant in this case has to form according to the confusion of the repeated instructions, and it will only ever be a banana.”
It wasn’t a banana to begin with, and now it is. You’re merely defining away what everyone else calls “evolution.” If mere duplication is not evolution, then why is the banana so different from its predecessor? Different color, different skin, you don’t have to pound it for hours to eat it, etc.
kernestm: “Yes perhaps ‘computer simulations have evolved complex eyes’ but it is all BS (bad science) just stupid story telling to try to support the lies of evolution.”
In desperation, K falls back to conspiracy theory. Evolution is not just false, it is a lie, a worldwide conspiracy of 484,000 biological researchers and 61 government/professional organizations to perpetuate…. what? Power, riches, glory, extra toys in their Happy Meals?
So this is the sum total of evidence that intelligent design promises. No observations of design. No experiments to develop a model of how design occurs (or has occurred). No computer simulations. Nothing at all. Michael Behe said it best in his testimony in the Kitzmiller trial:
“There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” (Transcript, Trial day 11, PM session)
Nothing has changed since that 2005 trial. No papers, no research, no nothing. And yet they claim “evidence.” You’ll have to move more than your fingers to get it. You’ll have to wave your arms much harder.



report abuse
 

Dennis

posted July 21, 2009 at 4:57 pm


The hypothesis of an intelligent designer can not be falsified and, therefore, can not be varified. The ID hypothesis is not science. Isn’t it also appropriate to ask, Who, or what, designed the designer? And onward to an infinite regress. Such a waste of time. Reality gives us more than enough to explore. Why are religions so very frightened of honest inquiry based on observable evidence?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 21, 2009 at 6:38 pm


I understand that cultivated bananas do not produce seeds, and depend on humans to reproduce by cutting. Ifthis is the case, then the “evolution” of the banana by polyploidy is not an adaptation, and can’t really be considered evolution.



report abuse
 

Olorin

posted July 21, 2009 at 7:58 pm


Your Name, the banana evolved from its predecessor (Jamaica, 1840) by multiplying and then mutating its genome. Since the 1930s, bananas are cloned sans seeds, and therefore no longer adapt. Because evolution has been prohibited from acting, they now face a parasite that may destroy the entire world’s crop in a few decades.
So enjoy your bananas while you can. And please to open them from the bottom by squeezing the skin as monkeys do, not by ripping the top as creationist Ray Comfort does.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted July 21, 2009 at 10:37 pm


Ha, Olorin, my wife taught me to open from the bottom, that’s they did it in China when she was a girl!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 21, 2009 at 10:50 pm


But if bananas are an example of evolution, then it doesn’t work.



report abuse
 

John Holliday

posted July 21, 2009 at 11:47 pm


Evolution does not necessarily mean everything happens by “chance”. Randomness has patterns, order. It is not the opposite of being “governed” by principles. Randomness is not chaos.



report abuse
 

LVQ

posted July 22, 2009 at 12:10 am


The Rambam said:
“The Torah can not be false. What has been proven to be true can not be false by definition. Therefore if your understanding of Torah is contradicted by what has been proven to be true, the only thing that can be wrong is your understanding of Torah.”
In other words, if your reading of Torah (Genesis being the first book of it) makes you think that evolution didn’t happen, then you are reading it wrong.
Rambam’s entire point and thrust was to bridge perceived gaps between Torah and the science of his day. You clearly have never read him.
Your assertion that we Jews who choose not to live in the dark ages are somehow poor misguided souls who were tempted away from the Tradition by assimilation is terribly insulting.
Further, if you are a practicing Jew, then you should know a few things about what the Tradition says. For one, we assert that Hashem knows the future. Therefore, since a random event is something that can not be predicted, by definition, nothing is ever random to Hashem.
Did you miss that bit?
Further, since when is Parsha Bereshit something that is only to be read at the pshat level? Do you perhaps deny all of the Talmudic commentary that comes to explain this or that meaning beyond the pshat? If indeed we do not hold to just the pshat, is there not room for looking more deeply into the verses and not being so literalist as to deny scientific facts?
What do you make of the Arizal’s calculation of the age of the universe which set it at 14 billion years? Do we Jews not have Cabalah as well?
YOu are not a spokes person for the Tradition. You simply do not understand it well enough to comment.



report abuse
 

LVQ

posted July 22, 2009 at 12:14 am


The Rambam said:
“The Torah can not be false. What has been proven to be true can not be false by definition. Therefore if your understanding of Torah is contradicted by what has been proven to be true, the only thing that can be wrong is your understanding of Torah.”
In other words, if your reading of Torah (Genesis being the first book of it) makes you think that evolution didn’t happen, then you are reading it wrong.
Rambam’s entire point and thrust was to bridge perceived gaps between Torah and the science of his day. You clearly have never read him.
Your assertion that we Jews who choose not to live in the dark ages are somehow poor misguided souls who were tempted away from the Tradition by assimilation is terribly insulting.
Further, if you are a practicing Jew, then you should know a few things about what the Tradition says. For one, we assert that Hashem knows the future. Therefore, since a random event is something that can not be predicted, by definition, nothing is ever random to Hashem.
Did you miss that bit?
Further, since when is Parsha Bereshit something that is only to be read at the pshat level? Do you perhaps deny all of the Talmudic commentary that comes to explain this or that meaning beyond the pshat? If indeed we do not hold to just the pshat, is there not room for looking more deeply into the verses and not being so literalist as to deny scientific facts?
What do you make of the Arizal’s calculation of the age of the universe which set it at 14 billion years? Do we Jews not have Cabalah as well?
You are not a spokesperson for the Tradition. You simply do not understand it well enough to comment.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted July 22, 2009 at 12:48 am


But if bananas are an example of evolution, then it doesn’t work.
First, Your name, please put in some actual name. I use my real name.
Secondly, you don’t understand what the example about bananas is intended to demonstrate.
You made some assertions about mutations and evolution that the example of the banana proves false. Now you are turning around and saying that because the banana was bred to its current form using those mutations you said were impossible, it somehow proves evolution doesn’t work?
Are you paying any attention to your logic? Are you really saying that if humans breed a chihuahua or a banana or broccoli on purpose, as they did in fact do, that it somehow proves that no organism anywhere could ever evolve?
The banana proves that mutations don’t work the way you say they do, but the way Darwinian biologists say they do. The banana proves that you do not understand how mutations work.
If you don’t understand that, then your competence to judge the theory of evolution is called into question.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted July 22, 2009 at 1:12 am


LVQ, where is that Rambam quote from? I suggest you look at the Moreh 2:25 and get back to me. He does not say that Torah can be reconciled with any scientific idea whatsoever, whether true, false, or unproven. On the contrary. You mistakenly cite the Ari. You have in mind Isaac the Blind who was a student of the Ramban, obviously an earlier figure.



report abuse
 

LVQ

posted July 22, 2009 at 1:25 am


Ummm do any of the anti evolution folks who trot out the banana as an example realize that the Bananna was bred, by man from plantains and can not reproduce on it’s own and did not arise naturally?
I mean guys, this is an example of selecting a mutation and running with it to create something that didn’t exist before through selective breeding. You get that right?
Oh no you don’t… pity.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted July 22, 2009 at 1:31 am


Hey, David’s commenting!
Care to tell us what Maimonides said “made in God’s image” means?



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted July 22, 2009 at 1:35 am


Thing is, I know why David is taking so long on the Maimonides issue.
He is hoping scholar, orthodox according to David’s ideas, whom he can quote (distorting by ellipsis if need be) as saying that Maimonides and David agree about what “made in God’s image” means.
He is counting on his non-Jewish commenters being unable to refute the interpretation, and drawing his Jewish commenters into a secondary debate on whether or not that scholar knows what he’s talking about and whether David represented him fairly.
If past performance is indicative of future results, that is what is going on.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted July 22, 2009 at 1:38 am


This might make things more clear:
“He is hoping to find some scholar, orthodox according to…”



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted July 22, 2009 at 1:50 am


“A good answer would be that it is the idea of an orderly universe governed by laws of a cosmic intelligence.” Contemporary relevance, please?
This is as succinct a statement of theistic evolution as I have ever heard, and it would apply equally well for deists.
David plays fast and loose with the meaning of “intelligent design”. Sometimes he means evolution by miracle. Other times he means a universe designed by God which runs according to His laws.
That way he can pretend that he and Thomas Jefferson and Maimonides are all saying the same thing, and that it is somehow different from what theistic evolutionists would say.
He pretends to be too simple to tell the difference, but it is, analogously to his favorite Darwinian bugbear the octopus, a cloud of confusion designed to escape from debate.



report abuse
 

LVQ

posted July 22, 2009 at 1:51 am


In reply to mister Klinghoffer,
The quote is from the Guide for the Perplexed. I shall have to dig for it to tell you exactly where.
Do you recall Rambam’s discussion about whether or not Hashem could make a plane triangle whose internal angles summed to more than 180 degrees. Do you recall his discussion of Hashem being bound by His own rules? Of course Rambam believed that creation was bound by the scientific laws that Hashem Himself established. What is Rambam’s interpretation of the plural in the first line of Bereshit? That would be Hashem and Hashem’s laws….
Do you recall Rambam’s discussion about whether or not Hashem has a hand? Of course He doesn’t. Yet Torah talks of Hashem bringing Israel out of Egypt with a mighty hand. In other words, there are all sorts of things in Torah that we do not take at the pshat level.
The fact of the matter is that Rambam was a rationalist and you are completely misquoting him and distorting him to make it sound like he would reject modern science.
Now you seem to have completely dodged my discussion of randomness. If randomness can not exist for Hashem, then what is wrong with anything that looks random to us? I mean, of course you would blow over this, because it takes away contradiction.
As to Isaac the blind vs. the Arizal you are correct. I was mistaken – you do realize that the Rabbi who made that calculation, being a student of Rambam’s only weakens your views on what Rambam’s teachings were? However, you still did not address the main point which is much bigger shoulders than ours have taught that the Tradition teaches us that the Universe is not literally 5769 years old.
The point is, that if you are looking to discredit evolution using Rambam by being a biblical literalist, you are 1. completely neglecting the, aim, spirit and teachings of the Rambam and 2. presenting arguments that are not supported by tradition to 3. create a false conflict, because randomness is not a problem for Hashem, His ways are not our ways … in order to 4. posit that other Jews who do not ascribe to your narrow minded views are assimilationists.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted July 22, 2009 at 2:07 am


Hey, LVQ, would you agree that, if Maimonides lived today, he would argue that God is bound by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle?
If you’re not familiar with it, it is a proof from quantum mechanics that certainty in the position of a particle logically entails uncertainty in its momentum, and vice versa. It follows from the wavelike properties of matter in much the same way that a triangle must have 180 degrees in it if it is drawn using straight lines on a plane surface.
The Uncertainty Principle sets fairly severe restrictions on what God could know about the universe (without engaging in logical contradictions). God’s knowledge would be bound by the laws He established, and consequently so would God’s foreknowledge and His ability to affect the Universe.
David’s hobbyhorse is evolution, but if he ever gets around to managing to comprehend quantum mechanics he and the Discovery Institute will have their hands full trying to come up with a bogus physics to teach in school.
Given the great overrepresentation of Jews among eminent physicists, I think modern physics might give Maimonides a great deal to think about if he were alive today.
LVQ, I would dearly love to hear your opinion, as a scientifically literate believer, about this.



report abuse
 

LVQ

posted July 22, 2009 at 3:29 am


Dear Gabriel,
I am a physicist.
I personally think that, as an Aristotelean, QM would have driven the Rambam insane.
However, there is no reason to expect that Hashem is bound by the uncertainty principle. First off, just because we can’t measure where a particle is, doesn’t mean that HE can’t. If you think about it for a minute, you’ll see this is the same argument as the one about Him knowing the future. Particularly, if you take the Energy Time form of the relation.
Also, if you want to check the randomness of quantum events you need a bunch of them and actually calculate the probabilities by multiple counts over multiple trials.
OK, who’s to say He didn’t nudge one of those events? How could you tell if He did?
It turns out that QM (at least philosophically, if you wish to posit the existence of Hashem) gives Hashem the room to both hide his face and to influence the world.



report abuse
 

LVQ

posted July 22, 2009 at 4:38 am


Two other notes…
First to Gabriel. The point is not that Hashem does not follow His own rules, rather that the rules that apply to Him are not always the same as apply to us. To be really clear about this in the probability discussion…
The way to tell you have a random event is through many trials. Suppose though that you only got one event to measure. Suppose the outcome of that event mattered in some way a la Schroedinger’s cat. It certainly matters to the cat if the atom decayed or not.
If Hashem nudged that one event one way or another as a hidden variable, well, we could never tell. He still obeys His own rules in the sense that as far as we are concerned the rules of QM were still obeyed.
Now back to David:
Perhaps your most disturbing quote is
“He does not say that Torah can be reconciled with any scientific idea whatsoever, whether true, false, or unproven.”
Really? He seems to spend a rather long time talking about creation ex nihilo.
To say that Rambam was not a rationalist who was interested in reconciling the philosophical and scientific understandings of his day with Torah is so false and so wrong that I barely have words to describe it.
To deny this about the Rambam is akin to saying that Rashi did not like Midrash or that Ramban was not a Cabbalist.
You are not qualified.
You are not qualified to talk about the Rambam at all… no more than if a Yeshiva Bocher who tried to tell you that Shamai was generally lenient and that Hillel generally was strict, would be trustworthy to give over a gemara.
As to your Disco Institute friends… Please, you condescendingly talk of the assimilation of other Jews when you work for the fringe of the radical Christians.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 22, 2009 at 8:07 am


Gabriel:
I don’t use my name because I don’t wnat my name associated with the lack of civility on this blog.
The banana was cited as an example of evolution. My point was to say that it can’t be. It won’t work without people. I didn’t say that it is proof that evolution isn’t true. And evolutio by ployploid only wrks with angiosperms. Othe organism don’t seem to do well when it happens.



report abuse
 

Adam Holland

posted July 22, 2009 at 10:57 am


Maimonides did the Jews and the world a tremendous service by declaring that, when our understanding of Torah contradicts scientific observation, our understanding of Torah must be in error.
He also declared in no uncertain terms that belief in a literal interpretation of the Garden of Eden myth is so illogical as to be worthy only of a barbarian.
In spite of these facts, Mr. Klinghoffer would use Maimonides to bolster the attempts of the religious right to bring beliefs based only on blind faith and primitive literalism into the forum of science.
In the spirit of Maimonides, I’d like to point out to Klinghoffer how pointless this endeavor is. It tends to corrode both science and religion, pushing rational people away from religion and pushing religious people away from science. In the spirit of Maimonides, he should attempt to bring the two together by engaging ideas; he should not build a wall of irrationality between them.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted July 22, 2009 at 11:18 am


LVQ: Excellent posts!
Your Name: i think it’s legitimate not to use one’s real name–I don’t, and we’ve had that discussion here before. However, you really ought to use some kind of handle (such as I do) so that we know that it’s the same person. “Your Name” could be any number of different people (sometimes it’s been me when I couldn’t beat the CAPTCHA).



report abuse
 

Olorin

posted July 22, 2009 at 2:46 pm


Your Name: “The banana was cited as an example of evolution. My point was to say that it can’t be. It won’t work without people.”
Sorry, the banana didn’t happen that way. A Jamaican was raising plantains. He (Francois Poujot) discovered that some of the fruit (actually, bananas are herbs) had changed into something quite different. He then began to cultivate the new variety instead of his original plantains. The evolution happened before the human intervention, not afterward.
But it really doesn’t matter. People breed animals, plants, and microbes in exactly the same way that the environment breeds them. Honeybees breed apple trees by selecting which ones to pollinate. Would you say that the bees are intelligent? Lions breed antelopes for speed by eating the slow ones. Are the lions acting intelligently? Darwin’s inspiration for “natural selection” in his theory was the realization that human breeding (“artificial selection”) works in exactly the same way as selection by the natural environment. T
here is no difference—not ntil we know enough to breed by actually mutating genes directly and inserting them into other genomes Only at that point will we be more like intelligent design than like evolution.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted July 22, 2009 at 4:33 pm


LVQ-thank you for your insight. It would be interesting to get a look at God’s physics text, don’t you think?
These are the kinds of discussions David SHOULD be having. Not shilling for DI.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted July 22, 2009 at 4:33 pm


LVQ-thank you for your insight. It would be interesting to get a look at God’s physics text, don’t you think?
These are the kinds of discussions David SHOULD be having. Not shilling for DI.



report abuse
 

kernestm

posted July 24, 2009 at 1:08 am


Alan Stillman
@ your name:
the eye is made of soft tissue. soft tissue rarely fossilizes. just a few weeks ago there was an article about an extremely rare finding of fossilized dinosaur skin. how exactly is the eye going to survive decay so that it may be fossilized?
kernestm:
Some eyes such as trilobites have a hard structure that does fossilize and shows the design. The same is true of crayfish, they have optics built of many small reflective boxes, a system scientists are now using for radar.
kernestm:
The scientific method can not identify an intelligent designer.
It doesn’t try to. The ID ‘proof’ is to look at the complexity of life and then consider if evolutionary processes could have made it, or must it have had a designer . That requires a logical scientific conclusion, since scientifically blind unguided chemicals could never start life, and never produce all the complexity of the highly integrated systems, there are not many options left, so ID is a scientific conclusion. Evolutionists cannot identify a scientifically acceptable possible cause for the start of life, therefore evolution is not science, by the same reasoning you use against ID. If life cannot start by chemical evolution then there is no evolution either! You must solve the creation of life problem first, to give credence to the evolution hypothesis.
Faith, the stuff of religion and philosophy, this is actually what evolution is, it is not science, but faith in impossible chemical processes, and the stories made up to make it look as if it might have happened.
Alan Stillman
the evolutionary record may indeed have some gaps, but it is capable of inspiring theories that can be examined and tested and proven or revised as newer evidence is discovered. those who have faith in ID will point to the gaps or attempt to discount or discredit the evidence of evolution. or they will claim it to be the ‘proof’ they need of the existence of the designer. regardless, ID is not science.
K
No that is not taken as proof of a designer, but of the failure of evolution to produce any proof at all.
@Alan Stillman:
Please produce proof of the evolution from one species to another, a clear undisputable case will solve the problem. The lies of horse evolution and peppered moth have been revealed. To try to bolster the lie, dead moths were glued to tree trunks to make films of birds taking them, but the moths don’t rest on tree trunks. Evolutionists need lies like this to bolster their unscientific claims. So why should anyone trust evolutionists?
(Alan Stillman
when we look at the vastness of the universe (or multiverse) and the countless number of galaxies and solar systems and planets, there is no doubt in my mind that the complexity we find on Earth is inevitable. there is likely similar situations on other planets – life that is identical or very different than how we experience it. but even if there is not, life as we know it is not that astonishing given the incalculable opportunities. and yet, at the same time it is amazingly astonishing and worthy of awe.)
K: Evolutionists come up with probabilities of 10 to the 25th power, for something like a simple protein to form, but it takes lots of such chances succeeding at the same time and place, but even then there is no reason for protolife to actually form, just because the parts may be together does not make life, but statistically there is no way the parts will ever be near, and many of the essential proteins etc can only be made by living organisms, so chemical evolution is ruled out. You need to study the complexity of life to get a proper understanding of the problems involved.



report abuse
 

kernestm

posted July 24, 2009 at 1:10 am


(Alan Stillman
if the ‘designer’ were so intelligent and we were the penultimate product of the design, why is there so much other — seemingly unnecessary — stuff out there? I am sure many would say that this stuff is part of the balance, part of what needed to happen in order to create existence for us. but really, if the designer were that intelligent and powerful, would there only be a need for one planet circling one sun? or better yet, just one flat plane of existence for the designer’s perfect critter and the other life forms that critter needed to survive?)
K:
The reason for the world and the way we are left in the dark to a great extent is covered in the file ” http://creationtheory.8k.com/beginningp1.html ” giving reasons why God has given us prophesies, and is judging our conduct, and His ultimate goal.
(AS: regardless of whatever assumptions you may make of me and my “Darwinist” ways, I still find that amazingly awe inspiring and worthy of contemplation and celebration. )
K: You have that much right, just research things a bit more.
(Unapologetic Catholic
July 21, 2009 12:23 PM
“For heaven’s sake, do you need any further proof that ID, right or wrong, is at any rate an authentically Jewish cause?”)
K: No it is a scientific cause, but should also be high with Jews, as their book states it as truth, that God created, so must have designed.



report abuse
 

Phil

posted August 6, 2009 at 12:23 am


“if the ‘designer’ were so intelligent and we were the penultimate product of the design, why is there so much other — seemingly unnecessary — stuff out there?”
Dunno, but do you ask why Rube Goldberg contraptions are so inefficient, or do you marvel at the creativity?



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 6, 2009 at 2:11 am


Dunno, but do you ask why Rube Goldberg contraptions are so inefficient, or do you marvel at the creativity?
Rube Goldberg contraptions are jokes-the inefficiency is the whole point. Did God make pandas as a joke? I myself find them hilarious.



report abuse
 

alex

posted August 18, 2009 at 10:44 pm


I have a suspicion that you are woefully out of the loop about the efficiency of the Panda’s thumb.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 18, 2009 at 10:50 pm


alex:I have a suspicion that you are woefully out of the loop about the efficiency of the Panda’s thumb.
What about their carnivorous digestive tract, which excretes almost all of the available nutrition, what little their is, from bamboo?
It’s not just their bizarre thumbs, which are modified wrist bones.



report abuse
 

Marty,Brentwood

posted November 10, 2011 at 8:08 pm


Great men make great mistakes, too.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Kingdom of Priests. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Kabballah Counseling Happy Reading!

posted 11:24:22am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Animal Wisdom: The Voice of the Serpent
Our family watched Jaws together the other evening -- which, in case you're wondering, I regard as responsible parenting since our kids are basically too young to be genuinely scared by the film. The whole rest of the next day, two-year-old Saul was chattering about the "shark teeth." "Shark teeth g

posted 3:56:33pm Mar. 16, 2010 | read full post »

Reading Wesley Smith: Why the Darwin Debate Matters
If the intelligent-design side in the evolution debate doesn't receive the support you might expect from people who should be allies, that may be because they haven't grasped why the whole thing matters so urgently. I got an email recently from a journalist whom I'd queried on the subject. "All told

posted 5:07:12pm Mar. 15, 2010 | read full post »

The Mission of the Jews
Don't miss my essay over at First Things on the mission of the Jews to the world. This, I think, the key idea that the Jewish community needs to absorb at this very unusual cultural moment, for the time is so, so right. Non-Jews are waiting for us to fulfill the roll God gave us in the Torah. Please

posted 6:14:16pm Mar. 05, 2010 | read full post »

Darwin at the Mountains of Madness: Evolution & the Occult
Of all the regrettable cultural forces that Darwinism helped unleash, perhaps the most surprising and seemingly unlikely is its role in sparking the creation of modern occultism. Charles Darwin himself could not have been less interested in the topic. But no attempt to assess the scope of his legacy

posted 2:04:11pm Mar. 04, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.