Title Author Date

review of my article by Rossow Rabinowitz, Avi Feb 23, 2003

1) Thank you for reviewing the article I wrote in B’Ohr Ha’Torah (re the Big Bang and Genesis). Since I appreciate a good critique, I was disappointed that the review seemed to miss the point of the article, which I had hoped was clear: conclusions follow from assumptions: given the viewpoint of the Torah one can create an 'axiom' from which the creation/Eden accounts in some sense follow 'logically', and given the scientific viewpoint the scientific origin theory follows 'logically' .
Note that this article does not purport to be a scientific one, and I offer no proofs nor claim to do so. In any case I am not claiming the truth of a particular view, merely proposing that both in some sense follow from their assumptions.

I also don't quibble about the distinction between neo-Darwinian vs Darwinian, the origin of life vs its development etc, the question of how the universe could have originated other than in a big bang etc, all these matters are irrelevant to the article, what is relevant are the two approaches, that of science which assumes that the universe, life and humanity emerged without divine intervention and offers theories to explain how all this came about, and that of Torah; to be pedantic about each of these points would require several volumes, and this is only an article and as you point out, a rather brief one.

I would be very pleased if you would re read my article, without prior bias, and in the light of the above, and send me (or post) any critique - I really do appreciate such if it is based on careful reading of my work, and is reasoned.

read replies (6)
write a reply Related Article(s):
B'Tsel HaTorah

Title Author Date

The Quixotic Message Scharle, Tom Jan 24, 2003

This is not a complaint about the posting of this bit of humor.

What I wanted to point out is that the catch phrase "I'm not
making this up" was used long ago by the musical satirist, Anna
Russell, whose famous parody of Wagner's Ring cycle used this
phrase ... as the audience is laughing at one of her straight-
faced renditions of some of the more unbelievable events, she
gets another laugh by saying, truthfully, "I'm not making this
up, you know."

write a reply

Title Author Date

Dembski's New Hope K, Anna Jan 07, 2003

You and authors you host might be interested to know that William
Dembski recently published an article in his journal ISCID by Chris Langan, a noted crank who claims to prove the existence of god.

http://www.crank.net/proof.html
http://www.crank.net/grand.html

Langan: http://www.teleologic.org

Now featured in Dembski's journal:
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

Despite the stated 9/29/02 date of publication the paper has been updated several times without notice.

My sources say Dembski believes mainstreaming Langan's CTMU theory is
important for advancing ID philosophy. While Mr. Langan is noted for having
a very high IQ, his formal education peaks at high school and his career ceiling has not risen above working as a bouncer at bars. In an ID forum Langan and his partner Genie LoSasso threatened critics and engaged in relentless character assassination, displaying numerous classic
"symptoms" of cranks (links below). Even non-critics who innocently say they don't understand his ideas are often accused by Langan of lying by pretending not to understand.

Here's a tract from an earlier version of Langan's CTMU theory:

"...it should be remembered that although the CTMU has been a topic of debate in the Mega Society for a decade, no one has ever succeeded in winning a single point of logic or science against it. It has been partially explained to others including the eminent linguist Noam Chomsky, the popular author Tom Wolfe, and the physicist John Wheeler (to whom it was sent without a response). As far as Hawking is concerned, he's even harder to reach than Wheeler."

Well someone finally fell for it, Dembski... but the joke is that Langan is serious.

Comments on Langan at infidels.org

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=5ec4b82d9710cb4a30b5c437c05a7e2b&threadid=39803

Several threads from an ID bulletin board involving Mr. Langan
http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000483
http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000467
http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000504
http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000466

http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000497

Read Langan as quoted by those replying because Langan notoriously edits his statements, which can be done in that forum. The statements Langan and LoSasso make can be amazing!

write a reply

Title Author Date

Idea for an article Korthof, Gert Jul 12, 2003

Dear Henry,

You say that it takes a lot of faith to believe in evolution. You should
have said "evolution is an inference from the data". And indeed it takes a
lot of data and a lot of analysis to come to the conclusion that evolution
explains those data. There is nothing wrong with that. Common descent is a
theory about the past. If a theory explains data with events in the past,
the evidence is necessarily indirect. Since the evolutionary explanation
also uses processes and mechanisms operating now, we can do laboratory
experiments.

We don't need time-travel to establish whether mutation and natural
selection operates in nature. Everybody can check that (with a little bit of
training). You don't need a lot of faith, but you need a lot of data,
statistics and logic.

Further you say "there are many holes in the theory of evolution". Of course
there are many holes. You know, science is not finished yet. If it was
finished we could close universities today. It is scientific progress to
replace "the unknown plan of creation" with everyday causes that we can
investigate. If you propose the unknown and unknowable plan of creation as
an explanation for the data, then you are going back to pre-Darwinian times.

We cannot put God in a test tube. Never. You wrote "admit what the theory of
evolution does not know". Indeed many scientists are not interested in
problems that cannot be solved in the next 10 years. Indeed some scientists
exaggerate the performance of the theory of evolution and claim it explains
everything. You wrote "state the holes". Fine. And what next? Are you
interested in biological problems that have been solved by evolutionary
biologists? The holes of the past? Are you blind to the progress that has
been made? Ask yourself: Did Darwin regress to a theory of earlier times, or
is "the design inference" a regress to pre-Darwinian times (Paley)? It is
right to ask questions to others, but please do ask questions to yourself.

read replies (2)
write a reply

Title Author Date

Idea for an article Henry Dec 31, 2002

Hello.

You know, from what I've read and learned I have understood that it takes a lot of faith to believe in evolution. There are many holes in its theory. So why not have an article or two that discusses that issue. Information on your site says that there is no proof against evolution. Where is the proof for it? It's all speculation. Tell me how the eye evolved... or the ear. How can people teach evolution as fact. They have no hard evidence. They believe in evolution. They exercise faith - they make a jump - a decision - to say that they can see that in light of certain variables, x plus y should equal z. How can one who accepts something in faith teach it to another as if it were fact?

It seriously looks like hypocrisy to me. I see one group pointing its finger at another and accusing it of the same thing it does. If you're going to be completely scientific and open and unbiased then go the whole way. Admit what the theory of evolution does not know. State the holes. State the whole gamut.

Personally:
I am not stuck to creationism.
I am not stuck to evolution.
I see and learn and study and think. I keep an open mind and seek truth.

I can see that your site seeks to expose holes in the faith of one group. And wave the flag of another. So you have a slant. It is actually a very ironic site.

Is the goal of your site to seek truth? Or just make other truth seekers look silly.

Do you want to strip away their faith...? And replace it with your "faith".

Is your faith better than theirs? What are you giving them? Are you setting them free from superstition? And you do not have any?

Why not go all the way? Present both/all sides of the debate. Be honest and call the theory of evolution what it is - a theory!

Best regards.

read replies (2)
write a reply

Previous | | Next