1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources

Mountains and Molehills – an open letter to tildeb

Tildeb

This is in response to yur comment – https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/random-reality-an-open-letter-to-tildeb/#comment-24634

Thanks again for posting your comments on this blog. You are obviously well-educated as well as insightful and your words have prodded me to study and think which I see as the greatest benefit of your comments.

I am not a scientist and I have not studied biology but I have studied the pursuit of truth. Many people believe that their belief is based on reality when in reality it is not. The problem that these people have is that they have a wrong definition of reality. You have countered and explained that these people do not have a wrong definition of reality when it comes to medical questions or to buying a piece of technological equipment. They only make this mistake when it comes to religion. But these people are not necessarily as hypocritical as they seem to be. There are many pseudo-scientific arguments which they see as supportive of their religious beliefs (e.g. Josh McDowell’s “Evidence that Demands a Verdict.”)

You have countered with the argument, that these people are not willing to subject their beliefs to the criticism and scrutiny that science allows its own theories to be subjected to. These people would respond that they are willing to subject their beliefs to criticism and scrutiny of those who share their understanding of reality.

This blog is an example of that scrutiny. Christians come here and have their beliefs subjected to the scrutiny and criticism of those who share their belief that the Jewish Bible is reality and Jews do the same. The spheres of reality may be different but the struggle to find truth goes through the same motions as it does in the realm of scientific reality. Some people (like Bruce) are completely deaf to the arguments of those who think differently than they do. Others use tactics that do not belong in a discussion about truth without realizing (I hope) that this is what they are doing. These tactics include but are not limited to; mockery, intimidation, reliance on the supposed expertise of one savant or another and nitpicking.

None of these tactics belong in the true pursuit of truth but it is the last one (nitpicking) that is the most difficult to call. Allow me to explain. As I said, the proponents of most world-views have some rationale that supports their world-view. At the same time, there are questions that can be presented against every existing world-view. The general rule is that in the eyes of the proponents of the given world-view, the rationale is a solid mountain that takes up most of the horizon while the questions of their opponents seem to be tiny molehills that are hardly visible at all. It is a matter of a different perspective on reality.

Here too, I don’t believe that people are being foolish or willfully blind. People generally are very comfortable and familiar with the arguments that support their own world-view. Be it because they grew up in a society that repeated and reinforced this argument many times over or perhaps because they have invested much time and effort studying and considering this argument. But they haven’t spent anywhere near the same amount of time considering the arguments of their opponents and in most cases they have no contact with a society that reinforces those conflicting arguments. It is for this reason that the arguments that work for their position seem to be more real to them than the ones that conflict with their world-view.

And it is for this reason that in almost every case, when a proponent of one world-view is confronted with the arguments of the proponents of another world-view, that they see the arguments of their opponents as nitpicking.

I say this, not to defend my argument against your accusation of nitpickery, but to help you see that when people do use that tactic they are not necessarily doing it out of conscious dishonesty. I also wrote this to help you see why your righteous indignation when the proper respect is not given to your world-view may be misplaced and why it doesn’t sound convincing.

Your response to my post contains several fallacies and does not truly address my post and I will explain.

You concluded your post with the statement that you can never have design/creationism without religion. As if the argument for design/creationism is a product of religion.

This is simply false. Throughout history, many people who had the courage to think differently than the prevailing religion still saw the complex functionality of the natural world as evidence to a creator/designer.

Another implied fallacy in your response is your statement that the cdesign proponents haven’t presented any good science upon which to build an alternative theory.

You seem to be implying that in order to discredit evolution one must present an alternative theory. This is not science. Providing a better alternative theory is only one way of discrediting an existing theory but it is not the only way. “We don’t know” is more accurate scientific answer than a theory that doesn’t make sense.

The argument for intelligent design is an argument that is based on the reality that you recognize, hard physical facts. We see a complex world. A world which contains such a high level of complexity that it cannot yet be duplicated by the greatest scientific minds. The atheistic argument is that all of this complexity arose by a series of small incremental accidents. It just so happened to be that on the same planet that the human eye evolved, so did photo-synthesis evolve, as well as echo-location, the liver, and the human brain – all completely independent of each other. The full array of tastes and colors, variety and interaction, that we find in the natural world all happened by accident on the same planet that happens to by accident contain the right balance of oxygen, temperature, water-cycle and wind pattern that make life possible.

Yes, I know that sometimes nature proves to be counterintuitive. But the burden of proof rests fully on the one who proposes this theory of accident.

Now, I am aware that the theory of evolution seems to have solved this problem and I also know that various aspects of the theory of evolution have been established to be true through the process of experimentation and scientific analysis.

But what I pointed out in my previous post is that the critical component of the theory of evolution as it relates to the argument of design – namely the aspect of randomness in the development of life – has never been proven.

The examples I cited were not “nitpicking” simply because I was not presenting evidence against the random element of the theory of evolution. I do not need to present evidence to disprove something that is so counterintuitive. If 150 years of research could not bring evidence to this aspect of the theory why do I need to disprove it? All I was doing with the examples I cited was that I dealt with the possible arguments that you may bring up against my premise.

You have presented arguments against the theory (or religious belief) of creationism. I will not address those arguments yet. Instead I will challenge you. You have asserted that religious people are not willing to put their theories/doctrines to the test of reality. I am willing to engage with you in just such a discussion. We have very different frames of reality so this discussion will be tedious but I believe it will be fruitful.

For the sake of brevity I propose that we limit the discussion to one question on your part and one question on my part at a time. For the sake of honesty I pledge not to consciously use intimidation, the authority of scholars, mockery or nitpickery in this discussion – or any other tactic that distracts from the pursuit of truth.

Here is my question to you. In the entire history of evolutionary research – how many experiments or observations can you put forth in which complexity was randomly added to a living organism – and I am talking about the complexity that is required for the theory of common descent. I believe I addressed the experiment of Richard Lenski with the e-coli bacteria developing the ability to process citrate, the ability of soil bacteria to process different sugars and the hyper-mutations of the B-cell. If you believe that my response to each of these is flawed or inadequate, I respectfully request that you reference the argument instead of appealing to the generalization of “science has addressed this.”

So again – how many experiments and observations can you put forth in which life-building complexity was randomly added to a living organism – and what are those experiments or observations?

In one of your previous comments you asked me a question. You asked if my belief system made any verifiable predictions such as those which can be tested by science. One of the examples I cited was the survival of the Jewish people as an identifiable entity. We can know that this prediction was made more than 2000 years ago and it holds true today. The survival of the Jewish people together with their belief is an important part of my reality. Our beliefs have been ridiculed by the various churches, by the various pagan philosophers and by various manifestations of the study of nature (such as Greek philosophy). The mockers are gone and we are still here. Perhaps this is not an indication of Divine intervention, but it might well be an indication of survival of the fittest – and truth is ultimately the most powerful force in human society.

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal

Random Reality – An Open Letter to Tildeb

This letter is in response to your comment from October 4 2015 – https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/eating-habits-excerpt-from-teh-forthcoming-the-bible-trial/#comment-24325

Let me begin by thanking you again for posting your comments on this blog. It is my firm belief that an open discussion in which both sides articulate their understanding of truth will bring us all closer to the truth.

Design denotes designer. We do not find complex functionality without intelligence that created the sophistication. This would then bring us to understand that the complex functionality of the natural world has been designed by intelligence.

Evolutionists argue that this premise is false. The theory of evolution proposes that random changes filtered by natural selection can produce design and they can produce design blindly, without intelligence. Many experiments and observations seem to have confirmed the theory of evolution so why would anyone stick to the argument of intelligent design? Your conclusion seems to be that anyone who still believes in intelligent design after the scientific discoveries have decisively confirmed evolutionary theory must be ignoring reality.

But let us examine reality as the scientists report to us.

There are several components to the theory of evolution. The theory proposes that living beings can change over a span of generations (in other words; heritable change). The theory proposes that these changes can occur randomly, without any direction. And the theory proposes that the process of natural selection will ensure that those changes that enhance the survival of the organism will outlast those that have not made those changes.

These are three different components to the theory and it is only on the basis of the second component that we can say that the premise of intelligent design has been undermined. If the first and third components of evolutionary theory are true but the second one is not, then the premise of intelligent design is not affected. In other words, if living beings can change and those changes are filtered by natural selection but those changes are not random, then the original assumption that functionality indicates intelligence is firmly in place. If these living beings changes by some other process, a process which is not random, then the functionality of the original living being is actually higher and more complex than if it would not be able to change. A car that can adapt itself and change according to its surroundings is far more complex than a car that cannot do make these changes.

All the evidence to the theory of evolution that has accumulated over the last 150 years have established that living beings can and do change and that these changes are filtered through the process of natural selection but they have not established that these changes are random. The fact that 150 years of research did not turn up evidence of the randomness of evolution is a powerful piece of evidence against that aspect of the theory of evolution. Those who use evolution to “disprove” the premise of intelligent design are ignoring this reality.

I realize that you believe that science has proven the random basis of evolutionary change and I will show you why your belief is not rooted in reality, but first, for the benefit of the readers, allow me to articulate and establish my position. Let us examine some of the more popular science experiments that have established the theory of evolution.

The peppered moths of England seem to serve as an example for evolution. These moths used to be light colored. When the industrial revolution increased pollution, the environment of the moths changed. Trees that used to be light were now blackened and dark. The peppered moth population changed colors and became dark. As the government began regulating pollutants the environment of the moth changed again and with time the moths became light again.

Here we see how a living organism has changed over time and how natural selection controlled that change. It would seem that this is a classic example of evolution in action.

But no one ever claimed that new moths were developed. The light colored and dark variants of the peppered moths always existed side by side. There is always a majority of one type and a minority of the other. What changed was the preponderance of one over the other. And this was achieved through natural selection. As the environment darkened, the chances of the light colored moths to escape from their predators decreased and the chances of the dark colored moths were enhanced. This caused the dark colored moths to increase and take over the population. This process was reversed with the changes to the environment brought about by the lessening of pollutants.

This experiment proves the third of the three premises of the theory of evolution, the premise of natural selection. But this experiment does not establish the premise that living beings could change or that the changes are random.

Another observation that has been used to establish the theory of evolution involves finches. Charles Darwin observed that the finches on the Galapagos Islands are different than finches found elsewhere in the world. Darwin theorized that these differences arose through evolution. In other words, the ancestors of these Galapagos finches were plain old finches and with time they changed and evolved into the particular finches that they are.

This theory was confirmed with an experiment conducted on Southeast Island in the Pacific Ocean. In 1967, 100 finches were brought from Laysan Island to a small group of islands about three hundred miles northeast of Laysan. These finches were examined 20 years later and it was discovered that they had developed different bill shapes from their ancestors.

Here we have evidence to two of the three premises that make up the theory of evolution. We have seen that the population of the species can change and that the change is filtered by natural selection but there is no evidence to the premise that this change was random. The fact that the beneficial changes were developed so quickly indicates that the changes were not random (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/22628078_Beyond_neo-Darwinism__an_epigenetic_approach_to_evolution._J_Theor_Biol ).

But what about bacteria? Various experiments done with bacteria would indicate that bacteria could change and that those changes could be random and that natural selection will filter those changes.

One such experiment showed how a particular bacterium which could only subsist on one type of sugar developed a change in its genetic makeup that enabled it to subsist on a different type of sugar. These changes were progressive. In other words, in each subsequent mutation, the bacteria’s ability to subsist on the new type of sugar was qualitatively enhanced.

But upon closer examination (http://www.msg.ucsf.edu/agard/Publications/26-Agard-Nature-89.pdf ) it is revealed that these changes are not a random acquisition of complexity. In order to believe that random changes can build up to create new and diversified life forms we must posit that the genetic code of the organism acquired new information that was not present in the original genetic code. But at each stage of this experiment the bacteria lost or repressed genetic information in order to adapt to its environment.

Another observation that would seem to support the theory of random evolution is the hypermutation of the B-cell. Certain sections of the DNA of the B-cell (which is a part of the immune system) mutate at a relatively rapid rate. These mutations add information to the genetic code and they seem to be random.

So here we have it. All three elements of the theory of evolution have been established.

But this is not so. These random mutations only occur in a specific section of the B-cell’s genome (string of genetic information). These random mutations enhance the B-cells functionality. In other words the immune system works better with these random mutations taking place in this particular spot in the B-cell’s genome. This is not random. This is like a computer which is programed to make random combinations for a specific purpose and function (http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.php ).

Did I forget to mention Lenski’s experiments with the e-coli bacteria? The e-coli bacteria cannot process citrate. But with time, some of the e-coli bacteria in Richard Lenski’s laboratory developed the ability to subsist on citrate. Again, we have change, and this change was random (it took more than 30,000 generations of e-coli to come up with this ability) and the change was filtered by natural selection (the citrate processing e-coli dominated the population once they developed their specialized ability).

But here too, the e-coli bacteria did not become more complex, it actually became more simple. Normal e-coli bacterium possesses a repressor which stands in the way of the bacteria from processing citrate. What happened in Lenski’s laboratory was that some of the bacteria mutated in a way that the repressor was disabled. Such mutations, which simplify the organism, cannot be the source of producing complexity.

Let us go back to the peppered moths for a moment. The Kettlewell experiment has been touted as THE proof for evolution for decades. Generations of college students have been fed the story and it has shaped the thinking of many people. But recent studies call the entire experiment into question ( http://amcbt.indstate.edu/volume_19/v19-3p3-9.pdf ). Will the problems with Kettlewell’s experiment get the same widespread coverage as did his faulty conclusions? How many students will continue to be misled into thinking that Kettlewell’s moths decisively establish the verity of every aspect of evolutionary theory when in fact it is questionable if his study even provides a basis for one component of evolution?

The scientific community has set itself up as the sole distributer of reality. After all, since science is the study of reality, where else would we expect to find reality? But the history of Kettlewell’s experiment demonstrates that the scientific community is plagued by an unhealthy affinity to comfortable falsehoods as is everybody else. The scientific community suffers from the same vices that afflict the religious community; an attitude of self-righteousness, moral elitism and an aversion for uncomfortable facts.

Tildeb, you have stated that you want your worldview to be shaped by reality and by nothing else. I applaud this method and I admire it. I too strive for this ideal. I urge you (as I urge myself) to stick to the ideal and not allow anyone or anything to shape your thinking, but your own ability to think and the raw facts.

May God be with you on your journey.

Acknowledgment: I obtained most of the scientific information contained in this article from Dr. Lee Spetner’s book; “Not by Chance” (Judaica Press 1998) and from a subsequent correspondence with Dr. Spetner.

If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6

Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.

Thank You

Yisroel C. Blumenthal