profile | register | search
|Forums | |||Post Reply||Send Topic To a Friend|
|MODERATOR||Posted - 11 September 2005 20:46
Once should never confuse science with scientists. Science is knowledge; scientists are people, complete with their own agendas, weaknesses, and dishonesties. Their PhD’s do not make them any more moral or honest or objective than truck drivers.*
And so, the “proof” cited for evolution by scientists, from so-called “vestigial” organs, that is organs in the human body (and animals bodies) that have no purpose, but are similar in design to a organ in an animal that does have a purpose, shows that our bodies are later vesions of those animal bodies, and those organs are kind of “left overs” from the olden days when we needed them.
Of course, there is no scientific evidence that any organ has no purpose.
How arrogant, and how ridiculous!
Here is where the Torah’s view of science diverges from that of the scientists.
Says the Rambam: “How does one come to love and fear Him? When one ponders His actions and His creations, and sees in them intelligence that has no measure and no end.” (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 2:2)
The wisdom of Hashem Himself is manifest in the wonderful world we live in, and since His wisdom is infinite, the wisdom contained in the world is infinite.
And so, no matter how much wisdom scientists discover in the universe, it is nothing compared to what they have not yet discovered . Therefore, the idea that “if we big shot scientists, with our great knowledge of the universe, cannot find a purpose for this organ, it must have no purpose”
Scientists may understand a lot, but compared to what there is to understand, they know nothing. The scientist – not science, but the scientist, in his arrogance – has no idea how much more he has yet to discover, how wonderful and immeasurable and boundless are the wonders of Hashem’s world.
And the fact that these organs “are similar” in structure to organs in other animals does nto constitute any evidence of one organ “descending” from the other. The real reason why organs a resimilar in different species is because they were made by the same Designer. A nickel is similar to a quarter but it doesn’t mean one evlved form the other. This reasoning of theirs, that similarity in structure and appearance implies a relationship is based on the assumption that there is no single designer for both. Once you take the Designer out of the picture, it is indeed a weird coincidence that two organs in apparently unrelated species, one of which seems not to have a purpose, bears an uncanny similarity to the other. The “logic” of evolution – what of it that can be called logic – is all based on the assumption that there is no Creator. Now the quesiotn is: IF there is no creator, how did we get here? IF there is no Creator, then why do these ogans seems so similar? The entire nonsense is only assumptions and wishful thinking, not logic or reason.
Science is infinite. Scientists are finite. For scientists to say that because they do not see intelligence in an organ therefore there must be no intelligence is not base on any scientific evidence; it is nothgin but the asusumption of the scientists, based on the arrogant idea that if they don’t see it, it’s not there.
Such an attitude does not honor science; it reduces science to a discoverable, finite subject matter, whose llimits are somehow measurable by the yardstick of what “scientists” have figured out. None of that is the result of any scientific evidence at all – just the arrogance of the scientist.
|VaYoel Moshe||Posted - 18 September 2005 21:56
that was very informative.
i have a Q: i also heard that "our closest living relative is the chimp"---im not asking about evolution or anything but is this a reliable claim? that we are like "cousins" or "living relatives"? or is this all fabricated to prove evolution?
|MODERATOR||Posted - 18 September 2005 22:29
It's fabricated by evolutionists. Monkeys are obvisouly the closest things, intelligence-wise, to humans (and sponges to plants) but monkeys were created completely seperately form humans. We are not related at all.
|YehudahsLacky||Posted - 09 January 2008 21:23
I don't know if people realize but the TOrah and Science don't agree and can't agree. The only reason people think they should is because you have a cultural assumption of the be all end all nature of the scientific method pushed on you 24/7.
Science is the modern name for a school of philosophy called Empiricism. It is based on coming up with a testable idea through observation, then using that to come up with the truth. There's several assumptions, two of which are: With enough observation you can gather all the data you need to make a working hypothesis, and 2) nothing true exists which is not falisifiable.
(The funny thing about that last statement is it itself is not falsifiable, which is why there is the rival school of philosophy called Rationalism - that one must use his mind to weigh evidence, though there will always be items of evidence supporting every conclussion, because not all things can be proven empiricly.)
The TOrah tells you Empiricism is going to fail at certain points. When Adam woke up, had G-d not introduced himself, he would have looked around and figured the world was super old.
THere was fruit on trees that were never polinated. Star light reaching the earth from billions of light years away, rivers etched into the ground surrounding his garden.
Empiricly it culd be demonstrated at that moment the world was billions of years old.
We don't hold of Empiricism and thus Science(Which are exactly the same thing), because Gd's told us that our observations are going to be off.
|taon||Posted - 09 January 2008 23:27
Which is why evolution si a religion. it's faith based. Science as you describe it may be their ideal, but not the reality, sicne you cant prove everythign. You cant prove anything 100% But the burden of proof is not on us, it's on them. Torah can relate to scienc ein the way described, but as you said, scince doesnt stretch far, becuase emotions, logic, unviewable knowledge, morality, and other things are not included in rigid science science as usually seen has bent to make room for it. We bend for nothing.
I wonder about the point with Adam, though. through the knowledge he had about the world, what was given to him and what he observed, maybe he could have, like Avraham, seen the big picture? Understood that it wouldnt make sense for the world to be millions of years old then?
|MODERATOR||Posted - 10 January 2008 1:42
Science was not meant like that. They never claimed that all truth is within the realm of science. This guy named Popper came up with the falsifiability idea and he never claimed that if something is not falsifiable it can not be true. Unfortunately, science has evolved (pardon the pun) into something more than it was ever intended to be. questions that are not within the realm of science are still pursued using scientific methodology. It has indeed become a religion, and not a very logical one at that.
Click Here To Close Thread, Administrators & Moderators Only.
Show All Forums | Post Reply