The Rebbe Refuted

Mark Perakh published an extensive article refuting many of the positions taken by members of the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists in its book Challenge.

He has this to say about the Rebbe's letter on science and Torah:

… The second section contains papers which deal more specifically with the controversy between the Genesis, geology and evolution. It opens with a paper by Rabbi M. Schneerson which in a certain sense stands alone, for its level of discourse is well below the majority of articles in the collection. Since, however, the author of that paper was acclaimed as a great thinker of this century, let us take a closer look at his article.…

The article by Rabbi M. Schneerson

Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, the seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe, is characterized in the collection as "one of the outstanding Torah personalities of the present generation." (The quoted characterization was printed in 1978; since then Rabbi Schneerson has passed away). The authority M. Schneerson enjoyed in his lifetime among his followers was enormous. Many of them viewed him as a modern Moses or even as a Messiah. Here is a telltale detail. When a magnificent synagogue was built in Miami Beach, Florida, stones were brought to be put into its foundation from two places – one was the Kotel Hamaaravi, the western wall of the destroyed Temple in Jerusalem, and the other was the house in Brooklyn, NY where the seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe lived. Of course, I know of no arguments which would cast doubt on Rabbi Schneerson's reputation as a great man of the Torah. I would never try to dispute the above characterization of the esteemed Rabbi. Neither would I ever try to argue with Rabbi Schneerson about any question relating, say, to the Talmud, Halakha, or the like.

However, in the paper published in the collection Challenge Schneerson endeavored to discuss science, and this is an area where I, having been a practicing experimental physicist for fifty years, may legitimately argue against Schneerson's notions.

When I recently attended a conference where the relationship between science and the Torah was discussed, I accidentally overheard professor Herman Branover (who is a very active figure in the organized activities aimed at proving the supremacy of the Torah over science) say that the Lubavitcher Rebbe was beyond doubt not only a great man of the Torah but also one of the greatest scientists in the world, and the utmost authority in every field of science.

From the collection Challenge we learn that M. M. Schneerson studied at the university of Berlin, Germany and at the Sorbonne in Paris.[1] Unfortunately, the biographical segment in the collection in question does not tell us either which subjects Rabbi Schneerson studied in the mentioned universities or for how long.[2] There is no information available regarding any possible contribution by Schneerson to any specific field of science.[3] It seems safe to assume that he never performed any scientific work in any field of science.[4] It seems safe to assume he had no personal experience in conducting scientific experiments, sorting out and interpreting experimental data, developing any scientific theories, participating in discussions of any specific scientific ideas and generally being involved in any real scientific activity,[5] which is the only way a person acquires a real understanding of what a work of science is all about.

Reading Schneerson's article leads to the conclusion that he had no real understanding of the scientific method and of the essence of the scientific exploration of reality. His paper is an odd mix of platitudes and misrepresentations of science.

Among the platitudes in question is his assertion that "at best science can only speak in terms of theories inferred from certain known facts..." How true! Why, though, this situation, which is not being disputed by any scientist, should be viewed as a weakness, as Rabbi Schneerson seems to imply, remains his secret. Yes, science speaks in terms of theories inferred from known facts. How much more credible the Torah would be if it also spoke in terms of theories inferred from known facts! If, as Rabbi Schneerson indicated, using theories inferred from known facts is a limitation of science, what about the Torah whose statements are not inferred from any known facts but are simply unsubstantiated assertions without any factual basis?

Among Rabbi Schneerson's misrepresentations of science was his alleged explanation of two methods utilized by science, one being extrapolation and the other, interpolation. The explanation in question was primitive in the extreme. It reduced the scientific method to only two possible variations, which of course is a gross simplification. Moreover, he distorted the essence of the two methods in question. .

Interpolation, Rabbi Schneerson taught us, is a method "whereby, knowing the reaction under two extremes, we attempt to infer what the reaction might be at any point between the two." If we replaced the word "reaction" with the word "value," the above definition would be an adequate one for a mathematical operation of interpolation. However, it falls short of being a proper definition of any legitimate procedure employed in science. In physics, chemistry, biology, the simplistic inference of what the "reaction" might be at an intermediary point between two extreme" points where the reaction has been studied is not a proper way to develop a theory. Any interpolation, if it takes place at all, is never a bare guess but is always based on certain information enabling the researcher to reasonably predict the behavior of a system under study between the two known "extremes."

That such interpolations are legitimate and not at all arbitrary is seen from the great successes of science which have led to the enormous progress of technology we all witness. The very picture presented by Schneerson, whereby there is information available at some two points, say A and B, and from that, information related to a point C located between A and B is inferred, is in itself a distortion of the scientific procedure. If an interpolation (which is a legitimate course of action in experimental science) is employed it is not normally based on the information related to just two extreme points.

Let us discuss the question of a legitimate interpolation by using a specific example. Since Schneerson used the term "reaction" it seems appropriate to consider an example from chemistry. Imagine that a study is conducted whereby the dependence of the rate of an electrochemical reaction on parameters such as temperature, current density, solution composition, etc., is investigated. One of the common methods of experimental study is to gradually change one of the parameters (for example, temperature) while keeping all the rest of the parameters constant (within a certain range). The researcher chooses a discrete set of values of temperature, for example, 300 K, 320 K, 340 K, 360 K, 380 K, 400 K. (K stands for Kelvin, which is the thermodynamic unit of temperature; 1 K equals one degree Celsius). The researcher makes an effort to keep the variations of current density, solution composition and all other parameters as small as possible, and measures the reaction rate at the listed six values of temperature. She necessarily repeats the measurements many times, thus determining the margin of error. When she is satisfied that the repetition of measurements generates values which all are within the same margin of error, she applies some mathematical treatment to her data, for example, the least square fit. The result of the described meticulous procedure is some curve reflecting the dependence of the reaction rate on temperature, corresponding to the fixed values of current density, solution composition etc. Then the entire procedure is repeated for another value of current density, or for another value of concentration of solution components, etc. After many such measurements have been completed, the researcher has a family of curves, each showing the dependence of the reaction rate on temperature, but for various current densities or various concentrations of the solution components. This procedure is very far from the simplistic picture given by Schneerson, whereby the data for two extremes are used to infer the data for an intermediate point. The rate of reaction for, say, a temperature of 310 K, which is between the actually measured points at 300 K and 320 K, is estimated not just from the two values at 300 K and 320 K but from the entire consistent combination of multiple experimental points. The necessary next step is to form an explanation of the experimental curves in question. Such an explanation is never arbitrary, but is based on the enormous body of knowledge accumulated in science. Since the theory must explain a multitude of experimental data rather than just two values at some two points, as Schneerson naively suggested, there are usually not too many choices which would reasonably fit all the experimental points. Finally, when a theory is developed which seems to account for the entire set of experimental data, it is used to predict the outcome of other experiments. If, in the course of the further studies by various researchers the predictions of the theory are reasonably confirmed, the theory becomes a part of the scientific arsenal, as a reasonably plausible interpretation of facts. It is never viewed as the absolute truth, but usually every good scientific theory contains at least a grain of truth in it. This example illustrates that Schneerson's description of interpolation falls short of being an adequate presentation of a scientific method.

Then Schneerson spoke about extrapolation, which, he asserted, is inferior to interpolation. He gave the following definition and an example: "The method of extrapolation, whereby inferences are made beyond a known range, on the basis of certain variables within the known range. For example, suppose we know the variables of a certain element within a temperature range of 00 and 1000 , and on the basis of this we estimate what the reaction might be at 1010 , 2000 , or 20000 ... Of the two methods, the second (extrapolation) is clearly the more uncertain. Moreover, the uncertainty increases with the distance away from the known range."

Like in the case of interpolation, Schneerson's description is a gross simplification and hence a distortion of a real scientific procedure. No scientist would ever simply guess what "the reaction" would be at 1010 or 20000 based on the data for 1000 alone. Any extrapolation, if employed in genuine scientific research, is based on a multitude of data which establish a well-documented trend. Besides the particular set of data at the scientist's disposal, she always bases her extrapolation also on the enormous wealth of multifaceted knowledge accumulated in science about the "reaction" in question.

Scientific theories are not built upon either simple interpolation or simple extrapolation, but rather on a combination of various mutually controlling methods and firmly established trends. The power and fruitfulness of the scientific method are obvious. It is impossible to deny the amazing achievements of science and the technology based upon scientific discoveries.

Schneerson continued: "... a generalization inferred from a known consequent to an unknown antecedent is more speculative than an inference from an antecedent to consequent." To illustrate that assertion, Schneerson offers an example: " Four divided by two equals two. Here the antecedent is represented by the dividend and the divisor, and the consequent – by the quotient (2) ...However, if we know only the end result, namely the number, 2, and we ask ourselves, how can we arrive at the number 2, the answer permits several possibilities, arrived at by means of different methods: 1)1 plus 1 equals 2; 2) 4-2 equals 2, 3) 4/2 equals 2..." This arithmetic platitude, contrary to Schneerson's view, is utterly irrelevant to the question of the validity of scientific theories. It is arithmetically correct that the number 2 can be obtained by an endless number of arithmetic procedures. However, in scientific research the inference from a consequent to an antecedent is never made simply based on some number alone. If a researcher obtains, as a result of a measurement, a certain individual number, be it 2 or anything else, he never tries to draw any conclusion as to what caused this number by limiting his discussion to that number alone. Any conclusion "from consequent to antecedent" is offered on the basis of a multitude of data, which show a distinctive trend, and taking into account the large body of information accumulated by science about the reaction in question and other similar reactions.

Furthermore, Schneerson's assertion that "a generalization inferred from a known consequent to an unknown antecedent is more speculative than an inference from an antecedent to consequent" is factually wrong. The procedure Schneerson refers to as an inference from a consequent to antecedent is the most common one in science, and boils down to developing a theory explaining a set of known facts. On the other hand the procedure he refers to as inference from antecedent to consequent is actually using a theory to predict the outcome of experiments yet to be performed. More often than not, the former is less speculative than the latter, which is contrary to Scheersohn's dilettantish assertion. If a set of experimental data is sufficiently large, a theory explaining it can be reasonably substantiated. On the other hand, predicting the results of future experiments is a more speculative endeavor. Therefore the actual occurrence of events predicted by a theory is normally viewed as a more convincing argument in favor of that theory than simply an explanation by a theory of the already available data.

Of course, scientific theories can be wrong. If that is the case, they usually have a very short life. Every theory, even if it explains a certain set of data very well, is always subjected to multiple unmerciful tests, probing the limits of its applicability. The process of establishing an accepted scientific theory is very complex and quite different from the simplistic picture painted by Schneerson. This process includes many facets, starting with measurements, followed by offering some hypothetical explanation of experimental data which is aimed at forming a logically consistent concept accounting for every experimental fact, then followed by designing additional experiments whose outcome can be predicted on the base of the hypothesis in question, testing the prediction, then amending the hypothesis, etc.

Contrary to Schneerson's view, this elaborate procedure ensures the high reliability of scientific theories, although none of them, unlike the Torah, is viewed as the absolute truth.

Schneerson continued his attack on the validity of science by listing a number of weaknesses plaguing scientific theories. Among those weaknesses is, for example, that scientific theories "have been advanced on the basis of observable data during a relatively short period of time." Since Schneerson's thesis is that the Torah provides more reliable information than science, a legitimate question is, what are those "observable data" which form the foundation of the Torah's story? There are no such data for either long or short period of time. Why then should we prefer the Torah's story to scientific theories?

Another weakness of science is, according to Schneerson, that "on the basis of such a relatively small range of known (though by no means perfectly) data scientists venture to build theories by the weak method of extrapolation, and from the consequent to the antecedent, extending to many thousands (according to them, to millions and billions) of years!" This quotation shows once again Schneerson's primitive level of understanding of scientific theories. The age of the universe has been estimated in science through many different methods, all providing fairly consistent numbers. All these estimates are based on firmly established regularities with no indications whatsoever that any such regularity could not have been at work at any time in the past. Of course, there is no way to conduct a direct experiment to test if a certain regularity (for example, the constant rate of a radioactive decay of certain elements) indeed had been at work, say, a billion years ago. However, the large body of experimental evidence provides a reasonable foundation to believe that the regularity in question indeed was a feature of the world a billion years ago as it is now. Rabbi Schneerson might believe, if he was so inclined, that, for example, the rate of the radioactive decay was not constant in the course of millennia. By the same token, I may believe that the moon is made of green cheese. Those who do not share such a belief, may ask me: "What about the reports by American astronauts who landed on the moon and brought samples of its material back to the earth?" I can answer: "Well, Armstrong and the other astronauts may have lied. And, generally, all those TV images of people on the moon were made in Hollywood, and also there is a government's conspiracy to hide the truth about the moon, which is actually made of green cheese. This is my belief and nothing will convince me otherwise."

Maybe it is the proper time to give an example of how science deals with hypothesizing an antecedent from a consequent. I take the liberty to give that example from my own experience.

In the late fifties I encountered a phenomenon whereby thin metallic films deposited by various means, including electrodeposition, always grew in the state of strong mechanical stress. At that time, there existed no good theory which would explain the origin of stress in such films. Having conducted numerous measurements of stress, and accumulated piles of experimental data, mostly obtained in specifically designed experiments, I set out to develop a theory of the stress origin. I cannot explain why and how the idea of the theory in question emerged in my mind, but my guess, based on the multitude of results, was to attribute the emergence of tensile stress in films to the egress of a specific type of defects in the crystals forming the film, the so called dislocations, to the surface of crystals.

At that time, the concept of dislocations was purely theoretical. In the early years of the 20th century, a German physicist Madelung calculated theoretically the strength of crystals. Madelung's theory was based on the well-established concepts of forces between atoms, ions, and molecules. Nobody could find any error in Madelung's calculations. However, the strength of crystals according to his calculation turned out to be about 100,000 times larger than the actually measured strength of real crystals. Very soon scientists realized that the discrepancy was due to Madelung's theory being valid for ideal (i.e. defectless) crystals, while the measurements were conducted with real crystals, where multiple imperfections of structure were inevitably present. The experimental technique of that time was not capable of observing those microscopic defects directly. While the presence of various defects could be inferred from indirect evidence, their precise character was not known. To explain the drastic difference between the theoretical and actually measured strength of crystals, three scientists (in England, Russia and Japan) simultaneously and independently suggested a hypothesis of a specific type of defects, to be named dislocations, being responsible for the drastic drop in crystal's strength. In the course of the next decades, a detailed theory of dislocations was developed, with an extensive mathematical apparatus.

Using Schneerson's classification, it was a theory belonging to the pure "from consequent to antecedent" type. Various phenomena had been explained by the properties and behavior of dislocations which nobody has ever actually observed. Nevertheless, despite objections by a few dissenters, most physicists believed in the validity of the theory of dislocation simply because it could consistently and logically explain a multitude of facts.

By the beginning of the fifties, the advances in electron microscopy allowed to observe certain microscopic features of crystals which were interpreted as the experimental manifestation of the presence of dislocations. This gave considerable support to the theory which until then was based only on pure logic and mental ingenuity.

When I came up with the idea of the dislocations' egress, it was not based on any direct evidence, since the dislocations themselves have not yet been directly observed. My idea of their egress was based on a pure imagination, as it very logically and consistently seemed to explain a wide variety of experimental data I'd accumulated. Of course, my theory was also of the "consequent to antecedent" type, according to Schneerson's classification. Its foundation was in pure logic and consistency, as it was based not on some single number, as in Schneerson's example, but on a multitude of facts and on the observed trends. In this form, the theory was published. There were some scientists who disagreed with my explanation, but they did not come up with a good alternative. Several years later, new advances in electron microscopy enabled scientists to see the dislocations directly. This fully vindicated the creators of the dislocation theory, once again demonstrating the power of scientific inference. Soon afterwards, some English physicists observed directly the egress of dislocations to the crystals' surface, which I surmised several ears earlier to be the reason for the tensile stress in films, based on the logical analysis of a multitude of experimental data. Of course, before the direct observation of the dislocations' egress, people like Schneerson could argue that my theory was based on the use of a weak method "from consequent to antecedent," that it was based on data obtained for a limited range of conditions, etc. However, the entire history of science proves the power of scientific inference, and the high plausibility of good scientific theories.

Several years later I set out to develop a theory which would explain the anisotropy of stress I observed in certain magnetic films. Again, my tools were logic and the plethora of experimental facts I accumulated. I suggested a theory which explained the observed anisotropy through the magnetic properties of dislocations at play in the course of their egress. The theory neatly explained in a fairly plausible way the entirety of the observed phenomena. However, nobody has yet been able to directly verify the assumed behavior of the moving dislocations, hence that theory has so far no direct experimental proof. Therefore I can't assert that the theory in question is true, as I could with the earlier theory of the stress origin. I tend to view, though, the theory of anisotropy as being plausible due to its ability to logically explain a multitude of facts.

These two cases exemplify two types of scientific theories. To one type belong the theories which have a direct experimental confirmation. Of course, there is always a possibility that new experimental evidence may contradict the theory. More often than not, though, it means not that the theory is necessarily wrong, but rather that the new data reveal the boundaries of the theory's validity. To the second type belong theories which have no direct experimental confirmation. The plausibility of such theories is based, first, on their logical consistency and the ability to reasonably account for all known facts, and, second, on the fact that other scientific theories which have been confirmed by direct experiments were developed by the same process of scientific inference which therefore is known to usually provide a plausible insight into reality.

How far is the real scientific method from the jejune picture painted by Rabbi Schneerson!

Schneerson specifically argued against the theory of evolution. One of his categorical statements was: "If you are still troubled by the theory of evolution, I can tell you without fear of contradiction that it is not a shred of evidence to support it." Wow! What enviable self-confidence! Rabbi Schneerson obviously had a very limited knowledge of the subject he dared to discuss. While the theory of evolution has many yet unanswered questions, to insist that there is no evidence supporting it was a display of monumental ignorance on the matter. There is an enormous amount of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, even though some of that evidence is incomplete.

Continuing his discussion, Schneerson displayed his position as an adherent of the so-called "young earth creationism." The defenders of that position maintain that the age of the universe is exactly as the Bible tells us, namely less than 6,000 years, and all the evidence pointing to the much older Earth (a few billion years) or the universe (about 15 billion years) are simply an illusion. He says: "Even assuming that the period of time the Torah allows for the age of the world is definitely too short for fossilization (although I do not see how one can be so categorical) we can still readily accept the possibility that God created ready fossils, bones or skeletons (for reasons best known to Him), just as He could create ready living organisms, a complete man, and such ready products as oil, coal, or diamonds, without any evolutionary process."

I can readily accept that the moon is made of green cheese, and you can readily accept that in Australia people walk with their bodies hanging upside down, and your friend can readily accept that sunset occurs when a sorcerer who dwells beyond the horizon grabs the sun ands pulls it into a cave. If such suppositions were viewed as legitimate and reasonably explaining the facts, maybe Schneerson's "readily accepted" assumption could also be considered seriously. Otherwise the idea offered by the "young earth creationists" and shared by Schneerson, of God having created, for unknown reasons, ready fossils, bones, or skeletons, etc, remains in the realm of fairly tales, and hardly deserves serious discussion, since it lacks any semblance of substantiation and is a preposterously arbitrary explanation aimed at saving blind faith.

Schneerson provided no arguments in favor of the Torah's story.All his argumentation was of a negative character whereby he tried to cast doubt on scientific theories. The essence of his argumentation was that since no scientific theory can be viewed as the absolute truth, there is no reason to doubt the Torah's story. Even if one disbelieves scientific theories, how does it prove the veracity of the Torah' story? What Schneerson left without discussion is what is (if any) substantiation for the Torah's story. If, as Schneerson asserted, science does not provide the absolute truth (which is true) scientific theories are at least based on facts and their logical interpretation, and survive a stringent process of verifications and tests. The Torah's story is not corroborated by any other reasonably reliable source. There is no reason to view it as anything more than a collection of ancient manuscripts on par with the Mahabharata or Greek mythology.

[1] The Rebbe did study in Paris, but his degree is from a small technical school (like an American junior college), not the Sorbonne. The Rebbe's grades were poor, and he was threatened with expulsion because of them. The Sorbonne has no record of the Rebbe's attendence and awarded him no degrees.

The Rebbe studied philosophy and the philosophy of science in Berlin, but was not
awarded any degrees.

This is only one out of many times the Rebbe and Chabad misrepresented the Rebbe's educational background.
[2] See note 1.
[3] See note 1.
[4] See note 1.
[5] See note 1.

Comments

[Menachem Shemoy , Yinon Shemoy]

" His paper is an odd mix of platitudes and misrepresentations of science. "

judging by the sichos , the likutei this , likutei that , Mark Perakh should not worry writing about the subject of torah either any of the rebbe's writings on that subject too were at best "an odd mix of platitudes and misrepres- -entations of torah" .
with all due respect, a modern day moses , he was not .

[Paul Freedman]

I would be wary of relying overmuch on Perakh as a stick to beat on the Rebbe (or other Orthodox Rabbis)--not to say there are no contradictions between "Torah" and "science" (or, to be blunt, that the Rebbe would be the first place I would go to receive discourses on the philosophy of science).

Unfortunately, however, Mr. Perakh may not be so interested, judging from his website, of encouraging disciplined thinking on the relationship of religious beliefs and "materialist" natural science.

He may himself be looking for ways to discredit religion and belief in the Divine Creator all together--I suspect there's a good chance his take on science assumes either atheism or agnosticism as the only respectable religious belief. I'm struck by his emphasis on the role of "random" causes driving evolution in dismissing "Intelligent Design" theory and the likelihood of a "Divine Mind" responsible for evolution. This bell clanging for random and only random mutation hs characterized such bishops of the Militant Church of Neo-Darwinism as Richard Dawkins. To them the "Watchmaker" is blind. There is no God, there is no Providence, there is only the random tick-tock of a dead universe that somehow gives rise to life and preception.

I find it interesting that Shmyra has excerpted the section on the late Rebbe without reviewing the *rest* of the article and reflecting on whether the author's essential point of view rejecting Torah not only as a source for our knowledge of physical science but as a source for even the most general beliefs (there is a God who created the Universe, etc.) that I would think are incumbent upon the observant Jews primarily interested in his confrontations with the Gedoliim or Chabad, etc.

Yes, there are conflicts here. But in repeatedly assailing the "medievalists" amongst the Rabbinate (are we really shocked, shocked that Agudas is literalist?), indeed relying upon categorical opponents of deism, I have to wonder if Shmyra understands that the conflict is a fundamental one.

[Shmarya]

You have nothing to be "wary" of. Regardless of Perakh's personal beliefs, his criticisms of the Rebbe's science are valid.

As for "Intellegent Design," we are NOT Christians. God could very well have planned the entire 15.3 billion years of creation before the Big Bang. There is NO requirement in Judaism to believe that God intervened in the normal functioning of the world at any time other than two:

1. The moment of Creation.

2. The creation/blowing into the nostrils of Adam.

[Shmarya]

"But in repeatedly assailing the "medievalists" amongst the Rabbinate (are we really shocked, shocked that Agudas is literalist?), indeed relying upon categorical opponents of deism, I have to wonder if Shmyra understands that the conflict is a fundamental one."

1. The issue is truth, not dogma.

2. An athiest can discuss scientific method. So can a "diest." The only question is the honesty of the argument, the truth of the information presented. Perakh is truthful.

The existence of God is:

A. A belief.

B. Unprovable.

That is why Perakh does not deal with the Divine nature of Torah. He does point out that if you demand a certain level of proof for a scientific theory, you should demand the same level for belief in God. He does this not expecting anyone to give up his belief; he does this to show the Rebbe's fundamental dishonesty of argument.

[MP]

Mr. Failed Messiah, I hope no one in your family ever got a "get". Every “get” explicitly states “…X years from the Creation of the World…” A "get" with an invalid date is itself invalid. And that would make you an illegitimate child - a mamzer. Or do you perhaps believe that while the world is 15.3 billion years old, Adam was somehow only created 5765 years ago (thus making the dating of all Jewish documents valid according to your belief)? Well, the same science that puts the world's age at billions of years also puts the age of humanity at a far greater number than 5765.

[Shmarya]

The dating of gittin in that way is a later custom. Jews did not count their years that way until the early middle ages. Gittin were written and dated according to the years of the monarchy, the years from the destruction, etc.

Further, there is an argument of missing years in the calendar and the actual year this is.

Dating gittin 5765 (etc.) does NOT mean 5765 is correct. It means 5765 is the one we have all agreed to use.

The age of the universe – even if it is 15.3 billion years – would not invalidate gittin written using 5765 (etc.).

[Bruce Lokeinsky]

Shmarya, re: your remark about Jews not counting years since creation until early middle ages, I've asked this question before, years ago, on soc.culture.jewish, but never got an answer.

What is the first recorded instance of the use of 'X years since creation' in a Jewish document or publication?

[MP]

Mr. Failed Messiah, what you failed to understand in my comment is that even according to Yitzhok meiAkko, Odom Horishon was created 5765 years ago - and that does doesn’t fit with your beliefs. To support your particular set of beliefs, you must to religate ALL genealogical stories of the Breishis (and even Shmois) to mere allegory. Why not extend this approach to mitzvois-maasiois and be done with the whole thing?

[Shmarya]

Bruce –

The early middle ages or just a bit earlier.

[Shmarya]

MP –

You misunderstand Yitzhak mi Akko.

[MP]

If I misunderstand Yitzhok meiAkko, do tell me specifically what he says regarding the age of Adam and where (as in a page number). More importantly, do you believe that the genealogical dates sited in Bereshis from the moment of creation of Adam are literal or allegorical?

[Shmarya]

Page number? You certainly are familiar with Yitzhak mi Akko's work! Do you mean the Eshkol edition or the ArtScroll?

You clearly have never looked at his work. Otzar HaHayyim is a k'tav yad (manuscript).

As for the dates cited in Genesis, there are none. What we have is a genealogical chart of sorts. There are opinions that this is allegorical, but most hold it to be literal. When one understands that men existed before Adam HaRishon, this ceases to be a problem.

See here, for example:

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2005/01/how_long_will_t.html

[Bruce Lokeinsky]

Sure, early middle ages, but is there a well-known more precise time or citation?

[MP]

Moron, by "page number" I mean some Jewish source that quotes him that is more reliable than you.

There are no dates in Genesis? You have there a life span for every figure from Odom HoRishon onward! Can’t calculate dates from that?

Furthermore, even according to you, if Odom was a real person, then the 6th day of Creation (the day Odom was created) would have to be 24HR or, at the very least, drastically shorter than the first 5 days (which you would have to then say are more than 4.25 billion years each). This is all a very big stretch. The main point here is even those that say there were physical worlds before Maase Bereshis, agree that it all happened Before Maase Bereshis. You maintain that Yitzkok meiAkko holds differently. Well, give us a quote from a reliable Hebrew source (again, with a page number).

[Paul Freedman]

Uh, Shmaryra, where exactly in the 15.5 billion years of evolution according to Perakh's evolution did God "breath into the nostrils of Adam"? !! No, there is no #2 in this theory--there is NO ADAM (there is, I think, an Eve, a sort of hominid genetic mother of us all--no blowing into nostrils there either). The theory is not, not, not that here we have evolution, evolution, evolution, until this Adam comes along and is imbued with the Divine Spirit. Fugedaboutit.

I think Shmarya is kidding himself here. On the one hand he dimisses Intelligent Design which does NOT entail literalist belief in a 6,000 year old earth; on the other hand he EMBRACES an interpretation of evolution which CONTRADICTS the literal story of Adam he seems to believe in himself.

I don't know about other readers, but I'm totally baffled.

[Paul Freedman]

MP, I see that I am raising difficulties similar to your own but coming from the other direction of secularism. I'll just add that there are many people who you would probably regard as apokorsekiim but who are not atheists who do not see the restriction of God's influence (in the physical world) to the one act of the Big Bang as clarifying either science or belief in God--this is a sort of "mechanical" solution, particularly since some physicists--from Stephen Hawking to string theorists--don't believe anymore in the Big Bang as a unique event (sad but true)

I think that Shmarya's explanation of Big Bang + Adam as God's two interventions is an individual taste. And again, the author of the website Shmarya recommends would find Shmarya's explanations as being as weak as or weaker than the Rebbe's.

[Mifletz]

There is at least some evidence of a young universe eg the rate of decrease of the earth and sun's magnetic fields, the rate of decrease in the size of the solar disc, the high residual warmth of the moon and mere half-inch of dust on its surface (which amazed the Apollo astronauts who had been told to expect being swamped!), the decrease in the speed of light, the paucity of helium and micro-meteoric dust in the atmosphere, the rate of mineral deposition into the oceans, the fallacious premises of radiometric dating, the still "unwrapped" state of the arms of the great spiral galaxies, the thickness of Saturn's rings, the continued existence of short-term comets, human population statistics, the complete dearth of any human record or artifact older than 6000 years, polystrate fossils, the non-organic theory for the origin of oil, dendochronolgy (no tree older than 5100 years can be found!), pleochroic haloes etc.

[Shmarya]

Mifletz –

What you wrote is bunk. See Roger Pennock's works on this, for example.

99.9% of scientists – including many religious ones – disagree with what you wrote, not because of their lack of religious belief, but because of the facts. There is a new Feldheim book that repeats much of the false information you wrote. (Is that your source?) The book is widely considered to be shameful by religious scientists. AOJS may be publishing a paper condemning the book.

[Paul Freedman]

See also:

http://shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/12-03.html

Clarification as to how a literal reading of Adam's creation ties into this would be helpful

[Paul Freedman]

See also:

http://www.yasharbooks.com/Blog0501.html#05012402

[Shmarya]

Paul –

Again, Perakh's belief or lack of belief in God is not the issue.

Why?

Because the issue is not the Rebbe's religious beliefs. The issue is the Rebbe's SCIENCE, which the Rebbe stated as a "scientist."

Perakh shows quite conclusively that the Rebbe's portrayal of science is either, a) very mistaken due to the Rebbe's lack of real scientific training and experience, or, b) intentionally misleading, or, c) both.

Each of the above possibilities were held by the leaders of the AOJS when they published the Rebbe's letter in Challenge. They only included it because the Rebbe was the "leader" of the ba'al teshuva / kiruv movement and a man who (falsely, it turns out) promoted himself as a Sorbonne-trained scientist. They included his letter as a result, but noted politely their strong disagreement with it.

As for Design, again, it is not necessary to believe in this theory. It may or may not be true. As I wrote earlier, we only need to believe that God directly intervened in the natural order of Creation and the world twice – 1. The Big Bang. 2. Breathing into Adam's nostrils.

Evolution is not a contradiction to the existence of God.

[MP]

Paul, in truth, there is no need/obligation to reconcile scientific finding and theories with our religious beliefs. Having said that, I recognize that there are Jews out there that have a NEED for such reconciliation and that with that need being unfulfilled, they simply can't "believe" and/or practice Judaism. To those Jews, the Rebbe's answers on the topic are “the best there is” (although the Rebbe himself said that the ultimate answer is to not to confuse the two endeavors). The Rebbe gave different answers on this topic to different people and none of these answers were presented as the ultimate Truth, but rather as statements in a way of “afilu leshitoscho…”. Mr Failed Messiah here is either unable or unwilling to understand that distinction.
In my personal view, the Old World (creation of the world with “built-in age” just like Odom HoRishon being created as an adult, not as a drop of sperm) is the least problematic representation of this whole very problematic attempt at reconciliation (it is also one of the answers the Rebbe uses). The fact that the Old World theory MAY have come from a christian source does not negate its advantages over ALL other attempts in this area.
Failed Messiah’s assertion, that according to the Old World theory, our own memories may have been created only a moment ago, reaches the ultimate heights of stupidity. G-d gave us a “mitzvoh” to repent over our past deeds. That requires our memories to be true representations of our deeds. Additionally, the omnipotent G-d can have the process that appears to have taken billions of years happen in mere moments. (BTW, not knowing why G-d “put dinosaur bones out there” is a lot better than saying the word “day” means 2 different things in the context of the 7 days of Creation.)

[Shmarya]

Paul –

Read this:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0881253456/failedmessiah-20/102-5899923-3932947

Professor Gerald Schroeder http://www.geraldschroeder.com/ shows that if Relativity is correct, then 6000 years can equal 16 billion, so Mifletz's evidences, held by not a few PhD scientists, cannot be written off!

Similarly if Relativity is correct, then what Chazal & the Rebbe taught about geocentricity may also be correct: "If the Galileo Affair had taken place after Einstein had framed his General Theory, it would have resulted in an even draw out of physical & mathematical necessity" (Sir Fred Hoyle).

And if Relativity is incorrect, then that the Earth is motionless at the center of the universe - geocentricity - is actually favoured!

[Shmarya]

MP –

Let's be clear.

1. No Jewish surce pre-dating the Rebbe held of an earth created old. (i.e., Young Earth Creationism, or YEC.)

2. YEC was first posited by a Christian fundmentalist in the mid-1800's.

3. YEC is problematic for many reasons, not the least of which is what it implies about God's (lack of) honesty.

4. The "resoultions" you ridicule were first presented by Tannaim, Amoraim and Rishonim.

5. The Rebbe lied about his academic background and wass not a scientist.

6. Try reading the book I linked above. It might make things clearer for you. It was written by a rav who learned 5 blatt per day along with hasidut and sifrei kabbala. He was also a protegé of Robert Oppenheimer.

[Shmarya]

"

Professor Gerald Schroeder http://www.geraldschroeder.com/ shows that if Relativity is correct, then 6000 years can equal 16 billion, so Mifletz's evidences, held by not a few PhD scientists, cannot be written off!

Similarly if Relativity is correct, then what Chazal & the Rebbe taught about geocentricity may also be correct: "If the Galileo Affair had taken place after Einstein had framed his General Theory, it would have resulted in an even draw out of physical & mathematical necessity" (Sir Fred Hoyle).

And if Relativity is incorrect, then that the Earth is motionless at the center of the universe - geocentricity - is actually favoured!"

What Schroeder is talking about is time relative to God vrs. time relative to man.

We know much more about astronomy now than we did 500 years ago. Try telling any Ph.D.-level astronomer that what Hoyle wrote means the Rebbe's geocentric universe is correct. Let me know when – and if – the astronomer stops laughing.

"We cannot feel our motion through space; nor has any experiment ever proved that the earth actually is in motion!" (Einstein's disciple Lincoln Barnett).

Even an atheist like Bertrand Russell admitted "Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors held, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same: a metaphysical assumption has to be made!".

[Shmarya]

Anonymous: "Professor Gerald Schroeder http://www.geraldschroeder.com/ shows that if Relativity is correct, then 6000 years can equal 16 billion, so Mifletz's evidences, held by not a few PhD scientists, cannot be written off!"

Funny, you and Mifletz have the exact same IP address …

It is funny. But even Edward Norton was entitled to have Tyler Durden as an alter-ego in "Fight Club"!

"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance." (Sir Fred Hoyle).

[Shmarya]

Mifletz –

Here's the deal. Stick with Miflitz. If you publish under any other name or anonymously, I'll ban your comments.

Let's stay really focussed Scott.

Do you agree that if Einstein is correct, then in no way can the Torah's 6000 year old geocentric universe (as promulgated by Chazal and the Rebbe) be said to be wrong?

[MP]

Yes, let's be clear:

1-2. You do not need a Jewish source for a topic that is not an obligatory belief. As I said, all these answers are merely "afilu leshitoscho..." Nothing more. You are intentionally misrepresenting their intention and meaning.

3. What is the issur in believing YEC? Sources for said issur - please. (again, other than Failed Messiah dot com)

4. Where exactly do I ridicule anyone but you? What “tannoim, ammoraim and rishonim say that the word “day” means two different things with the context of one continuum (the 7 Days of Creation)? Again some unpublished manuscripts available only to Failed Messiah?

5. You are lying, again. The Rebbe never represented himself to be “a scientist”. What he said was that he had enough “scientific background” to know when scientists are dishonest about their intentions – when they are relying on the blind belief of the uneducated people into the authority of Science to engage in some very unscientific anti-religious propaganda.

6. Ah! “Read the book” - the favorite retort of those unable to state sources for their specific statements. BTW, Rabbi Kaplan is universally respected and needs no approbation from you.

[Bruce Lokeinsky]

Seems the anonymous poster is showing his ignorance of linear frames of motion (zero acceleration) and angular frames of motion (constant acceleration).

He's qoute picking too.

But this stuff has been gone over a million times on hundreds of blogs before...

But that's OK. It's how we learn. If some of us ever learn, that is.

You are a bit confused.

YECs believe in an Earth LESS than 10,000 years old.

OECs (Old Earth Creationists) believe in Uniformatarianism, the Gap Theory, that 1 Day = 1 billion years etc.

R.Avigdor Miller (highly non-Lubavitch) held that the goy YECs had done "valuable work", and supported them against the AOJS' OECs!

[Shmarya]

Mifletz –

Sorry old boy but I had to ban you. If you promise to post only under the name Mifletz I'll reinstate you.

Use the e-mail link on this page to contact me.

[Shmarya]

Avigdor Miller hated science. He was less than honest - a pure ideologue.

[Shmarya]

MP –

Why not actually read Rabbi Kaplan's book? He addresses most of the issues you raise.

[Mifletz]

"If one accelerates a heavy shell of matter S, then a mass enclosed by that shell experiences an accelerative force. If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around." (Einstein 1913).

This is known as Mach's Principle: that an Earth going round once very 24 hours will produce EXACTLY the same effects as a universe going round a stationary Earth, & that there is currently no way of distinguishing between the two models.

[Paul Freedman]

Let's be clear, Perakh, as noted by Shmarya, rejects the AOJS approach generally, not just the reported credal belief of the Rebbe in YEC and the Rebbe's statements (assumed as completely represenative) that science is advanced (solely) through (mechanical) interpolation and extrapolation.

I don't know that the Rebbe's contribution required Perakhs massive response: he goes on at length to explain how single-variables are changed in multi-variable experimental setups before digressing into an epic and minutely detailed biographical excursus into some work he did personally at one time or another whose point seemed much less obvious than its length.

Still, there is every reason to believe that Perakh is not only dismissing YEC when he writes: "science speaks in terms of theories inferred from known facts. How much more credible the Torah would be if it also spoke in terms of theories inferred from known facts! If, as Rabbi Schneerson indicated, using theories inferred from known facts is a limitation of science, what about the Torah whose statements are not inferred from any known facts but are simply unsubstantiated assertions without any factual basis?"

I would be willing to wager dollars to donuts that Perakh would absolutely prohibit any discussion of evolution that relied integrally upon sifrei kabbala. Count on it. Ditto, not to harp, on the literal existence of a literal Adam, much less his Divine Inspiration.

Had Aryeh himself tied a belief in a long-term process taking aeons to complete specifically to evolution by random mutation and natural selection?

I still don't see the "fit" in the splice between an allegorical reading of Genesis as far as the universe and planets etc., go, and a semi-literal reading of the "inspiration" of Adam.

[Mifletz]

Miller has many chapters in his books and many tapes contra-evolution.

His "Hoax of Geology" and "Evolutionsts speak" are classics and had his devotees rolling in the isles (af tisch und af benk) with guffaws!

[MP]

"Why not actually read Rabbi Kaplan's book? He addresses most of the issues you raise."
- Because the discussion here is very specific.
If Rabbi Kaplan addresses the prohibition to believe in the possibility of YEC, site the page.
If Rabbi Kaplan quotes a Tanna or an Amorah or a Rishon that says the word "day" means one thing for the first 5 days of Creation and another for the last 2 - site the page. I will look it all up. If you can't do that, site ANY source we can verify without having to sift through hundreds of pages or reading unavailable manuscripts (an old trick of all liars and demagogues).
Lastly, what does Rabbi Kaplan's book have to do with your intentional (yes, intentional - since you did not correct them even after I pointed them out to you) distortions of the Rebbe's answers and his statements about his background?

[MP]

"Why not actually read Rabbi Kaplan's book? He addresses most of the issues you raise."
- Because the discussion here is very specific.
If Rabbi Kaplan addresses the prohibition to believe in the possibility of YEC, site the page.
If Rabbi Kaplan quotes a Tanna or an Amorah or a Rishon that says the word "day" means one thing for the first 5 days of Creation and another for the last 2 - site the page. I will look it all up. If you can't do that, site ANY source we can verify without having to sift through hundreds of pages or reading unavailable manuscripts (an old trick of all liars and demagogues).
Lastly, what does Rabbi Kaplan's book have to do with your intentional (yes, intentional - since you did not correct them even after I pointed them out to you) distortions of the Rebbe's answers and his statements about his background?

[MP]

"Why not actually read Rabbi Kaplan's book? He addresses most of the issues you raise."
- Because the discussion here is very specific.
If Rabbi Kaplan addresses the prohibition to believe in the possibility of YEC, site the page.
If Rabbi Kaplan quotes a Tanna or an Amorah or a Rishon that says the word "day" means one thing for the first 5 days of Creation and another for the last 2 - site the page. I will look it all up. If you can't do that, site ANY source we can verify without having to sift through hundreds of pages or reading unavailable manuscripts (an old trick of all liars and demagogues).
Lastly, what does Rabbi Kaplan's book have to do with your intentional (yes, intentional - since you did not correct them even after I pointed them out to you) distortions of the Rebbe's answers and his statements about his background?

[MP]

clearly - this TypePad thing is not working well

[Shmarya]

The Rebbe misrepresents his credentials here:

http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article.asp?AID=61943

"… (b) A remark has been attributed to you to the effect that just as Rabbinic problems should be dealt with by someone who studies Rabbinics, so should scientific problems be left to those who studied science. I do not know how accurate this report is, but I feel I should not ignore it nevertheless, since I agree with this principle. I studied science on the university level from 1928-1932 in Berlin, and from 1934-1938 in Paris, and I have tried to follow scientific developments in certain areas ever since."

This is false. The Rebbe studied the PHILOSOPHY of science (not science itself) at the University of Berlin. His technical school degree issued in Paris is in electrical engineering. Worse yet, his grades were very poor and he was threatened with expulsion as a result.

[Shmarya]

And more, also from the same source:

"Here a word of explanation regarding the terminology of my letter is in order. If the terms or expressions used are not always the standard ones, this is due to (a) the fact that I do not usually dictate my letters in English, and while I subsequently check the translation, the perusal may not always preclude an oversight, as the present instance is a case in point; and (b) the fact that I received my scientific training, as already mentioned, in German and French, and previously in Russian, which may also account for some of the variations."

[Shmarya]

MP– Rabbi Kaplan's book is very brief and it answers your questions. See especially Chapter 1 and Drush Ohr HaChayim.

[Paul Freedman]

Shmarya, maybe the Rebbe did not get the best grades but in studying to be an electrical engineer he was studying "science" as much as if he studied biology. Perakh does not believe in kabbalah. He does not believe in Adam, he does not believe that the issue is just the age of the earth but the lack of proof of a God and the falseness of any claims derived from revelation such as Torah including God's participation in any way.

I give up.

[Brian]

Paul,

I'm not sure I understand what Perakh's beliefs have to do with it, if he cites examples of flaws in the Rebbe's understanding of scientific principles. Certainly it seems colored by doubt in Torah, but the Rebbe's writing is definitely colored by doubt in science, and is (hopefully unintentionally) based on somewhat disingenuous examples.

What is the underlying concern with the age of the earth anyway, besides the Orthodox heading towards new Dark Age thing? I know I betray a volume of ignorance here, and apologize to the more erudite, but whether Adam walked on a fresh planet or an older one, what does it change? I ask because I truly want to know; not a rhetorical question. Especially if it's true that only the moment of Creation and the moment of Adam's creation are of any dogmatic consequence.

[MP]

Mr. Failed Messiah, thank you for the quotes. I did not check their accuracy, but will go with your version, since it rings true enough to me. In my view your conclusion is simply idiotic. STUDYING science and TRAINING in science on a university level IS NOT AT ALL the same as presenting one self to be a SCIENTIST, let alone an advanced one. You are ridiculous.