Monday, March 31, 2008

Evolution: Science Hijacked by Atheism



Evolution means the gradual development of all life on earth from one universal common ancestor through a process of variation and natural selection.

There are basically two problems with this concept.

Problem #1: Evolution is impossibly improbable

Evolution proposes that vast amounts of seemingly purposeful complexity can be generated through a random chance process, provided that a great deal of time and space are available and some external selective force limits this random process.

This is basically comparable to someone illiterate attempting to publish books through random trial and error and customer selection. He would buy a printing press, open a bookstore, start printing and make more copies of whatever sold. At first he just arranged his printing type at random, printed and put the results on the shelves. No one bought anything since it was all gibberish. He threw all these failures into the trash bin and continued printing. Eventually, purely by chance, one small booklet actually made sense and in fact became a best seller. So he kept printing more copies of it. Occasionally, there would be some typographical error in the printing; purely by chance, a page would be smudged, a line would be missing. Generally these errors would cause the book to be defective and it would be thrown into the trash, however once in a while a typo would add more meaning to a copy of the book – perhaps a few interesting new sentences. People would ask for more copies of it. The illiterate author would then faithfully reproduce that typo. Gradually entire new books developed through this process of random typographical errors and customer selection. Eventually, the inventory in the book shop had expanded to include tens of millions of titles including novels, plays, poetry, scientific textbooks, history, biography, huge dictionaries and encyclopedias and so on. In fact, these books were actually far more beautiful and profound than books ever written by any human author. All of these were produced by a totally illiterate author through a process of random printing, typos and customer selection over a very long period of time.

Needless to say, such a process is unimaginably unlikely to be successful. It has already been calculated, for example, that the possibility of a monkey typing Hamlet is infinitesimally small.

For more details about this problem, I recommend the book "Not By Chance" by Lee Spetner.

The atheistic response to this is as follows: God's origin would be even more improbable than the origin of life. Therefore belief in God resolves nothing.

This response is nonsense since God is eternal. For their argument to be valid, atheists would have to prove that an eternal Creator cannot exist, however of course they can't.

Problem #2: Evolution contradicts the fossil record

Over the past 200 years, paleontologists have very carefully examined the fossil record. If evolution were true, then we should see evidence of billions of intermediary stages between the earliest life and each of today’s living species, along with countless examples of failed organisms that could not reproduce. According to evolutionary theory, we should see a continuous very gradual change in life on earth from its first appearance following the formation of the oceans up to and including the present. (Evolution means "gradual improvement".) Major global catastrophes, if they occur, should result in a major reduction in the complexity of life on earth, not a sudden advancement to more complex forms. What we find instead are distinct eras populated with fully developed ecosystems: the Paleozoic Era, the Mesozoic Era and the Cenozoic Era, each of which seems to appear and disappear abruptly. The problem is not several missing links. The problem is that the overall pattern of the fossils is wrong. This clearly falsifies evolution. (However, it does not in my opinion contradict Judaism.)


Additional Comments

It should be pointed out that animal breeding only works within narrow limits. Therefore it has no connection to evolution. Also, the fact that there are similarities between different animals does not prove a genetic relationship any more than similarities between different man made machines proves a genetic relationship. Allegedly vestigial organs really are not. "Poorly designed" animals are really just poorly understood. Bear in mind also that evolutionists have been known to use fraudulent misinformation to promote their beliefs. They also consider anyone who rejects Darwinism to be by definition an incompetent scientist, thereby in effect silencing any dissent within the scientific community.

Saying that evolution has nothing to do with atheism is far from accurate. The publication of "Origin of Species" made atheism respectable, popular and supposedly scientific. Prior to 1859, calling someone an atheist was equivalent to calling him a psychopath.

Darwin has been almost deified by atheists, some of whom celebrate Darwin Day. The Origins of Species is a stupid little book which would ordinarily have been immediately forgotten except for the fact that it promotes atheism. Some atheists treat it like a Bible. The word evolution is used by atheists as a substitute for God (as in "evolution designed", "evolution created", etc.).

Contrary to popular belief, genetics and taxonomy are not in any way based on evolution. In fact, Carl Linnaeus, founder of modern taxonomy, and Gregor Mendel, founder of modern genetics, were both creationists.

One thing extremely important to bear in mind when discussing evolution is that “natural selection” is merely a limiting and not a guiding factor. Natural selection can never reach into DNA and fix it to work better. That would be an example of “intelligent design” which is of course anathema to evolutionists. Rather, what is happening is that every organism, which was formed through pure random chance interaction of chemicals, radiation, etc., allegedly tries it’s hardest to reproduce as much as possible. Then “Nature” comes along and stops it at some point. An animal may die before it can reproduce at all, or it may die after having only one offspring, or after only a few generations, or it may have great survival abilities and overrun the whole planet, as humans have. That is all that natural selection can do. The fittest survive based on the limitations of nature, however the fittest arrive through random chance.

Most scientists are evolutionists although evolution is obviously false. The reason for this is because evolution means that there is no Biblical God, therefore there is no prophesy and therefore scientists are society's most important intellectuals. Therefore a great many scientists believe in evolution.

Many people who are devoutly religious also accept evolution. This includes members of the Roman Catholic Church and modern Orthodox Judaism. I believe that this has happened because of the popular perception, promoted by many scientists, that evolution has been “proven by science” and therefore it is unquestionably true. I would describe such individuals as “Useful Idiots”, in other words naive people cynically being used by atheists for their own selfish purposes. Two of the most prominent people in this category are Professor Kenneth Miller and Rabbi Natan Slifkin. Evolution certainly did not originate with religious people nor is it promoted primarily by religious people.

Some people might question how an ordinary layman such as myself can contradict the opinion of the National Academy of Sciences. I am sure that a few hundred years ago, someone could likewise have asked how an ordinary Jew could question the resurrection of Jesus, which was accepted as unquestionable fact by all Western scholars and professors at that time. The answer is that any rational and well-informed person can and should separate the truth from officially endorsed nonsense. Bear in mind that education and official position have nothing to do with morality and honesty.

It is interesting to note, incidentally, that this international scientific statement about evolution seems a little more cautious than some American and British publications on the issue.


Conclusions

Evolution has no basis in science. It contradicts the most elementary principles of probability and paleontology. It certainly has no relationship to exact laboratory sciences such as chemistry, biology and physics. No Nobel Prize has ever been awarded for a contribution to evolutionary theory. No new technology or medical treatment is dependent on the theory of evolution. While having great philosophical, theological and political importance, it has no relevance to science. It cannot even be called honest speculation about natural history. Rather, evolution is a fiction based upon a desire to deny God. It is an extremely dangerous fairy tale being fraudulently labeled "science". It has been called a universal acid which destroys tradition. It was one of the primary causes of the Second World War. It might be compared to Marxism, which was also not a science, but instead was a fiction based upon a desire to rob the wealthy. Perhaps not by coincidence, Christopher Hitchens, a great promoter of evolution, is also a former Marxist.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Atheism and Gender


Based on a few comments I have read on the Internet, it would appear that atheism is perhaps 80% to 90% a male belief. After all, there are The Four Horsemen, but no horsewomen.

There does not seem to be any obvious cause for this. Atheism is not a particularly male-oriented belief, in the way Wicca for example is female oriented. Some suggest that women are more insecure than men and therefore feel a greater need for the comfort of religion. Others suggest that perhaps women are less educated in science than men and therefore are more easily duped by religious leaders. I don't see much proof of these ideas.

In my humble opinion, the explanation is quite simple.

All traditional religions impose sexual restrictions to a certain degree. Atheists feel free to ignore these restrictions. (This is in contrast to religious prohibitions against stealing, killing, etc. which even atheists must continue to obey if they don't want to risk prison.) Therefore, most likely, the primary motivation for atheism is a desire for sexual freedom. The desire for sex is strongly influenced by testosterone, a hormone found in much higher levels among males than among females. Therefore, atheism is found in much higher levels among men than among women.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

The Genius of Judaism: the Sabbath


[lighting the Sabbath candles on Friday afternoon, from Minhagim (Customs), published by Solomon Proops, Amsterdam, 1707]

Today, the concept of a seven day week including at least one day of rest is universal. However Judaism invented the Sabbath.

7 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 8 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work; 9 but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the LORD thy God, in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; 10 for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day; wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Exodus 20)

For an Orthodox Jew, all life comes to a halt one day in every seven. Nothing involving electricity, fire or internal combustion may be used. Cars, lights, computers and telephones become untouchable. Food may be removed from the stove but not put on it. We may read by a light, but not turn it on or off. Cars, planes, buses, etc. are off limits. Writing is prohibited. Shopping is prohibited.

This means that regardless of how busy a Jew is, regardless of how much stress he is under, he will rest and relax, without fail, once the sun sets on Friday until dark on Saturday evening. He will have time to spend together with family and friends, without the distraction of television or telephones. He will have time to pray and study Torah and contemplate spiritual priorities. Only an actual danger to human life can take precedence over the Sabbath. The spiritual, mental and social benefits of the Sabbath are immeasurable.

I recall one Sabbath I observed 11 years ago. My wife was expecting triplets, three boys, when, in the middle of the pregnancy, her water broke. This happened on a Friday morning. She was hospitalized for several days before delivering the babies, who died immediately because of their extreme prematurity. In any case, I spent that Sabbath next to her bed in the maternity ward. On Friday, friends had brought us the customary Sabbath foods, such as challah and kugel. I made Kiddush. It was a very sad time; however even in the midst of it we still found peace and meaning in observing the ancient traditions together.

The Sabbath is a queen, a bride, God's special gift to the Jews. It must be experienced to be appreciated. In the midst of the craziness of life, the Sabbath preserves our sanity.

Monday, March 17, 2008

Dawkins is Dead

I hope that this interview will settle the issue. Although most people insist otherwise, there clearly is no Richard Dawkins. The belief in a dawkins is an unnecessary hypothesis; an Iron Age myth which is completely baseless. I know this idea will upset many people. I apologize in advance. However, we must stop repeating dangerous fairy tales and we must create a society based on rational inquiry only.



The point of this mock interview, of course, is that if one is going to consider the common atheistic arguments against belief in God to be valid, then one should equally deny the existence of all other people whom one has not met personally. That is obviously absurd and therefore these arguments are clearly fallacious.

Friday, March 14, 2008

Evolution and Adultery



[The Elliot Spitzer scandal]

Evolutionary psychologists” tell us that human males are naturally inclined to commit adultery and that doing so is genetically a basically positive thing.

Did you ever wonder why evolution is so popular? What crime cannot be excused by evolution? None that I can think of.

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

The Four Horsemen Fall Flat



In this video, at 34:55 Sam Harris asks what the difference is between someone who assumes something is true because scientists say so and someone who assumes something is true because religious leaders say so; an excellent question. At 37:40 Richard Dawkins answers that we know science is reliable because it makes predictions that then come true. That sounds very reasonable.

Based upon that logic, evolution is false and Judaism is true.

Judaism predicts that if the Jews abandon the Torah they will be horribly punished. This has come true.

Darwin predicted that the “savage races” would soon become extinct while the European race would flourish. This has been proven false.

[Some claim that Darwin said that man originated in Africa and this has been proven true. This is another example of an evolutionist deception. Actually, Darwin merely said, “it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere. But it is useless to speculate on this subject; for two or three anthropomorphous apes, one the Dryopithecus (17. Dr. C. Forsyth Major, 'Sur les Singes fossiles trouves en Italie:' 'Soc. Ital. des Sc. Nat.' tom. xv. 1872.) of Lartet, nearly as large as a man, and closely allied to Hylobates, existed in Europe during the Miocene age; and since so remote a period the earth has certainly undergone many great revolutions, and there has been ample time for migration on the largest scale.”]

Thursday, March 06, 2008

Mind Blowing Torah



[Woodstock Festival 1969]

A fellow blogger mentioned in a comment yesterday an interesting article published this week in the first issue of “Time and Mind: the Journal of Archeology, Consciousness and Culture”. The article is written by Dr. Benny Shanon, professor of cognitive psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel). In this article, Professor Shanon speculates that the revelation of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai (Exodus 20) may in fact have been a national memory of a hallucination caused by the ingestion by the Israelites of certain chemicals found in plants common in the Sinai desert. Those chemicals are specifically Dimethyltryptamine (DMT), which is a hallucinogen, together with a monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MOAI) which allows DMT to be absorbed when taken orally. DMT is found in Umbrella Thorn acacia (Acacia tortilis) and in Gay acacia (Acacia laeta). MOAI is found in the seeds of the Harmal (Peganum harmala). These plants are all native to the Sinai and in fact acacia wood is mentioned frequently in the Bible, for example Exodus 25:5.

In my humble opinion, there are several problems with this hypothesis.

The first problem is whether amounts of DMT sufficient to cause hallucinations can be extracted from the Umbrella Thorn or Gay acacia using methods available in pre-modern times. I am not aware of anyone having attempted this. On page 66 of the journal, Professor Shanon relates that he did succeed in having a having a “psychological experience” using a liquid made with boiled jurema (Acacia jurema) and harmal, however I am not certain that the same method would be successful with Sinai acacias, which may have a lower DMT content. I am surprised that Professor Shanon did not investigate this issue further.

The second problem is that if such an acacia/harmal concoction was widely used in the Middle East c.1300 BCE, it seems odd that it is never mentioned in the Bible. Indeed it is never mentioned anywhere historically

The third problem is that as with any hallucinogen, DMT causes different people to have different reactions at different times. If the camp at Mount Sinai had been a DMT fueled gathering, it would probably have closely resembled the Woodstock Festival. This is considerably different from the Biblical account where everyone experiences the same things. DMT/MOAI beverages are commonly used in certain areas of South America, however no national revelations have ever been recorded.

In conclusion, although Professor Shanon’s article has received some media coverage and it will surely be appreciated by some secularists, I think that upon close examination, it merely is another example of shoddy scholarship that seems so common in fields such as Bible criticism and evolution.