Israel's Chief Scientist dismissed for doubting evolution & global warming

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

People here should realize how many disagreements there are among rabbis and how many rabbis there are that disagree with Chabadniks all the time about a host of subjects.  If you prop up any man as speaking the gospel or being infallible, spiritually you are treading thin ice, and you are in serious danger of worshiping a man.  I would readers advise strongly against this.

There are other Rabbis who have made such statements. Rather that brush them off and discount them, it would be wise to try to understand what they are saying.   

WOW!   Are you really contradicting what I just said?    You deny that there are many rabbis who disagree with Chabadniks on a host of issues?    Can you dispute that with facts?   NO.   It's a fact.

How about the fact that anyone who props up any man as infallible is in grave danger and in danger of falling into worship of a man (among other problems)?     FACT.   

As to the "statements" - I certainly understand what is being said.    And I disagree.  Simple as that.    There are some rabbis who don't understand science.  As a result, they sometimes make statements about science that are not correct.   There are even some rabbis who ARE familiar with science, yet nonetheless make grievous mistakes in explanation of science or in polemic against it.  There's nothing wrong with the fact that rabbis are not perfect and can make mistakes, especially in fields other than Torah knowledge!

About what the Chabad Rebbe said:



I would be willing to meet him halfway if the statement was rephrased... I do believe that the earth 'revolves' around the sun... But simultaneously I believe that the Earth is the CENTER of the Universe. From our perspective, which is the perspective which Hashem gave us, the Earth is the sole reason for creation. It is the CENTER of the Universe so to speak. But when we look at the solar system and can measure the time it takes the satellites to orbit, we can see that the earth is revolving around the sun. I can hold these two concepts in my mind at the same time and it makes sense. The human mind is limited and we often find it difficult to conceive of concepts which seem contradictory.

That doesn't actually make sense.   From OUR perspective the earth is NOT the center of the universe because we physically observe that it and the other planets in our solar system, revolve around the sun.  Perhaps what you meant to say was that despite what is physically true, that the earth is not physically the center of the universe, nevertheless, from a metaphysical perspective (call it, God's perspective, if you will) the earth is the "center" in the sense that it's the most important.   That would be sensible and logical.


In bold, the words "from our perspective" and "when we look" are the same thing.   Our perspective is when we look and observe.   That is when we see the earth revolve around the sun.    So you must have meant metaphysical perspective in the first statement?

But let's be clear.  The Lubavitcher rebbe was NOT saying what you and I are saying.   He was trying to say that physically the observations are negated by some notion of "relativity" and that from any perspective the sun revolves around the earth, physically.   With this, I simply cannot agree, and you yourself admitted that you do not agree, Muman!   And that's ok!

[muman613]

I think you are misunderstanding what I said KWRBT... I said nothing about whether there are those who contradict Chabad. To suggest that is what I said means you did not attempt to understand me.

What I said is that there are other great Rabbis who have also said that the earth is the center of the world, and they have also said that the sun revolves around the earth. If you would like to look into it we can discuss it in the Jewish forum which I think such a discussion is better suited.

I also never ever suggested that a man is perfect and without error. I have heard you make this accusation a number of times, and I was not sure if you were saying it to me. I learn from many Rabbis and do not believe any one Rabbi speaks only truth. But I do not discount what a Rabbi says so easily because I have some respect for the Torah which was learned. I will not say anything bad about Chabad Rebbe because I see the work of his life, Chabad and the good it does, and I have HaKaret HaTov.

I said concerning this that I don't believe physically that the sun revolves around the earth. The entire system of satellites is based on this and there is much physical evidence that the Sun is the center of the solar system. But you should read again what I say about the Earth being the center of the universe. I know you believe a lot of things that I don't so I don't expect you to agree with me. You only believe things which you can measure and weigh and if it doesn't have a manifestation in the physical world, you doubt it. Again, this is not intended as an attack on you, I do believe you have a strong Jewish faith and as a result I believe with time you will come to realize what I have.

When I was younger I was such a science student. In high school I excelled in physics and did well in chemistry. I also had a propensity for computer software engineering {which I still do to this day}. I am not saying that everyone who goes into science has alterior motives, and there is a lot of science which has the goal which you seem to think it has, which is to discover the truth. But sometimes there are theories and experiments which are not noble, which aim to undermine others. One example I have brought before is the fact that the German scientists of Nazi germany had noble intentions in the horrific experiments they did on the Jewish population. It also recently came to light that American scientists were using human experiments in Guatemala ( http://www.trinicenter.com/Cudjoe/2010/0610.htm ) . They intentionally injected hundreds of innocent civilians with gonorrhea. Now I know you believe that scientists work with moral boundaries, but where were those boundaries then (this occurred in 1946-1948).

A lot of scientists are trying to make a buck selling their theories. This is one reason there is a big industry writing books on Global Warming, and people becoming Global Warming experts, going on TV to talk about Global Warming. And who funds this research? With Al Gore making it a national issue, the government will be a good source to fund a lot of this 'science'.

I believe that science is a great tool used by society in order to make life better for the people. Science is a way of observing the world, and making rules which we can work with, such as the laws of Physics and the Chemical and Atomic laws. These laws were created to be used by mankind to better the world.

But science becomes a double edged sword when it destroys the humanity in the world. I am again not accusing anyone here of destroying humanity, but I caution people to not bow at the altar of science. It will not 'SAVE' the world. It will not be the answer to all of lifes problems, at least in my understanding.

This is what I was trying to say.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I think you are misunderstanding what I said KWRBT... I said nothing about whether there are those who contradict Chabad. To suggest that is what I said means you did not attempt to understand me.   

Fine.  Then you must not have been responding to what you quoted from me above your comment.   No problem.

What I said is that there are other great Rabbis who have also said that the earth is the center of the world, and they have also said that the sun revolves around the earth. If you would like to look into it we can discuss it in the Jewish forum which I think such a discussion is better suited. 

Some said so before copernicus, some said so after.   And other rabbis took on the view of copernicus and science (when science adopted copernicus view).   It really doesn't matter one iota in my mind that rabbis might have erred in this issue.

That rabbis, even chazal themselves, can err in science is confirmed by a GEMARA!   The gemara speaks about the gentile scholars and the Jewish scholars and their respective views about a certain subject in astronomy.   The gemara sides with the gentile scholars' opinion and implies that Jewish Torah scholars can make mistakes in other subject areas (ie, science) and that gentile wisdom can also have something important to say in other non-Torah subjects.

There is also a Tosafoth that clearly states that we today do not follow the medical advice of chazal.   There are many ways to explain that statement, but I think the simplest explanation is the most logically compelling and the one that makes sense to me - Medicine has improved to the point that their advice may have been the best possible thing in their day, but in ours, we follow the updated medicine which is now more correct.    This does not bother me even slightly because the Torah was never intended as a medical handbook or a science textbook.

I also never ever suggested that a man is perfect and without error. I have heard you make this accusation a number of times, and I was not sure if you were saying it to me. 

No, I only said this because I thought you were refuting my above statement that you quoted.   This was directed at Massuh because he was promoting his chabad rebbe's opinion as the gospel and saying that anyone who disagrees commits a grave sin.   

 

I learn from many Rabbis and do not believe any one Rabbi speaks only truth. But I do not discount what a Rabbi says so easily because I have some respect for the Torah which was learned. I will not say anything bad about Chabad Rebbe because I see the work of his life, Chabad and the good it does, and I have HaKaret HaTov. 

Perhaps you and I have different definitions of what it means to "say something bad" about someone.   To me, pointing out that I disagree with a view or that I think someone is mistaken in their own view (or misinformed, or incorrect, etc etc) this is NOT saying something bad about them!   Being incorrect is not a slight on someone's character.

I said concerning this that I don't believe physically that the sun revolves around the earth.

Right, and as a result you and I both disagree with the Lubavitcher rebbe and any chabadnik that adopts all of his statements as canonical.   And it's ok that we disagree.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

You only believe things which you can measure and weigh and if it doesn't have a manifestation in the physical world, you doubt it.

This could not be further from the truth, Muman.

I separated this into a new post because this needs much attention.

You are making an incorrect assumption about me.   It's not solely that this assumption is incorrect, but you would also see that it does not accurately describe me if you read my statements more clearly and if you actually read the post in question again, you will see that what I say contradicts this!

I granted you the possibility that from the metaphysical perspective, or spiritual perspective, or G-d's point of view, or however you want to call it, that earth is the 'center' of the universe because it is the most important, even though physically this doesn't manifest itself as residing in a physical location that is at the "middle" of the other bodies that are in the universe.    In fact, that is exactly what I think it means regarding the various statements of chazal or otherwise that indicate or suggest the earth is the 'center' of the universe - center in terms of importance.   Not physical location.   And that notion is NOT something measurable or physically manifesting itself (although one could argue that the fact that earth is the only place with life on it is a physical manifestation of this spiritual reality!).

So when you say, " But you should read again what I say about the Earth being the center of the universe. "  I'm not sure what you mean.   I not only read it but I wrote extensively on your comment to try to clarify what you said.  Was I correct in my clarification?   Or if you dispute something - what do you dispute out of what I said?

Now let's discuss something more important

First, here's the correct formulation of what you wrote at the top, which I believe would make it an accurate statement.
Science only believe{s or considers/discusses} things which you can measure and weigh and if it doesn't have a manifestation in the physical world, {science doesn't address it}

I added edits in brackets and bold.   That is consistently how I present the role and function of science on this website.   But that does not mean that I operate as a scientific field.  I'm a human being and there is more to life than just science.  There is something beyond physical investigation and there is other knowledge in the world (ie - ethics, philosophy, morality, spiritual truths, and other things revealed by revelation).  But that does not mean I have to deny science or the facts it uncovers, just because there are also other relevant branches of knowledge.

I believe in G-d, as I've indicated many times here, even though G-d cannot be measured or weighed, nor can his existence be proven or disproven, or measured or weighed.    I believe in the G-d of Israel even though He does not have a "manifestation" in the physical world.  The Torah tells us that G-d created the world, and I know this to be true, even though it can't be measured or proven.   So obviously what you originally said about me is not true.  I do believe in more than just the facts revealed by science.   And behind the physical reality we live in is also a spiritual reality that we were given information about through avenues different from those we use to arrive at facts detailing the physical reality.

Again, this is not intended as an attack on you,

I don't take it as one, but I request that if you make statements about me, please take care to be sure that they are accurate statements.



I edited to add something in italics above

[muman613]

Thank you KWRBT, I appreciate your explanation and I fully respect it.

Judaism doesn't require everyone to share the same interpretation of Hashem. We all experience life and learn what we can, and attempt to teach others. As long as we all are seeking the truth then I have no problems. I am open to learn new things because I am not afraid of anything (or very much) in this world.

I respect your great knowledge in many issues and I hope that we both can contribute to the future of our people.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

But sometimes there are theories and experiments which are not noble, which aim to undermine others.

Such experiments would be unethical and I don't believe unethical science is ok.  When I speak about science I'm referring to the legal and ethical variety.  It seems that you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak, because some scientists out there might try to break the law or try to violate the ethical guidelines.  (Or in some cases, the CIA or the govt encourages them to do so).   In that case, throw out the CIA and the govt or whoever is breaking the law, but don't throw out science or make it a boogeyman.  And certainly don't tell me that the facts it uncovers are not reliable because of this.   What you are doing is basically trying to somehow "slander" the field of science by pointing out that not everyone involved in it is perfect.   That is very simplistic and illogical.    We could say the same thing about ANYTHING.

One example I have brought before is the fact that the German scientists of Nazi germany had noble intentions in the horrific experiments they did on the Jewish population. 

WHAT?

No, they didn't!  They had incredibly evil intentions.   They violated the sanctity of life and treated humans cruelly and brutally for the sake of arriving at knowledge or simply to torture Jews.  This is a gross violation of all ethics and even sanity!   Even without Torah we would know this is wrong because it's so grievous. 

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

It also recently came to light that American scientists were using human experiments in Guatemala ( http://www.trinicenter.com/Cudjoe/2010/0610.htm ) .   They intentionally injected hundreds of innocent civilians with gonorrhea. Now I know you believe that scientists work with moral boundaries, but where were those boundaries then (this occurred in 1946-1948). 

It took time to develop and refine a proper system of ethical guidelines.   This work was 'permissible' according to the standards then, but surely it would not be today.   And there is no reason to believe that the ethical guidelines, which got a lot better since those days, would ever be retracted or reverted back to more primitive formulations (so save the "subjective ethics" argument - I know that true ethics are from the Torah).

But rather than read that dude's incoherent rambling about the subject, here is much better information at Dr. Reverby's webpage. http://www.wellesley.edu/WomenSt/fac_reverby.html

If you click on the synopsis of her recent work - http://www.wellesley.edu/WomenSt/Synopsis%20Reverby%20%27Normal%20Exposure%27.pdf

You will note that the file says the following, and I quote with my own emphasis added:

"Cutler and the other physicians chose men in the Guatemala
National Penitentiary, then in an army barracks, and men and
women in the National Mental Health Hospital for a total of 696
subjects. Permissions were gained from the authorities but not
individuals, not an uncommon practice at the time, and supplies
were offered to the institutions in exchange for access.

[muman613]

It also recently came to light that American scientists were using human experiments in Guatemala ( http://www.trinicenter.com/Cudjoe/2010/0610.htm ) .   They intentionally injected hundreds of innocent civilians with gonorrhea. Now I know you believe that scientists work with moral boundaries, but where were those boundaries then (this occurred in 1946-1948). 

It took time to develop and refine a proper system of ethical guidelines.   This work was 'permissible' according to the standards then, but surely it would not be today.   And there is no reason to believe that the ethical guidelines, which got a lot better since those days, would ever be retracted or reverted back to more primitive formulations (so save the "subjective ethics" argument - I know that true ethics are from the Torah).

But rather than read that dude's incoherent rambling about the subject, here is much better information at Dr. Reverby's webpage. http://www.wellesley.edu/WomenSt/fac_reverby.html

If you click on the synopsis of her recent work - http://www.wellesley.edu/WomenSt/Synopsis%20Reverby%20%27Normal%20Exposure%27.pdf

You will note that the file says the following, and I quote with my own emphasis added:

"Cutler and the other physicians chose men in the Guatemala
National Penitentiary, then in an army barracks, and men and
women in the National Mental Health Hospital for a total of 696
subjects. Permissions were gained from the authorities but not
individuals, not an uncommon practice at the time, and supplies
were offered to the institutions in exchange for access.

I guess we can believe them better today, given all the honesty which has been exhibited by this generation.

How about this question...

What if Israeli scientists developed a bio-weapon which could covertly kill arabs without a trace? Would you use it in order to wipe out the arab population?

Think about it... Is it ethical? I know what the reaction will be... If they are trying to kill us, they must be killed first...

But you know what? That antisemitic website we came across last weekm, the Institute for Historical Review, claims that Israel has already developed this weapon...

Here is some of the article:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n6p24_Weber.html

Israel is Developing 'Ethnic Bomb' for Growing Biological Weapons Arsenal
Mark Weber

Israel is working on an "ethnically targeted" biological weapon that would kill or harm Arabs but not Jews, according to Israeli military and western intelligence sources cited in a front-page report in the London Sunday Times, November 15, 1998 ("Israel Planning 'Ethnic' Bomb as Saddam Caves In," by Uzi Mahnaimi and Marie Colvin).

In developing this "ethno-bomb," the British paper went on, Israeli scientists are trying to exploit medical advances by identifying distinctive genes carried by some Arabs, and then create a genetically modified bacterium or virus. The goal is to use the ability of viruses and certain bacteria to alter the DNA inside the host's living cells. The scientists are trying to engineer deadly microorganisms that attack only those bearing the distinctive genes.

The secret Israel program is based at the Institute for Biological Research in Nes Tsiona, a small town southeast of Tel Aviv, the main research facility for Israel's clandestine arsenal of chemical and biological weapons.

A scientist there said the task is very complicated because both Arabs and Jews are of Semitic origin. But he added: "They have, however, succeeded in pinpointing a particular characteristic in the genetic profile of certain Arab communities, particularly the Iraqi people." Diseases could be spread by spraying organisms into the air or putting them in water supplies.

Some experts have commented that while an ethnically targeted weapon is theoretically feasible, the practical aspects of creating one are enormous. All the same, a confidential Pentagon report warned last year that biological agents could be genetically engineered to produce new lethal weapons.

US Defense Secretary William Cohen revealed that he had received reports of countries working to create "certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic-specific." A senior western intelligence source confirmed that Israel is one of the countries Cohen had in mind, the Sunday Times report added.
Reliable Record

The Sunday Times report is all the more credible given the prestigious paper's past record of reliable reporting. In a detailed front-page report published on June 19, 1977, the Sunday Times first revealed to the world that Israeli authorities had been torturing Palestinian prisoners, that this torture was "widespread and systematic," and that it "appears to be sanctioned at some level as deliberate policy." At the time Israeli officials and Jewish-Zionist leaders in the United States protested the Sunday Times revelations, and denied the charge. Later, though, Israeli torture of prisoners was independently verified by Amnesty International, and others.
.
.
.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Btw, this is also a choice quote from the synopsis of Dr. Reverby's research:

Yet the PHS was aware then that this was a study that would
raise ethical questions. For as Surgeon General Thomas Parran made
clear “’You know, we couldn’t do such an experiment in this
country.”

So even at that time with more lax standards, this type of experiment could not have been done in America, and the govt, evil as it is in many examples, went out of its way to conduct ethically controversial studies on "undesirables" in other countries to avoid the restraints.

When you say, "I guess we can believe them better today, given all the honesty which has been exhibited by this generation," 

you have missed the point, Muman.  Because it is not that someone is supposed to be more honest today.  It's that 1. there are ethical and legal standards that restrain people (no matter how honest or dishonest they are) and 2.  these standards are even higher and tightly enforced today than they've ever been.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

How about this question...

What if Israeli scientists developed a bio-weapon which could covertly kill arabs without a trace? Would you use it in order to wipe out the arab population?

Think about it... Is it ethical? I know what the reaction will be... If they are trying to kill us, they must be killed first...

But you know what? That antisemitic website we came across last weekm, the Institute for Historical Review, claims that Israel has already developed this weapon...

Here is some of the article:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n6p24_Weber.html

Israel is Developing 'Ethnic Bomb' for Growing Biological Weapons Arsenal
Mark Weber

Israel is working on an "ethnically targeted" biological weapon that would kill or harm Arabs but not Jews, according to Israeli military and western intelligence sources cited in a front-page report in the London Sunday Times, November 15, 1998 ("Israel Planning 'Ethnic' Bomb as Saddam Caves In," by Uzi Mahnaimi and Marie Colvin).

In developing this "ethno-bomb," the British paper went on, Israeli scientists are trying to exploit medical advances by identifying distinctive genes carried by some Arabs, and then create a genetically modified bacterium or virus. The goal is to use the ability of viruses and certain bacteria to alter the DNA inside the host's living cells. The scientists are trying to engineer deadly microorganisms that attack only those bearing the distinctive genes.

The secret Israel program is based at the Institute for Biological Research in Nes Tsiona, a small town southeast of Tel Aviv, the main research facility for Israel's clandestine arsenal of chemical and biological weapons.

A scientist there said the task is very complicated because both Arabs and Jews are of Semitic origin. But he added: "They have, however, succeeded in pinpointing a particular characteristic in the genetic profile of certain Arab communities, particularly the Iraqi people." Diseases could be spread by spraying organisms into the air or putting them in water supplies.

Some experts have commented that while an ethnically targeted weapon is theoretically feasible, the practical aspects of creating one are enormous. All the same, a confidential Pentagon report warned last year that biological agents could be genetically engineered to produce new lethal weapons.

US Defense Secretary William Cohen revealed that he had received reports of countries working to create "certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic-specific." A senior western intelligence source confirmed that Israel is one of the countries Cohen had in mind, the Sunday Times report added.
Reliable Record

The Sunday Times report is all the more credible given the prestigious paper's past record of reliable reporting. In a detailed front-page report published on June 19, 1977, the Sunday Times first revealed to the world that Israeli authorities had been torturing Palestinian prisoners, that this torture was "widespread and systematic," and that it "appears to be sanctioned at some level as deliberate policy." At the time Israeli officials and Jewish-Zionist leaders in the United States protested the Sunday Times revelations, and denied the charge. Later, though, Israeli torture of prisoners was independently verified by Amnesty International, and others.
.
.
.

Um.... They claim this because they're morons.    If this is true, why aren't the Arabs dying off?

And why should I care what the IHR wrote?  I mean, why does it matter that they accuse us of that? 
In a way, it almost gives us more motive to actually do it.  If we're going to get blamed for doing it, either way, we might as well make sure it happens and get the terrorist enemies killed off.

[muman613]

The only reason I brought it up is that if it is 'scientifically' possible to develop such targeted bio-weapons then don't you think that Israeli scientists are working on it. The scary part is not that they can selectively target arabs, it is that such a weapon can be used against virtually any ethnic population. The questions of morality will be tested once again.

Don't you see the testing of medical ethics when it comes to the big Pharmacuetical companies. Don't you realize how much they spend trying to get their products to market. Don't you think that sometimes scientists are a little unethical and, because they are paid good money from these companies, that they allow certain drugs to be sold while it is known that many people get sicker from these medicines. I do know that this goes on, and I do know that there is a special relationship between the pharma companies and the doctors. I realized this the last few times I had to visit the doctors. They were handing me all kinds of medicines which they hoped I would get hooked on. I did not take them, though I did have to take some pain medicine {thank Hashem I don't have to anymore}. How many times have I looked in the news to read about companies pulling drugs which have been found to have fatal side effects? Many times this happens, and the companies hire lawyers and end up settling for big dollars which are covered by insurance...

Anyway, I suspect you get the picture...

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

The only reason I brought it up is that if it is 'scientifically' possible to develop such targeted bio-weapons then don't you think that Israeli scientists are working on it. The scary part is not that they can selectively target arabs, it is that such a weapon can be used against virtually any ethnic population. The questions of morality will be tested once again.

Research like this into weapons and other defense purposes are certainly a lot more dangerous than other types of research, and they will touch upon moral boundaries to a much greater extent.    But this work has nothing to do with the subject of evolution or evidence for evolution, or any of the other subjects we speak about when we discuss scientific findings or facts about the universe.  When they dig up fossils, they are not forcing human slaves to do so.  And they are not experimenting on humans or defense weapons in the process of looking at genetic congruence or phylogeny or anatomy etc.    Again, it sounds like you want to point to one potentially dangerous thing about "science" in general and then say that that is somehow a reason I have to deny all conclusions reached by any science (or whatever conclusions you are personally uncomfortable with due to your theological convictions).   That is not logical.   

Don't you see the testing of medical ethics when it comes to the big Pharmacuetical companies. Don't you realize how much they spend trying to get their products to market. Don't you think that sometimes scientists are a little unethical and, because they are paid good money from these companies, that they allow certain drugs to be sold while it is known that many people get sicker from these medicines. 

What is your point, Muman?   Scientific research is published in research journals, and these publications are transparent and accessible to all.  Anyone can look at the methods and results and everything else about the experiments which prove the facts of evolution - and analyze whether they are correct or incorrect or whether the research is good quality or not.  That some pharmaceuticals might use the facts and conclusions of science in order to make money, or some scientists might even do something unethical with it, DOES NOT DISCREDIT PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS.

I'm going to rephrase exactly what you just wrote into a new formulation - watch this:

Don't you see the testing of medical ethics when it comes to the doctors. Don't you
realize how much they exert trying to get their treatments administered. Don't you think that sometimes doctors are a little unethical and, because they are paid good money from these hospitals, that they allow certain treatments to be administered while it is known that many people get sicker from these treatments or the treatment itself was simply unnecessary. 

So does that mean everything any doctor ever says is false (even when we have no cogent reason to explain why it is false)?   Does that mean we have no medical knowledge because some doctors are creeps or some doctors break the rules or some doctors have evil intentions and bad motives and give unnecessary treatments in order to make an extra buck?   Does that mean that scientifically verified medical facts (for instance, that penicillin works as a treatment for strep throat) must now be denied?!

NO.  It doesn't. 

So stop concluding the same irrational conclusion about science because you think some scientists might be immoral.  Stop insisting with your insinuations that people must deny the published verifiable conclusions appearing in transparent publications because you think sometimes a scientist is not perfectly moral.



The same stupid argument you are making can be used against Judaism.   Don't you agree that only a simpleton would suggest that because rabbis are not perfect, some of them are even immoral or really evil (ie some so-called rabbis turn out to be pedophiles or criminals), therefore Judaism cannot be trusted to say anything true about the Bible?    Does that make any sense, when we can look at what Judaism says and look at the Bible and verify whether a statement is true or believable - having nothing to do with what kind of morality rabbis have either individually or collectively?   Wouldn't you rebuke a person for making such a crazy argument that since rabbis are not perfect, therefore he can't accept Judaism has anything valuable to say?


When we discuss evolution here, we are talking about scientific facts that have been uncovered through research utilizing the scientific method.   Those facts are relevant, even if you show me 100 scientists who cheated on their wives.  Their conclusions and their findings can be contradicted and demonstrated false if they are wrong!  Otherwise there must be a real scientific reason for a claim that they are incorrect if the experiment shows statistical significance and repeated success!   

I do know that this goes on, and I do know that there is a special relationship between the pharma companies and the doctors. I realized this the last few times I had to visit the doctors. They were handing me all kinds of medicines which they hoped I would get hooked on. I did not take them, though I did have to take some pain medicine {thank Hashem I don't have to anymore}. How many times have I looked in the news to read about companies pulling drugs which have been found to have fatal side effects? Many times this happens, and the companies hire lawyers and end up settling for big dollars which are covered by insurance...

Anyway, I suspect you get the picture...

What picture am I supposed to get?   You are basically engaging in ad hominem attack on all medical professionals and researchers.   That does not make what they say untrue.   And it also ignores that many of them are not evil or immoral people, but that's even beside the point.  Even if they WERE all evil, they can still be demonstrating a true point or saying something accurately if the proof is on their side to a given statement.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I want to include one last quote from the synopsis of Dr Reverby's research into the guatamala experiments. 

The studies in Guatemala demonstrate the connections between
research done in developing countries and the United States, and the
flow of information back and forth. It shows definitively that the PHS
did not give the men in Alabama the disease. And it reminds us that
the scientific enterprise must always be watched over, even when the
intentions are good and the “best men” do it.

What she writes is certainly true.   But it does not logically follow that one must assume all science is false or that what facts are uncovered by science were either done unethically or are not true.   Its truthfulness can be determined through proper scientific evaluation.  What she is commenting on is related to your "complaint" about science, Muman.  There have to be regulations and oversight along with legal and ethical standards to prevent abuses of the system as much as possible because of the evil inclination of man.   That is true in any field!     I never said contrary to this.     And nonetheless, I still don't consider science some kind of corrupt endeavor or evil field like you seem to suggest it is.    It has value, it uncovers true facts, and we would be wise to pay attention to them.    That does not mean it can be unregulated and unfettered or that we can trust every scientist to be an upstanding gentlemen.  That is really irrelevant to the question of whether a given scientific statement is true or not.   The question of guarding against abuses of the system is a separate BUT ALSO IMPORTANT question.... but separate!

Btw, God forbid that I would consider science a corrupt endeavor, especially since the Rambam says in multiple places that engaging in scientific inquiry is a mitzvah and leads a person to a greater love of God.

[MassuhDGoodName]

FYI,

Gene specific Weapons of Mass Destruction are nothing new, and have been in development since the 1990's (if not earlier).

Probably safe to assume that the U.S. has a stockpile good for getting rid of almost everybody on the planet.

Already they're so highly specific that they are made to target specific ethnicities carrying certain chromosomes while having no effect on the primary racial group.

All of them have specific names.

To name just a few:

Spookout!

Nipper!

Zip It!

Chili con Carnage!

Hex on Mex!

Slope Dope!

NoJig!

No Show Eskimo!

Rag Cleaner!

Of course, all of these are weaponized bacteria or viruses, so all that has to be done is either aerial spraying, or even just pulling the tab on a small aerosol grenade and dropping it in a trashcan in a public area.

As long as they're used by the good guys there's no question of their being ethical.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Funny, we haven't witnessed any ethnicities mysteriously dying off.

[mord]

Please check out this site by Dr. Geral;d Schroeder a renowned physicist and doctorates in many other fields.He is an orthodox  and went to Yeshiva as well as a Professor at M.I.T.





http://www.geraldschroeder.com/About.aspx     





WITH THE ABOVE LINK YOU CAN READ ABOUT HIS THEORYS



Dr.Gerald Schroeder  B.Sc. Chemical engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.)
M.Sc. Earth and planetary sciences, M.I.T.
PhD Earth Sciences and Physics

Gerald Schroeder is a scientist with over thirty years of experience in research and teaching. He earned his Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctorate degrees all at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with his doctorate thesis being under the supervision of physics professor Robley D. Evans. This was followed by five years on the staff of the MIT physics department prior to moving to Israel, where he joined the Weizmann Institute of Science and then the Volcani Research Institute, while also having a laboratory at The Hebrew University. His Doctorate is in two fields: Earth sciences and physics.

Schroeder's formal theological training in biblical, talmudic and kabalistic interpretation includes fifteen years of study under the late Rabbi Herman Pollack, Rabbi Chaim Brovender and Rabbi Noah Weinberg, of blessed memory.

The scientific career that Schroeder chose has given him varied and often unusual experiences. In his work with nuclear disarmament, he has been present at the detonation of six atomic bombs. Work in control of radioactivity has put him hundreds of meters below ground in U.S. and foreign uranium mines. Within this research, he invented and had patented the first real time monitor for airborne alpha beta gamma emitters. The government of the People's Republic of China, during the decade before it established direct contacts with Israel, was willing to overlook his Jerusalem address and had him as a frequent advisor. He also has consulted for agencies of the governments of Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Canada, USA. Invitations for him to lecture have come from around the world. He has over 60 publications in the world's leading scientific journals on topics ranging from the radon atmosphere of the moon (in Science) to the metabolism of mother's milk (in Nutrition Reports International). The results of Schroeder's work have been reported in Time, Newsweek, Scientific American and in newspapers as far apart as Boston and Adelaide. His formal training in chemistry, physics and the Earth and planetary sciences provides the basis for the broad scientific perspective he brings to his books and lectures.

For the past twenty-five years, Dr. Schroeder has also pursued a study of ancient biblical interpretation. An ability to handle the biblical material in the original languages allows him to tap the subtle depths contained in the original texts. These nuances are often missed when working with translations. The uniqueness and success of Schroeder's approach integrating biblical and scientific knowledge is demonstrated by the success of his first book, Genesis and the Big Bang (published by Bantam Doubleday), and the wide acclaim for his second book The Science of God (published by The Free Press of Simon & Schuster and Broadway Books of Bantam Doubleday) which was on the Barnes & Noble list of non-fiction best sellers and was Amazon.com's best selling book in the field of physics/cosmology for all of 1998. This was followed by The Hidden Face of God, discovering the unity that binds all existence (published by The Free Press of Simon & Schuster). His book, God According to God, A scientist proves we've been wrong about God all along, was published in May 2009 with HarperOne and has enthusiastic endorsements by leading theologians, both Jewish and Christian, and a Noble Laureate scientist.

His books appear in 10 languages.

Gerald Schroeder lives in Jerusalem with his wife (the author, Barbara Sofer). They've had five children with a changing number of grandchildren. He moved to Israel from the USA in 1971. In addition to his current work in radiation control, he teaches at Aish HaTorah College of Jewish Studies, writes and lectures on the extraordinary confluence of modern science and ancient biblical commentary.

[Daniel]

I have never seen any experiment which proves evolution.

And I have never seen any experiment which proves creationism.

[wonga66]

Neither evolution nor creation have ever been observed. Both are faith-based. Both are religions, with their own catechisms and high-priests.

But "evolution requires a leap of faith that is far far beyond that of even the most fantastic creation myth!"(Sir Fred Hoyle).

60% of US people already plump for the creationist scenario.

Many more would if they were exposed to the scientific evidence for both scenarios, in a balanced manner.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Neither evolution nor creation have ever been observed. Both are faith-based. Both are religions, with their own catechisms and high-priests.   

That's simply not true. 

Evolution, in many varieties (because that is a general "all-encompassing term") has been observed.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory. See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution is Only a theory.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof

Many more would if they were exposed to the scientific evidence for both scenarios, in a balanced manner.

Didn't you just say they don't have evidence? 

It's a joke that you equate evidence for evolution with "evidence" for creation.    There is no evidence for creation.  It's a philosophy.   A true philosophy.   But nonetheless, after the world was created, it evolved.

[wonga66]

Despite 170 years of searching worldwide, exasperated paleontolgists have given up hope of ever finding even one transitional fossil, let alone a single set to close the gaps between the phyla, classes or even species,to support the supposed evolutionary line.

On the contrary,the fossil record shows that all forms of life appeared suddenly,existed contemporaneously,and in their fully developed complex form, from the beginning: "Neither Darwin,nor any Darwinian has ever given an actual causal explanation of any single organism or any single organ" (Sir Karl Popper).

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Speaking of that FAQ, there is another great question right below it:

Question - Don't you have to be an atheist to accept evolution?

Answer -   No. Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the G-d and Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.



Most people here probably don't care very much about evolutionary biology, just like most people in the world don't care much about obscure scientific fields that they do not have a connection to, or any other type of esoteric wisdom that they haven't found inspiration or reason to delve into.  Of course, I have been trying to insist in this forum that accepting the scientific facts of evolution does not contradict adherence to Torah or Torah viewpoints.   In expressing this, I am in agreement with my very learned rabbi who knows infinitely more about Torah than I do, yet also knows something about evolution and happens to be a physicist, and he asserts this position in the haredi yeshiva he teaches in all the time.  He says that evolution does not contradict the Torah and that there are even sources upon which to base an acceptance of evolution with aspects of the Genesis narrative and its commentaries.  

But this apparently is not enough for people.  Now several people here have really stepped up the "anti-evolution" rhetoric.  And they do not have scientific objections to evolution, mind you, they have a priori theological convictions that it "can't be true," and then argue against based on those religious convictions with a host of philosophical speculations and strange arguments about why people shouldn't accept the facts of evolution.   Well, now I am left with the obvious choice of promoting high quality links that explain the wonders of evolution and G-d's creation in detail and which definitively disprove the silly statements being made here (this was otherwise probably superfluous or not necessary).   The Talk origins site is a wealth of information.  To anyone who will utilize it, I say, Enjoy, and in doing so, I hope you will gain a great deal of appreciation for G-d's wonders.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Despite 170 years of searching worldwide, exasperated paleontolgists have given up hope of ever finding even one transitional fossil,

False/Lie.

Question -    If evolution is true, then why are there so many gaps in the fossil record? Shouldn't there be more transitional fossils?
Answer -    Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. See the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, the Fossil Hominids FAQ, 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Intermediate and Transitional Forms, the Punctuated Equilibria FAQ, and the February 1998 Post of the Month Missing links still missing!?.

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Fossil Hominids FAQ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Intermediate and Transitional Forms http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4
Punctuated Equilibria FAQ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
Missing links still missing!?  http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb98.html

[wonga66]

The stupendous myth of pre-historic men,missing link ape-men and man-apes is based entirely on the discretionary reconstruction of a very few,widely dispersed,unconvincing bone shards.

Java Man was found to have been based on an ordinary gibbon's skull,Orce Man on a donkey's skull, Ramapithicus on an orang utang,Pithecanthropus on an elephant's knee cap.

The sole evidence brought to support evolution and the existence of Nebraska Man,in the famous 1922 Scopes Trial,turned out to be the tooth of an extinct pig! Whole imaginary phantom populations of supposed sub-humans,the once sensationalised in turn Cro Magnon Man,   Neanderthal Man,Peking Man,Galley Hill Man,Fontechevade Man,Swanscombe Man,Grimaldi Man,Nutcracker Man,Olduvai Man,Wadjak Man,Leakey's 1470 Man, Piltdown Man etc.etc. are now acknowledged by the savants as being 100% true modern homo sapiens. 100% ape, or 100% hoax!-

After years of careful and extensive research,Lord Solly Zuckerman concluded that the entire concept of man's evolution from an ape-like creature is a phantasm.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Wonga, it sounds like you are unwilling to consider scientific evidence.    You have your religious convictions and nothing else will suffice.  PLEASE understand that not all religious Jews take a similar stance, and there are many religious Jews (and non-religious) who are exposed to scientific knowledge and accept its veracity to arrive at truth and facts.   For these people, myself included, your religious convictions are incorrect.   There are other religious convictions which are superior and which do not deny the facts that science uncovers, and/or is not unwilling to engage with them.

[MassuhDGoodName]

Re:  unethical scientists

Why is there any reason for scientists to be governed by "morals"?

Science examines and tests all things, takes nothing for granted, and presumes to be looking at the world without any preconceptions imposed by philosophy, history, and religion.

This is the reason so many scientists conclude that only atheism is a valid viewpoint for someone seeking verifiable truths.

Scientists are restrained from exploring "any and all possibilities" only by other human beings who insist that "not everything is permissible in a moral and ethical society".

Those who insist that morality and ethics govern the conduct of scientific research and conduct believe (correctly) that mankind is incapable of establishing a just moral order, and understand that Morality can only be "revealed" and "demanded" by some Divine and Higher Consciousness ruling the Universe.

Because science can't "prove" the existence of a Supreme Being Consciousness, most scientists insist that mankind need only behave in a way that benefits mankind, either individually, or as a species, and this "life philosophy" they call "Ethical Humanism".

Ethical Humanism considers mankind the end all and be all of reality, and they believe that G-d is not required for a society to know what is right and wrong.

Ethical Humanists insist that people will treat other people well because otherwise man and society is harmed.

This "code for conduct" quickly is proven fallacious, because it allows scientists to rationalize their desire for conducting experimentation on other living human beings "in the interests of science!" --

Throughout history scientists have come to the following conclusion:

"Look!" ... "If I can just inject living people with syphilis or cancer or radiation and study them, I will gain the scientific knowledge enabling science to treat and cure diseases and maladies about which we know little." ... "The reason we know little about them is because we are not allowed to do whatever we think necessary, be it vivisect living people, expose them to deadly levels of radiation to study human immune response, etc.  ." ... "As a scientist, I know more than any lay person how to perform experiments which would increase human knowledge." ... "By increasing human knowledge, mankind as a species is greatly benefitted." ... "And if mankind benefits, is that not what ethical humanist philosophy teaches to be the ultimate and only morality?" ... "Of course that is the case!" ... "Therefore if a population is used as 'guinea pigs' without its permission or without its knowledge, and suffers and dies as a result, then I as a scientist am the greatest example of TRUE MORAL CONDUCT, for I have done for mankind a great service." ... "People always die every day and they've always died, so if a few more die it won't matter as long as others benefit from their loss." ... "Future generations will consider me a saint, and will honor the memories of those sacrificed for the cause of humanity!"