Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Rav Samson Raphael Hirsh in 1873 - Evolution does not contradict Torah
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: muman613 on October 17, 2010, 08:01:44 PM ---
--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on October 17, 2010, 06:46:23 PM ---Muman, I notice you've dealt with some softballs but you fail to grapple with the key questions Massuh presented originally.
The fact is, evolution, as a scientific theory, does not contradict a belief in G-d or adherence to Torah Judaism. Some people here are unwilling to face that fact and continue to promote their weak propaganda instead. This is truly a shame. The whole point of this thread was to present that basic point with some evidence backing it up - the statement of the great Rav Samson Raphael Hirsh. But some people here seem to think they know better than Rav Hirsh and all Torah scholars combined when it comes to this one solitary issue of evolution even though they lack an expertise in Torah and ALSO lack an expertise in evolution or the sciences behind it. This is incredibly ironic.
--- End quote ---
As I said before. I have my reservations even after looking at the so-called evidence. I have pointed out that there are scientific reasons to question carbon-dating and I can provide links to these.
--- End quote ---
This is complete silliness and you know it. If I made an inaccurate and misinformed statement about computer science or software engineering, you certainly wouldn't accept it and you would quickly jump on it as incorrect, as you should. You are making a very silly claim when you say there are "scientific reasons" to question carbon-dating. Science accepts carbon dating as a reliable technique up to a certain range of dates. That is a fact whether you like it or not.
But this entire statement of yours that I quoted misses the point. The point of what I recently said to you was not whether evolution was true or not. I already think it is true based on the preponderance of scientific evidence to support it, and you are not going to change my mind with philosophical statements, dialectical arguments, or baseless questioning of scientific methods. That is not at issue here. I raised the fact that, ASSUMING IT IS TRUE, or not even making that assumption, but SIMPLY ACCEPTING THE FACT that it's accepted by scientific consensus (or even ignoring this fact) - Rav Hirsh asserts that the THEORY ITSELF, whether true or not true, does not contradict Torah. What do you do with that statement?
--- Quote ---I do not believe that there is any contradiction between Science and Torah. Science is simply the attempt of man to try to understand the forces by which this world operate. Science has been extremely beneficial in many areas, but it has failed miserably in many other areas.
--- End quote ---
true
--- Quote ---Science is truly a double-edged sword. When people put more faith in science and the priests of science calling themselves scientists they are lead further and further from the answers to lifes many questions.
--- End quote ---
This doesn't even make sense. Who does this?
--- Quote ---Science asks those who believe in it to only believe that which can be proven by rational means, either by experiments or by mathematical equations. Hashem is not a mathematical equation, nor is he able to be experimented on... There will never be a science which can explain Hashem as science is in itself a creation of Hashem,
--- End quote ---
I never suggested otherwise and again this strays from the point in question.
The point was, Rav Hirsh says evolution as a theory, does not contradict Torah. He was not saying it was true or false. He said the theory itself is not a challenge to Torah belief. Deal with that, please.
wonga66:
Gerald Schroeder is excellent for those politically-correct relativistic Aish HaTorah & Moderdox BTs who hold by Relativity ie who just have to have all opinions as being equally valid: that you can have simultaneously a 6,000 year old universe and a 16 billion year old one.
That you can have a Big Bang and a Steady State and a Divine Fiat Creation, all equally true!
That you can have a heliocentric, acentric & geocentric universe as ALL BEING EQUALLY TRUE!
As I've already stated, I personally don't believe Einstein's Relativity theory is correct.
And you obviously also don't, as like me, you are an ABSOLUTIST, and that opinions are mutually exclusive.
You obviously won't accept that 6,000 years is EQUALLY true as 16 billion years.
I happen to hold by a literal interpreation of the Torah - ain hamikra yotzei elo midei peshuto - and by those PhD scientists who show that evolution is impossible, and that geology, astronomy, biology, radiometry etc all indicate a recent Creation.
You happen to hold by a non-literal interpretation of the Torah, & what you learned at high school and by those PhD scientists who believe in billions of years, in evolution, and who ridicule a recent creation and indeed a creation itself.
Meanwhile, you have still not given one iota of scientific evidence, in accordance with Dr Tahmisian: because there is none!
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: wonga66 on October 19, 2010, 02:51:57 PM ---Gerald Schroeder is excellent for those politically-correct relativistic Aish HaTorah & Moderdox BTs who hold by Relativity ie who just have to have all opinions as being equally valid: that you can have simultaneously a 6,000 year old universe and a 16 billion year old one.
--- End quote ---
But that's not his position.
--- Quote ---
That you can have a Big Bang and a Steady State and a Divine Fiat Creation, all equally true!
--- End quote ---
But that's not his position.
--- Quote ---As I've already stated, I personally don't believe Einstein's Relativity theory is correct.
--- End quote ---
What a joke. You've tried to misuse Einstein's relativity to promote geocentrism here. Do you think the people reading this are idiots?
--- Quote ---And you obviously also don't, as like me, you are an ABSOLUTIST, and that opinions are mutually exclusive.
You obviously won't accept that 6,000 years is EQUALLY true as 16 billion years.
--- End quote ---
Yes I agree that the world is not 6,000 years old and it is as old as science can determine it to be.
--- Quote ---I happen to hold by a literal interpreation of the Torah - ain hamikra yotzei elo midei peshuto - and by those PhD scientists who show that evolution is impossible, and that geology, astronomy, biology, radiometry etc all indicate a recent Creation.
You happen to hold by a non-literal interpretation of the Torah, & what you learned at high school
--- End quote ---
This is not true. You are trying to be sly, but you are failing. I certainly know a lot more than just what I learned in high school, and I have certainly done a lot more research in the many years since then.
--- Quote --- and by those PhD scientists who believe in billions of years, in evolution, and who ridicule a recent creation and indeed a creation itself.
--- End quote ---
Another lie.
I don't "hold by" anyone who ridicules creation or thinks it didn't happen because I do think God created the world. So how can I be held accountable for the beliefs of someone else -beliefs which I don't subscribe to? Stop misrepresenting the issue and distorting reality.
--- Quote ---Meanwhile, you have still not given one iota of scientific evidence,
--- End quote ---
The scientists have given the evidence and this thread was not intended to "agree with the scientists" or "dispute the scientists" with non-scientific stupidity.
This thread was intended to address Rav Hirsh's very clear statements in which He holds that the theory of evolution does not pose a challenge to Torah belief, the belief in God or the belief in God's creation of the world.
You obviously don't have anything of value to contribute in this thread and simply divert the discussion over and over again with your propaganda-for-simpletons routine. It is clear that your mind simply cannot grasp what Rav Hirsh said. That's a pity.
wonga66:
A Relativist is obliged to accept geocentricity as an equally valid model.
Do you agree or not with Einstein when he states:
The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.
As an anti-Relativist I do not agree with Einstein: I believe that the evidence favours an Earth-centered model.
If you belive that Relativity is correct, then you cannot say that geocentricity is in anyway an unacceptable model.
But if like me you are an anti-Relativist, then how do you explain the zero-velocity MM experiments that fail to detect the Earth's purported 67,000mph velocity round the Sun, unless you say that the Earth really is stationary: join the club!
MassuhDGoodName:
If you haven't already done so, MassuhDGoodName highly recommends viewing the recent film entitled Agora starring Rachel Weiss.
A most excellent portrayal of The Ancient World in the 3rd Century C.E. .
The plot centers on established Ptolemaic sciences - versus the increasing awareness that the Earth and other celestial bodies may in fact be spherical bodies revolving around the Sun in non-concentric orbits, and is played out in ancient Egypt as hostilities develop between the pagan, Jewish, and Christian faiths coexisting in Egypt.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version