RDKornreich: http://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/2013/11/my-job-made-easier-part-ii-problem-with.html
Monday, November 4, 2013
Rav Meiselman publishes book on Torah & Science - Critique by Rabbi Slifkin
RDKornreich: http://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/2013/11/my-job-made-easier-part-ii-problem-with.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
On Slifkin's blog he states "the gentile scholars believed that the sun continues its path to pass on the far side of the world (which we now know to be correct)".
ReplyDeleteIf Slifkin was honest, he would admit that the opinion of the gentile scholars in Pesachim 94b is NOT correct, ie in fact the the earth is revolving and the sun does NOT actually move or pass on the far side of the world at night, the sun only appears to be moving below the Earth at night.
So whose opinion in the Gemara 94b is the most correct? R. Yehuda HaNasi who stated "V'NERIN DIVREIHEM". This is my own DRASHA, but I interpret this to mean that the opinion of the gentile scholars only appears to be correct, but it is not correct.
Obviously Rabbi Slifkin knows that both sides of that machloket were incorrect now that we have scientific knowledge that the earth rotates around the sun. He never once suggested otherwise. You miss the entire point of the discussion. The point is that Rebbe Yehuda Hanasi used scientific arguments to side with the opinion of the gentile scholars, on this issue of the sun's path at night, over the opinion of the Jewish scholars. Most rishonim learn the sugya in this straight forward way. That has big implications for how we treat scientific knowledge. And THAT is the point of his discussion, NOT to say chazal got it wrong about the sun - Who cares? Everyone had it wrong. Definitely not the point.
DeleteRabbi Slifkin is slavish in his pursuit of explaining all biological phenomena against the failed and foolish theory of evolution.
ReplyDeleteThis theory is false for many reasons.
The fossil record does not support it. There is no known instance of incremental development presented among fossils. It has come to the point that Stephen Jay Gould had to create the theory of punk eek (punctuated equilibrium) which is a theory of sudden jumps from one level of complexity to another with no rhyme or reason.
There are many instances in nature of double and triple dependencies such as bees and fruit that cannot be explained.
Evolution by mutation is dependent on favorable mutations where the vast majority of mutations are destructive in nature and the probability of favorable mutations is vanishingly small. That's why the need billions of years to overcome the huge probability against positive results. Additionally, nature tends towards entropy or disorder and not massive creative order.
The anatomy of the woodpecker defies any explanation other than other worldly ingenious planning. The youtube video about this is very revealing.
You are confusing evolution through chance mutations with G-d guided evolution.
DeleteI suspect you may not have researched what evolutionists have to say about these matters (from evolutionists and not creationists). (For example, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html)
DeleteI don't know if either of them are right, but the tone being used in this debate is very disappointing to me.
ReplyDeleteNowhere is bias revealed more than in Rav Meiselman finding Chazal infallible and chock full of earthly wisdom, and others finding their earthly teachings error prone and no more than a reflection of the knowledge of their times.
ReplyDeletetzoorba, seriously you are the foolish one. You call evolution failed while over 90% of scientists in all fields accept it as proven fact. The ones who don't probably are creationists, who like you have to try find some flaw in it so you can feel better. Oh but you saw a youtube video on it?
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you reply to my comments instead of slavishly parroting some nonsense about braindead scientists that haven't looked into the facts follow the crowd of lemmings in believing in evolution.
DeleteI have a degree in Physics and as a scientific theory, evolution fails miserably.
Why don't you watch this video on the woodpecker's anatomy and provide some meaningful response to it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03_tKoTTf4M
There is a distinction to be made between evolution, and abiogenesis. Abiogeneis means random atoms/molecules will eventually form a self replicating molecule, which becomes "life". Evolution is that one species will gradually change into another.
ReplyDeleteIronically, Chazal held by abiogenesis, hence lice, maggots etc would form from nothing.
Nothing has been proven scientifically, but it is very hard to prove abiogenesis took place.
As long as we believe that Hashem created the world, as stated in the Torah, then the precise method - which we are not told of - might be explained one day by science.
So What! So WHAT? and So WHAT? if Chazal didn't get all the scientific info correct and some of the scientists of their day learned differently? Once again, so WHAT?
DeleteRabbi Slifkin has only put up part 1 and 2 of his critique, but he indicated he has many more blog posts coming that will refute the book further. This is only scratching the surface so far.
ReplyDeleteThe Frum Kiruv Maniac (Rabbi Kornreich) puts forth a thesis that not one gadol would ever endorse, that has no precedent in the sources in Jewish history, and yet he and his rebbe were some of the prime instigators against Slifkin including calling his work kefira and encouraging the ban even though Slifkin uses rishonim and precedents in Jewish history for the view he adopts. The irony is thick, but it's also sickening because of the hatred and ego that undoubtedly motivates that camp. There is no other way to explain their rabid attacks on Slifkin's interpretations and the persistence of their hate-blog entitled "Slifkin challenge"
"The Frum Kiruv Maniac (Rabbi Kornreich) puts forth a thesis that not one gadol would ever endorse, that has no precedent in the sources in Jewish history"
DeleteHave you read his thesis? Or RNS's version of it? As RDK points out: http://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/2013/11/my-job-made-easier-part-iii.html
"Not pasting my actual responses, instead, providing his own slanted account of my comments out-of-context without providing a link to the post where readers can find it and judge for themselves, shows poor sportsmanship."
Don't you find it odd that RNS neglects to link to the post he's criticizing?
This isn't the first time he's done that, either. He previously earned RDK's ire when he did something similar http://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/2012/01/not-apologizing-for-apologist.html
Also, in case you're interested, RDK debated the atheist Baruch Pelta:
http://bpvsfkm.blogspot.com/2010/10/agreed-debate-format.html
"The irony is thick, but it's also sickening because of the hatred and ego that undoubtedly motivates that camp. There is no other way to explain their rabid attacks on Slifkin's interpretations and the persistence of their hate-blog entitled "Slifkin challenge""
Really? No other way??? It can't that they actually consider it heresy? (I'm not saying I do- I haven't read RNS's books) And you call yourself a rationalist? LOL.
What appears from earth is that the sun is rising and falling. Chazal did not know physics. The earth revolves on its axis, and this gives the appearance of sunset, but it is like we are on a revolving ball.
ReplyDeleteBTW, rabbi gottlieb , the philosopher, admits he has not studied science, and neither has meiselman. What this pair say about sciences in general is rubbish. They make it up and try to sound believable.