Pharoah's magicians
So were Paroah's magicians real magicians or mere conjurers? Rashi says they were magicians, the Rambam implies they were just conjurers, performers who pretend to do magic. The first plague they were able to duplicate, so that Paroah was unimpressed. The second they were able to duplicate but unable to remove. The third they could not manage at all. By the time of Shchin, they could not even help themselves.
The nature of belief in magic is that the observer cannot ascertain whether the performance is real, because even a conjurer looks real to a layman. The Ramban professed to believe in Arab bird readers, called tiarin, having been thoroughly impressed by their performances. Thousands believe that preachers at revivals do miracles. Millions may have believed that people could bend metal with their minds in the 70s, based on the tricks performed by Uri Geller, a former Israeli stage magician. Many thousands more believe today in TV personalities who claim to see the future and talk to their dead relatives.
However, just watch this old Criss Angel favorite, walking on water:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBQLq2VmZcA
or creating life itself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW91Zdng-4A&NR=1
It seems Paroah's skepticism might have been well founded.
The nature of belief in magic is that the observer cannot ascertain whether the performance is real, because even a conjurer looks real to a layman. The Ramban professed to believe in Arab bird readers, called tiarin, having been thoroughly impressed by their performances. Thousands believe that preachers at revivals do miracles. Millions may have believed that people could bend metal with their minds in the 70s, based on the tricks performed by Uri Geller, a former Israeli stage magician. Many thousands more believe today in TV personalities who claim to see the future and talk to their dead relatives.
However, just watch this old Criss Angel favorite, walking on water:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBQLq2VmZcA
or creating life itself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW91Zdng-4A&NR=1
It seems Paroah's skepticism might have been well founded.
posted by Rebeljew at
7:47 PM
11 Comments:
Hello Rebel;
I follow your debates with the Jewish "philosopher". I admire your attempt at what I am sure is proving to be a futile effort at talking some sense to the guy.
I am writing you here, as I have some questions for you.
First, please note that I too am a physician, have a degree in biology (though it has been some years now) and have had some training in Evolution.
But I must admit to you that I have very serious doubts regarding some of Evolutions principle tenets. I thought your blog is as good as any to talk about them.
Specifically, I am not convinced about Evolution's ability to generate vast amounts of new information. Take, for example, the human brain; how many steps are necessary to go from a primitive neuron to the complex central nervous system? Is there enough time in the span of vertebrate evolution to accomplish this? Really?
Can you give me some examples of mutations that have increased information of a given organism? I once asked this of another blogger named "Cameron". He was able only to come up with a bacterium that produced Nylonase. I admit that this is an appropriate example, though after having read about this mutation, the example is far from being perfect. Still, though, there must be other examples that lead to increases in information such that a beneficial outcome has been achieved. Can you give me some examples?
Also, why have you stopped blogging?
By
badrabbi, at 10:17 PM
Other than what CH already wrote, I cannot give an example. If you are an MD (I am not), you well know that genetics is very consistent with evolution, that evolution by mutation (rather than limbs and organs gradually developing) is more consistent, and that the entire study of genetics, one of the most successful platforms in the modern medical arsenal, would fold and be ineffective without the underlying assumptions regarding evolution.
It is true as I say, that we have not seen evolution with adding genes in the last hundred and fifty years since Darwin, and more importantly, Mendl. But that is a mere snapshot of time. One can easily see the similarities in simian and human genes, and one can easily intuit that genes were there that were turned off and that, due to adaption to environmental factors, they largely turned on through natural selection. I would agree that the modern theory of evolution no more resembles "Origin of Species", than Orthodox Judaism resembles the Chumash. That is to be expected, given the greatest era of scientific discovery ever in history.
And I apologize for not blogging. These have been busy months for me. I intend to pick up again toward the summer.
By
Rebeljew, at 10:50 AM
Other than what CH already wrote, I cannot give an example. If you are an MD (I am not), you well know that genetics is very consistent with evolution, that evolution by mutation (rather than limbs and organs gradually developing) is more consistent, and that the entire study of genetics, one of the most successful platforms in the modern medical arsenal, would fold and be ineffective without the underlying assumptions regarding evolution.
It is true as I say, that we have not seen evolution with adding genes in the last hundred and fifty years since Darwin, and more importantly, Mendl. But that is a mere snapshot of time. One can easily see the similarities in simian and human genes, and one can easily intuit that genes were there that were turned off and that, due to adaption to environmental factors, they largely turned on through natural selection. I would agree that the modern theory of evolution no more resembles "Origin of Species", than Orthodox Judaism resembles the Chumash. That is to be expected, given the greatest era of scientific discovery ever in history.
And I apologize for not blogging. These have been busy months for me. I intend to pick up again toward the summer.
By
Rebeljew, at 10:50 AM
Hi;
It is true that organisms tend to have similar genes. It is true that related organisms, ie., species that share a similar phenotype tend to have similar genotypes.
And yes, a gradual evolution can explain the similarities.
But there can be other explanations, can't there?
For example, if I were a watchmaker (don't worry, I am not invoking the watchmaker principle), I would tend to make similar watches. I would tend to use the components that I have in my disposal to make my various watches. I wouldn't try to make new components for every species of watch.
Similarly, if I am god, then I would use the same genetic ingredients to "create" different organisms. If so, it stands to reason that the genetic make-up of organisms should be shared.
I am not arguing for god's creation of organism. I do understand that there are many problems with such an explanation.
I am just not satisfied that the enormously complex living organisms can evolve to become so amazingly beautiful and purposeful with simple mutation and natural selection. There are too many steps needed. I used the brain as an example. Is there enough time to evolve a brain? You have admitted that there are at best a handful of examples of evolution in the past 150 years. Is that enough to direct the enormous diversity in the living things that we see today?
Maybe. I am not sure.
By
badrabbi, at 11:19 AM
Rabbi Dr. Bad (I always love Rabbi Dr. as a title, sorry)
No we do not have enough information to prove the theory conclusively. However, as you know, most medical advancement has been made in the last couple of centuries, because our new knowledge allows us to obtain more knowledge more quickly than ever before. Changes are exponential, not linear.
The reason the watchmaker analogy fails is that it depends on "purpose" rather than complexity. There are very complex quartz crystals that appear to be manufactures, but even Paley would admit that they are natural, rather than directly miraculous. BTW, Darwin apparently agreed with the watchmaker analogy as did most in his day. It is bad logic. Organisms do not show purpose. There is no more reason for an organism to live than not to live. Natural selection drives them toward survival, not toward purpose. For instance, if it would appear that brown recluse spiders, scorpions and the like would be negative if one's purpose was a lovely world for humans. But they have all evolved toward survival, not a purpose.
Did G-d build all living creatures out of similar materials? As I am not an atheist, I will agree, but this does not speak to the scientific viability of evolution. We can believe that G-d creates life through evolution and even that it can be shoehorned into Genesis. It is the time factor that is the big bugaboo. Funny, JP is "modeh" that the universe is old. He started banning me when I commented on this "s'tirah".
Back to the exponential issue. Many creationists harp on the sparse "transitional phases" in the fossil record. However, the nature of DNA is that a gene or two on or off make a radical difference. The renowned finch observation on the Galapegos actually proved that evolution could happen very quickly, albeit, the type of evolution we see all the time now, intraspecies.
Before we had the concept of innoculation, people died younger due to common viruses and diseases. Thousands of years this went on. Innoculation shows up, not just to end one disease, but 10's of thousands, in a few decades (no time at all, even in Biblical terms). Before antibiotics, people died or were diminished by infections. Now, not just one infection, but all infections can be dealt with. Ditto, autoimmune and steroids. Once we understand how the body works and what happens to harm it, we have all sorts of technology that builds on each phase. Even a couple of centuries ago, they dealt with every disease as if it were separate.
To the point that we have never seen interspecies evolution, we have never seen a species created directly by G-d either. On the scale of a lifetime or even 5 lifetimes, vs. billions of years, we certainly can make no conclusions.
A little history. Academics used to believe that all solar systems must be similar to our own and there were grand ideas of how our solar system formed. That was until we actually saw other solar systems. We cannot make a conclusion on a sample of one. We have viewed so little of the universe, it would be like taking a single shovel of sand and, based on that, declaring no evidence that the earth had a mantle or core. The same is true of evolution. Based on better knowledge of our bodies, largely through studying other species genetically related, we have created all sorts of prevention and treatment that actually works. Those are the facts. If Venus orbited as the Rambam has it, a probe could not have landed there, and all of the rocket trajectories using Venus gravity would be entirely wrong and no vessel ever could go to Mars and beyond. But they did land. If there is no evolution, then all of the research based on it wouldn;t work. But we both know that it does.
By
Rebeljew, at 2:19 PM
Conclusive proof of Evolution is indeed lacking. But most theories are never conclusively proven. I submit though, that even though Evolution might be the best explanation we have to explain the origins of species, the theory lacks concrete evidence.
Now some issues with your response:
I never invoked the “watchmaker analogy” of Paley’s. I was using watches to illustrate a different example. What I was saying is that different watches, if they are from the same company, can be expected to share similar components. I was careful to distinguish this idea from Paley's watchmaker principle.
I never posited that animals and their development have a purpose.
I never engaged in the Creation versus Evolution debate. Creation “theory” is garbage.
I never objected to a lack of transitional species. This latter objection is a tired trick that creationists use.
I never doubted the efficacy of the scientific method. As you correctly point out, that there is exponential increase in knowledge is ample evidence of Science’s power as a method of logic.
I never attempted to give an iota of evidence for God’s creating species.
I think, Rebel, your reply to me was chuck full of straw men. You responded to points I never raised and you defended objections I never made.
What I am saying is that I am very uneasy about the overall lack of evidence in evolution’s favor. I think there is good data to show that allele frequency can change over time, which is one of Evolution’s central principles. However, there is a dearth of evidence that new alleles can enter a gene pool and gang up to develop new organ systems. One problem with some proponents of Evolution theory is that they use the former as the evidence for the latter. This is fallacious.
While I am not prepared to embrace an absurd idea like wholesale Creation of species by a supernatural being, I really do think that Evolution does not tell the whole story of existence and diversity of living species.
By
badrabbi, at 12:05 AM
Sorry, in all likelihood, I was being incherent, not trying to erect strawmen.
1) Watches by the same maker have the same components. This is meant to answer the objection of similar genetics across species.
My feeling on the matter is that the two are incomparable. Genes involve various combinations and conditions. The materials similarity across species is not so telling as the similar configurations across species. To continue the analogy, if I saw a watch with a particular set up of gears and components, and then I saw another from different manufacturer with a similar configuration, but I saw a wide variety of other watches with completely different designs, or working on completely different principles, I would conclude that the first two were related, that the designer had worked from the same design or that one had been influenced by the other. There is too much similarity to say the happened independently.
2) The main objection you raise is the lack of evidence for new genes entering or developing new constructs.
Granted we have rarely seen this in the snippet of time that we have studied genetics. I would answer that genetic changes compounding one upon the other work exponentially, when viewed after a great amount of time. (Just as the techtonic plates move only centimeters per year, but over millions of years the continents move great distances.)
However, even if that is not the case, we still have to conclude that the evidence simply has not been discovered yet and that we have explored virtually nothing. This is the objection that "punctuated evolution" tries to answer, that there were periods of explosion, like the Cambrian Era, and there were periods of virtually no evolution. This is like the analogy I said before of taking a shovel full of Earth and trying to conclude that there is no mantle or core.
And even without all of that, the reasoning is interpolative if granted my first point, that the genetic similarities in configuration (not composition) indicate common descent. So there is no question that one came from the other, it is just a question of how we got there. Not the vas, but only the vi as they say in yeshiva.
By
Rebeljew, at 2:00 PM
The main supportive piece of evidence of evolution is that it works predictively. Based on its principles, we successfully cure the next disease.
Do you find any convincing COUNTER evidence?
By
Rebeljew, at 2:06 PM
Rebel;
I do not have counter evidence. I am not advancing another theory in favor of Evolution.
But I take issue with your contention that Evolution allows us to fight the next disease. What exactly do you mean by this?
By
badrabbi, at 7:05 PM
khaibar ya yahuud !
destiny-url.blogspot.com
By
Anonymous, at 2:54 PM
Part of הלכות עבודה זרה וחקות הגוים ברמב"ם פרק י"א הל' [כ] (טז) : ודברים אלו כולן דברי שקר וכזב הן, והן שהטעו בהן עובדי עבודה זרה הקדמונים לגויי הארצות כדי שינהו אחריהן. ואין ראוי לישראל שהם חכמים מחוכמים להמשך בהבלים האלו, ולא להעלות על הלב שיש בהן תעלה, שנאמר כי לא נחש ביעקב ולא קסם בישראל (במדבר כג כג). ונאמר כי הגוים האלה אשר אתה יורש אותם אל מעוננים ואל קוסמים ישמעו ואתה לא כן נתן לך ה' אלהיך (דברים יח יד
.(
By
Anonymous, at 3:36 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home