[Avodah] evolution

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:12:00AM +0200, Ilana Elzufon wrote:
: I don't think one can "disprove" the theory of special creation of
: individual species - after all, G-d can do whatever he wants. I also don't
: think one can "disprove" the theory of evolution based on the inadequacy of
: the current understanding of its mechanisms. I would imagine that
: evolutionary biologists have the humility to acknowledge (and the ambition
: to hope) that there is still much to be discovered in this field.

I think one could, in principle, disprove the "random" aspect of how
evolution is usually formulated.

I believe it is provable, that even with the filtering effect of survival
only preserving the "good" mutations, truly random mutations couldn't
explain evolution's speed.

But more than just evolution and talking about origins in general, it's
acknowledged that the odds are too far against the emergence of intelligent
life to explain reality.

One "in" explanation in the scientific community is asserting the existence
of a "multiverse", so that rather than explaining how physics was so fine
tuned so as to make stars, chemistry, biology and psychology possile, they
just say that among enough universes, one was bound to luck out.

In the past I called this "theology" -- the postulating of an infinite
existence beyond what science could measure to explain how we got here,
and to answer the question of "why". (Okay, this gives an answer of
"there is no why", but still...)

But in any case, it's acknowledged within the scientific community that
even given the number of possible sites for evolution within this universe,
the odds are against anyone being here capable of wondering why we are
here.

Thanks to Xian Fundamentalists abusing the term "Intelligent Design" to
try to sneak teaching literal interpretation of Bereishis 1 into the
classroom (what "Creationism" has come to mean), we have problems using
its arguments to show why evolution couldn't be random. Or at least that
evolution shouldn't be taught using the word "random", and if it is
invoked, then the notion of a "designed" evolution must be given equal
time.

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 09:31:33PM -0500, T613K at aol.com wrote:
: From:  Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org>
:> Then you might recall that I posted examples of  documented speciation, and
:> not "just" to explain the fossil record. Check  out the examples  at
:> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation>.

:> "Macroevolution",  as far as I can tell, is used in popular parlance only as
:> a way to divide  off whatever aspect of evolution a Creationist wants to
:> claim hasn't been  seen in today's world from those that have, so that
:> they can deny it  occurs. And as more things are proven, "macroevolution"
: shifts in meaning....

: I read the wiki articles and don't see what they add to the  discussion.  

: The first is entirely speculative.  It uses the present  tense as if it is 
: talking about something that happens right now under our eyes....

??? I pointed you to its examples of speciation that occured in recent
past, cases where scientists recorded the origin of a species, not just
deduced it after the fact from fossil record.

: Example: "There are four geographic modes of speciation in nature, based on 
:  the extent to which speciating populations are geographically isolated 
: from one  another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric and sympatric." 

Just picking at random.

One example given of peripatric speciation, was the origin of the species
Pacific Robin, which can no longer reproduce with the Australian Robin,
its source. (The name on the web page is Petroica multicolor.) This was
recorded in 1999. When the Pacific island bird was first identified in
1789, they were one species. The 2 also don't look alike.

: But I do have a question for you.  Why the contempt for  "Creationists"?  
: Aren't YOU a creationist?  Don't you /have/ to be a  creationist to be on 
: Avodah?

You have to believe in creation to be on this list. "Creationism" has
come to mean a belief in the literal interpretation of Bereishis 1, and
in some circles, belief that Bereishis 1 is not only true, but within
the purvue of science.

(It's like antisemitism having nothing to do with hating Arabs or other
non-Jewish semites. Words also evolve.)

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:34:57AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> That said, I can't call evolution "fact". It has strong evidence, but nothing
:> really rules out RMMS's or R' Avigdor Miller's supposition that Hashem had
:> His : own reasons for laying down that evidence.

: According to Rabbi Miller there is nothing as science. All modern science
: is based on experiment and observations, it is never proved in the
: mathematical sense of the word...

Karl Popper also noted that science is founded on inductive reasoning. We
find lots of examples, construct an overarching explanation to unite them,
and call that a theory if we fail to find a "Black Swan" in the first number
of trials. That doesn't mean that our rule is accurate, that no exceptions
to what we thought aren't waiting for us out there.

In 1963 Popper published "Science as Falsification", concluding that
because of this, all science can prove is that a given theory isn't true.
The theories that are ruled out are proven to be ruled out. But no
theory is ever proven in a mathematical sense. Just shown to be more and
more likely (in a Bayesian sense).

So R' Avigdor Miller is in sound company.

But here it goes beyond Popper's issue, because I have multiple data
sources. Beyond the empirical data scientific study collects, I have
revelation.

And if the pieces don't quite fit, then perhaps Poppers' point shouldn't
be entirely ignored.

So, while I don't buy into Creationism myself, I can't dismiss it out
of hand and call the alternative a "fact".

Besides, my own leanings, at least on most days, are more toward the
approach that both are right in a way. Or that neither is fully correct,
just models of a reality that was simply beyond comprehension. E.g. and
this is R' Dessler's point not mine, even something as fundamental as
linear time is a product of perception, and doesn't describe what is
really out there, and can't be imposed on anything before Adam -- and R'
Dessler says that Adam qodem lacheit had a different conceptualization
of what we know of as time as well.

But each is right in their own way, creating a dialectic of understandings,
or a "polylectic" (if that's a word), is a better formulation of what I'm
trying to say. For the subset of the data they explain, these ideas do
so accurately. They only look like they conflict, much like the blind
men and the elephant.

So I'm not in a position to declare an aspect that appears in any
particular model a "fact" or non-fact.

There is also the problem that "fact" means two things: Something
that happens to be true, or something we have an empirical basis for
considering true. And thus when using the word "fact" in religious
dicussion, where not all the data is empirical, that ambiguity can lead
to confusion.

...
: Evolution in the local sense occurs all the time. It is well known that
: viruses evolve to counteract anti-virus drugs and so old drugs like
: penicillin are no longer used.

And evolution in the origins sense regularly explains new archeological
findings, and the resulting taxonomy of biological creatures also serves
us well in predicting future results.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The thought of happiness that comes from outside
micha at aishdas.org        the person, brings him sadness. But realizing
http://www.aishdas.org   the value of one's will and the freedom brought
Fax: (270) 514-1507      by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook