Down With Religion and Science Fundamentalists!

I, as someone who believes in evolution, hope that scientists don't become evolution fundamentalists. By that I mean, as Dr. Bart D. Ehrmanputs it, "No fun, too much damn, and not enough mental," because we don't have a "Theory of Everything," which Albert Einstein and many other scientists have given their life to find. For instance, in science there is no known way to combine carbon and radioactive dating with the idea of oxidative corrosion, which is also a form of aging. However, the discipline of corrosion study is very inaccurate, and will probably always seem that way. It is not a reliable way of studying history, and I believe that if the truth is found, the earth won't be billions of years old, full of stories of epochs of history that are counted in millions of years. Truly, if that is true, I would accept it, but as someone who has taken an Ecology and Evolution Class, as well as a Comparative Chordate Anatomy class, worked in an electrochemistry lab, and read quite a bit of Richard Dawkins writing, I still believe we are probably overestimating the age of things in our world.

Also, I don't believe natural selection is the driving force of evolution. Rather, I believe it is fetish selection that results in the formation of new species. By that I mean natural selection selects for the fittest. However, most species are not the fittest, and they are more likely to become extinct, but nonetheless some species select for things that are queer or unusual in nature, and when reckoned with a mighty sex drive, that is a very powerful force for speciation (the creation of new species).

Part of the reason why I feel this way is from a Richard Dawkins book I read. The question was, "What would it take to disprove the theory of evolution?" The answer was finding something out of order in the fossil record. That has already happened and evolution's fundamentalists closed their eyes and hoped it would go away. The finding was a Coelacanth, a fish long thought extinct for millions of years was showing up in fishermen's catches. "Coelacanths were thought to have become extinct in the Late Cretaceous, around 66 million years ago, but were rediscovered in 1938 off the coast of South Africa.[6][7]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth

The same is true for biblical literalists that would bet their life that the creation week was literally created in 7 24hr days. They say evolution can't happen, but that is easily proved wrong when examining old world snakes, such as pythons. On the outside of a usual python there is not a hint that it has legs. Yet, if you dissect a python, you will find evidence of a pelvic girdle and limbs, suggesting at one point in history, the ancestors of snakes walked on 4 legs!

Ubiquitous Cosmological Evidence of G-d Still Not Enough for Some Atheists

Acceptance of Gd, as He is on His terms, and not on your opinion of how G-d should be, is one of most important acts anyone can do. That is what religionists refer to as faith.

Richard Dawkins, probably the foremost atheist in this time concludes that in atheism he has found remarkable Darwinian “grandeur,”

Charles Darwin was not known as a poet, but he produced a lyrical crescendo in the last paragraph of On the Origin of Species.

"Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death,[i] the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." - Charles Darwin

but then Dawkins deems those same acts of nature to be too horrible for him to consider a deity's involvement.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

That is a verifiable contradiction.

Can anyone see the error of Dawkins' logic?  Logic such that if Hashem creates it, then according to Dawkins, no matter what, it is as if it were created by a hateful, devilish, hideous being, like the picture.



Yet, if there is no Gd, and something becomes created, then according to Dawkins this is surely worthy of remarkable praise, such as in the case of this woman. this:

Is Evolution in the Bible? Yes, it is!

This is where the biblical Garden of Eden story meets science. Specifically, it occurs when G-d punishes the serpent making it crawl on its belly, meaning that G-d caused the transition some of legged reptiles into snakes, which was an effective evolutionary event. As evolution continues, newer species of snakes may continue in the trending evolutionary pattern observed as vestigial anatomy shrinkage followed by elimination of vestigial pelvic girdles.

Bible: Fall of Man Image

I suggest that dinosaurs, notably those in the shape of brachiosaurus with its incredibly long neck and tail are the origin of modern snakes.

Brachiosaurus

Brachiosaurus, for example, was incredibly large (its size is not very important [for example whales are usually considered to have evolved from dogs]) and had an operable pelvic girdle, used for walking (as opposed to slithering.) Notice the serpent's shape, and compare it to that of this brachiosaurus image. The story unfolds.

Python Skeleton w/Vestigial Limbs Compared to Human's

Old world snakes such as pythons still have the vestige of a pelvic girdle, which is comparable to their distant ancestors, the dinosaurs, suggesting that the ancestors of snakes evolved from 4 legged reptiles. There is apparently no value to these vestigial skeletal parts. Hence, in newer species of snake - as opposed to old world snakes such a pythons - the extra bones that make up a pelvic girdle exist no longer because there is no advantage selecting them.

Since the Bible allowed snakes to evolve, I believe that this discussion could happen to any species.  
(Disclaimer: The apple was not the forbidden fruit.)

Esau and Cain: Wheat Gluten as a Catalyst for Sin

I understand that wheat is a part of religious ceremony, which seems to negate this idea. However, that ceremony may have come about after the world became full of people capable of digesting wheat in what we would define now as normal.
 
I know I have written a few articles in favor of a young earth, saying that I can’t believe that humans remained so primitive for so long, but in this blog, I admit that it is possible. How so? If we go back to the Cain and Abel story, then we know that people have been farming for quite some time. Notice that Cain gave a grain offering to the Lord in the Text. This is very similar to what Esau does before he is going to kill Jacob, that is, he eats porridge.  Both dire stories are inclusive of wheat.

Science reports in journal articles that it understands that wheat has opium compounds, such as gliadorphin, an exorphin similar to both morphine and heroine exist in wheat protein, which is called gluten.  I probably don't have to write for us that most normal people are completely unaffected by gliadorphin, and that somehow in their gut, they are able to digest it such that it is rendered harmless.  My case, where I experience a high from eating gluten is rare, and I imagine most people die before they are able to reach a state of recovery like I am at now via eliminating wheat and taking an enzyme pill daily in order to get any gluten which may have slipped into my food.

So here it is; my theory. I, myself, am intolerant to wheat, and through that I have learned that if many other persons had my disease the world would look like it did to Noah before the time of the flood. It would not get built up, as everyone would be doing evil. When I eat wheat it becomes opiates in my body: For more on this go to Greatplainslaboratory.com and research gluten and casein. I associate wheat with aggression, child-likeness, hypersexuality, sleepiness, sin, and the inclination to evil. I also believe that this problem is something that some of the Edomites had, and that it is related to wickedness. Gluten is the protein in wheat, barley, and hops, while casein is the protein in cow, sheep, and goat milk. There may be other instances where these opiate peptides occur in the environment. Thus, the world could not be built up for millions of sin because the gene to digest wheat had not evolved yet, such that a society high on opium, suffering, and not knowing even the source of their suffering; they did not know to cut the gluten out in order regain their health.

Therefore, the existence of Edom, as wicked, may in part be due to a malfunctioning of the gene that evolved in others, but de-evolved in Edom. Yet, in this instance it is likely that Esau knew what he was doing when he consumed wheat.

Joining The Minority Among Science Researchers: Thinking Outside The Box

It is too early for science to be so bold in its claims with respect to carbon and radioactive dating, which the Rebbe explains in his letter, “The Age of The Universe.”  As I once wrote, we don’t have a working Theory of Everything in science.  We don’t know how oxidative stresses such as corrosion may interact with many of the current various means for dating the universe.  When I read the about the Exodus, I think that it is a sign of maturity to not just discard the story in favor of science.  Remember Proverbs, “Fools rush in.”  It is better to try to be creative, and to ponder ways science and the Bible might both be true.  Perhaps, due to corrosion the Exodus was recorded in the fossil record, in a way that has baffled scientists.  Outside of radioactive and carbon dating, the fossil record show two mass exoduses from Africa, but as you know the dates don’t match given our present understanding of science.  Yet, it is too far of a leap to say that the dates do not match at all.

Criticism of Intelligent Design: It is not obvious that Gd is involved in creating us from nothing.

Persons, places, and things could all be creating themselves from nothing.  For example, in the instance of persons, both Hassidic literature, and the biological concept of metabolism teach that we are as flames, as both humans and flames consume oxygen and burn fat.  If we don't eat we can lose weight, and even our bodies may shut down regardless, such that we may perceive ourselves as creating ourselves from nothing via eating and breathing, and that Gd has no say whatsoever in how we are created from nothing.

There is no evidence to support intelligent design.  There is evidence of order, even to the extent that we are all here.  However, that order may have arisen from the turnings of chaos.  That is chaos need not be static, but that from chaos, given enough time, the universe would evolve chaotically to be the way it is from chaos alone.  The Rebbe is said to have stated if we are here on earth, it is because we have a mission to fulfill, such that none should say, "I am without purpose," but this is just a sign of organization which may have arisen as a result of chaos.  That is though it sounds like a very tall tail given enough time, chaos may have given birth to an ordered universe.  The choice is ours.  Do we believe chaos created order, or do we believe Gd created order.  Many scientists believe that the idea of Gd is absurd, and choose to believe that all the order of the universe essentially arose from chaos because scientists usually believe the universe is so old this sort of order could have arisen from it.

I do believe Gd sustains the universe in the same way that Gd may choose to have mercy or Gd may choose to have judgment, such that though Gd is the Giver of the Law it is up to us to uphold it via choices involving justice and mercy, but again the existence of justice and mercy could have evolved from chaos, or they might be the result of Gd.  Much of Torah Law is possible to derive from this universe without the aid of a Deity.  For example, if everyone murdered each other, then there would be no people left, and even other species rarely kill another member of their same species due to an innate desire to protect genes of family members or even cousins, etc.

The hidden nature of Gd is such that we can’t derive his existence is because Gd chooses Himself to be concealed, such that an atheist may learn about the universe, but miss out on faith because of His concealment.  Elokim means that the world is constricted to the point that scientists fail to see the residue of Gd's speech of the 10 divine utterances of which is the kinds of ore that reality consists of. That is that everything in reality is a derivative of the 10 divine utterances.  If it were obvious to everyone that we should have faith in Hashem, then this would not be counted as a good deed, as it would completely obvious and not challenging in our lives.

One reason I believe faith is reasonable is that we find that there are gaps in our understanding that require wisdom, and thus we say that the Ayn Soph permeates nature preventing it from crumbling on its own rigidity in ideas such as the problem of purity and the periodic table, or that in order to get somewhere we need to first travel half of the distance, and that it takes an idea that is beyond complete comprehension, infinity, such that we must infinately travel half the distance in order to actually get where we are going.

At the core of everything, is divine filler, which I would define as or Ayn Soph, which is more difficult to describe than nailing Jello to the wall. Or Ayn Soph is the reason why we can have imperfect logic that really works in the real world.  Clearly, the universe has many properties.  In Judaism, I am able to have knowledge of them in the same way that in science, I am able to say, "Close enough."

There Is No Known Way to Disprove Evolution (A Message for Richard Dawkins)

I'd like to point out an error in the thought of "The Greatest Show on Earth." First, let me clarify myself, I believe in evolution and I this is not an attempt to attack this theory. It is stated in your book by one of your scientist friends that there is a way to disprove evolution. The example given is that of finding a fossil in an odd time period would disprove evolution. However, this is exactly what happened with the Coelacanth fish. They were thought to be extinct for millions of years, and then someone found that they are commonly caught in fishermens' nets to this day. That is, by what is given in your book, this should have disproved evolution. However, it didn't disprove evolution. What happened was that scientists changed the dates of the geological strata where we are expected to find Coelacanth fish. That is, all we did is change what we know about Coelacanth.