Purchased a FORA.tv video on another website? Login here with the temporary account credentials included in your receipt.
Sign up today to receive our weekly newsletter and special announcements.
I am Bruce Chapman, I am happy to welcome you here on behalf of Discovery Institute. About five weeks ago, George Gilder who is the head of our Technology program and I were in Israel for about, I don't know, for several days and we had an opportunity to meet a lot of people interested in technology, I don't know most Americans are aware of it but Israel is the second biggest country in the world when it comes to start ups for hi-tech and for many other industries on high technology. It is the silicon valley of the Middle East, in fact it eclipses England and Germany and France and a number of other countries in terms of its hi-tech industries. Very exciting, that's the subject for another talk but also it was a great interest to me that there are people in Israel who combine the interest and technology with science and with the ramifications, and the implications of science. So there is a deep connection between philosophy, religion, technology and science. People see these implications and are happy to talk about them. So George spoke at Bar-Ilan University and at the Jerusalem College of Technology and I am hoping that we are going to have conference over there, in the next year or so to look into a number of these issues. But as I said we talked about technology, we also talked about intelligent design. So when I got back to the United States, I was surprised to see an article in the Wall Street journal op-ed page in which the writer said, "Well you know Darwinism is totally compatible with Judaism". And I thought well, you could make lots of arguments like that about any group of people or any faith or any view point. But I was surprised a little bit to see this as a sort of stated as just to flat out certainty. And I said "This is not what I heard from a lot of people in Israel and it's something that certainly ought to be discussed. It ought to be brought to be put attention". So today, we used all our best connections and we are able to persuade Jonathan Rosenblum, who is in the United States for with his family. Well, several members of his family and I would like to welcome them. To talk about this topic, he is one of the most distinguished writers on politics and related issues religion and so forth in Israel. And around the and around the world, he has books to his name. He is a Graduate of University of Chicago, grew up in Illinois not far from where I was raised. He went to Yale law school and graduated from that distinguished institution. And he is I believe it dual citizen is that correct of the United States and Israel. As I said, he is a leading commentator on Israeli politics and society. He writes also for the he writes primarily for the Jerusalem post and is a commentator also for the semi official English language newspaper and for the orthodox community in Israel. He is been living there now for 28 years and he as I said writes not only writes for different organizations, but is a director of Am Echad, the Jewish media resources. He does get back to the United States often. This is one of those times and we are thrilled to have you. As I said, I am not only grateful to be here, I am grateful to be standing and awake with the morning, started early on the [0:04:15] ____ both shows this morning and after a very long trip from Israel yesterday which began at 3.30 in the morning because Israel is having one of this periodic threats of a general strike, so all the flights had to be moved up. And we had, basically we have had no sleep, I don't know if the listeners on Wspan want to know who is going to identify my incoherence if it becomes necessary at any point but I am trusting my wife on that point. In any event, my own impression is that the Jewish community - the traditional Jewish community, the orthodox Jewish community was a little bit slower and somehow immense of the Christian community in identifying some of the implications of Darwinian evolution. I want to always use the term Darwinian here, not the question of evolution whether there are morphological changes in species over time but Darwinian evolution which will get to in a second in its definition but I think that the orthodox Jewish community was some what different in its response and some what belated in its response to the implication which were obvious to Christian divines from the time that Darwin first published on the "Origin of Species" and there is a discussion of it in Jewish sources but I don't think it ever became a terribly important issue for us, and I will describe some of those reasons. The first reason I think, is that orthodox Jews live a very complicated life, there is a lot to do we have 613 basic commandments which guide every aspect of our daily existence, we are very involved in what we have to do at every moment some times this is put in the dichotomy which I think is a false dichotomy of Christianity as a religion of faith and Judaism as a religion of law. But there is an element of choose to that in the extensity legal aspects of Judaism are much more fully developed and we are trying in terms of detail in every aspects of person's life than you would find in classical Christian thought and that being the case I think was easier for religious Jews to focus up on the observance of the law and leave aside the larger - some of the largest theological issues that may have that Darwin - Darwinism raised and put those aside for a moment. There is a second reason which I think is even perhaps more important, certainly more important we never really had the same problem with Darwin as confronts some Christian sects - the question of Biblical literalism there is a very major difference between Judaism and Christianity in the sense of its how it is textually based in, other words what in the Jewish tradition there is the written, the five books and Moses which are the basic canonical text and they refer to as the written Torah. But the written Torah was given along in Jewish tradition with the oral Torah which is compiled in the Talmud various Midrashim which are comments rabbinical commentaries on each verse there, many - many verses some times many verses sometimes many commentaries as well many rabbinical commentaries as well and the words of the - and the words of the written Torah the written Torah in our view in many respects canopy understood independent of the oral torah many of the commandments simply would be unintelligible if we didn't have the rabbinic classes and this - and the oral torah which is viewed as equally binding upon us as the written torah, so that meant and many of the Midrashim many of the rabbinical comments do take a verse out of its literal meaning there are many cases where the Talmud takes a verse out of its literal meaning for instance of punishment may be prescribed as 40 lashes for particular crime and the rabbis interpreted this as 39, and they explain why how they learn this what hermeneutical principles cause them to learn this out but in any event, you find many cases, many many cases with which the - their - the tradition always encompass the readings which could be seen as non literal readings of the text, so that made us less sensitive then particularly with respect to the creation "Berashith" or geniuses, the creation stories that are included in in the Torah in addition to that I will tell you what I was told when I first came to Yeshiva about 28 years ago, when I first came to learn a full time after after the university of Chicago and Yale law school and practicing law when that first change in my life came about, and I don't think that this is a false I don't think was a false statement I think it was to some extent true is I was quoted when I started asking questions about creation. I was told basically by my rabbis as a prominent the Rosh Yeshiva prominent head of that major seminary in the America today. He said as follows, he said every thing that is found in Berashith in the first - in the first chapters of Geneses is a mystery and the Rambam Maimonides, one of the preeminent medieval commentators, probably the preeminent medieval commentator, the greatest thinker, one of the phrases that was once used about him, Maimonides is Moses Ben Maimon, from Moses to Moses there was not another like him, so this gives you a sense of his prominence in Jewish thought so, Maimonides as I was told says that if we would be compelled by overwhelming evidence to re interpret the versus of genesis then we would do so, if the evidences were overwhelming that we that they had to be understood we would understand that - this is a mystery and we would find another way to interpret these words. The proof the proof of this is or at least in Maimonides view was that there is a specific that in the Talmud what it says that among the things you cannot teach in public in a large scale gathering are the mysteries of my bereshith, the mysteries of creation from which the Rambam understood, the Maimonides understood that we are dealing here with a text which is at best which is a best simply hinting a much deeper secrets and much larger prophesies and that's really beyond our ten, but in any event this the assumption was that we would be free in the phase of compelling scientific evidence to re understand whether it was the was the - issue was the age of the universe or the issue was the order of creation so forth and so on, and any of these issues would be open in the phase of overwhelming scientific evidence to re-interpretation, so this is another reason why I think for believing Jews the implications --- the implications of Darwinian thought were less immediately obvious and of less immediate impact on our on our day to day existence and and on issues of faith as long as we were fully involved and the observance of law I think we troubled ourselves less about whether the underlying implications. I should say that in this room is sitting one of those people my friend David Clinger who doesn't let us forget the implications of of our belief as right on top, I mean the of the many senses of his which have stuck in my mind the one that sticks in my mind most prominently is his statement about the the Torahs account that the giving the giving of the Torah, the giving of the five books of Moses at Sinai which he said either this happened or it didn't happen don't make me up any story did it happen or didn't happen because if it didn't happen we might as well all go home and convert to another religion there is no pointing remaining Jewish you cant get away from that but I am just explaining sociologically, anthropologically however you will, why I think these issues will less pressing but there is an inherent tension and this erupted in full blast within recent years, there is an inherent tension on the one hand we have a written and we have an oral Torah, we have possibilities in interpretation and those those possibilities those interpretations are themselves sacrilege. We have allegorizing tendencies which have risen from time to time in Jewish history. As long as you are not bound by the literal text, it's absolutely to everything in the text is true everything in the Torah is true in our view, but you have to know what is it saying and that cannot be read by as long as that's based on a transmission on a transmission of an oral tradition, but the tension was how far would this go and these and there has erupted periodically through out Jewish history, major battles about how far would it be possible to allegorize particular verses in a Torah. One of the major disputes that arose was in the 13th century late 12th the late 12th and 13th century over Maimonides himself, over the accusations of many that his guide to the perplexed, his major philosophical tract was dangerously infected with the Aristotelian philosophy was apologetic views of the Aristotelian philosophy that he had gone too far and he and others would in his wake go further in giving rational in in what was called his rationalism and his rationalism with respect to biblical miracles, most famously or in the famous passage where the three visitors come to Abraham and tell him that Sarah will bear a child and they come with this message that Maimonides uniquely among all the commentators explain and for philosophical reasons he had a reason for this explain that this was a vision and that some thing that actually happened because in his view angels can never take a corporeal form, they can never take a bodily form and therefore Abraham didn't really see them, he dreamed that he saw them. And there were many, there were many who saw that this philosophizing trend is a - the importation of Aristotle into Jewish thought, had implications and dangers and warned against - to the point that many of Maimonides books were burnt. Today in Yeshiva's perhaps the most fundamental texts one of the texts that is argued about most and more ink is been spent in interpretations of the Maimonides specific (Foreign Language) decisions the most revered figure but in that time, his books were burnt by burnt and some times involving figures who were no less or not that much less eminent in their domains. Some of the very greatest figures were involved in the campaign against Maimonidean philosophy. If you want to read a good book on this, Bernard Septimus is a professor at Harvard has a book called The Maimonidean Controversies, its a short book but excellent on this point. Now we look back at this dispute today and we say "Well, those opponents who burnt the books of Rambam the books of the Maimonides were clearly mistaken. In fact that's not as clear as we might think. The Nachmanides, one of the greatest of his contemporaries and slightly after him in time, said already in his time, "Those who were attracted to philosophy, those who were most attracted to philosophy generally were very lax and their observance of the Commandments". And by the time of the expulsion from Spain 200 years later it was clear that the (Foreign Language) one of the writers at that time describing those who were expelled, said they mostly came from those who had not been attracted to philosophy. They remained faithful to Jewish practice where those who had been attracted from the upper classes, who had been attracted to philosophy, had largely been swept away. They had lost they had lost observance of the Commandments and they either went underground as merinos or they had simply tried to melt themselves into the surrounding Christian culture of that time. So you know, we may look back and say because of the eminence of Maimonides that they were clearly wrong it's not so it's not so obvious. Another stage in Jewish history where this erupted was in the 18th century post enlightenment around the figure of Moses Mendelssohn. Moses Mendelssohn was himself an observant Jew in every respect. Be gathered around him a group of disciples and they were, he was also one of the great humanist to the German enlightenment, he was a figure who was celebrated as the pinnacle of which a human being could strike to by German writer Lessing in one of his plays that it was called "Moses the Just", he was very involved in contemporary intellectual debates and there again the issue was the extent to which he would emphasis the idea behind each Commandment. What was the idea? There were great suspicions raised about Mendelssohn himself, but that he was clearly observant that no one charged differently but they saw they were highly suspicious of this enterprise of giving the philosophical idea behind each particular Commandment. In any event, by two generations his grandson was the composer Fredric Mendelssohn he denied he have a single descendent who was still a Jew, much less an observant Jew, all had found their way to baptismal fund, of his students none of them remained faithful observant Jews. The Idea that you could abstract, the idea behind the Commandments so they said okay, so we will take the idea and let's forget about the Commandments themselves, we don't need that. Then we can understand we are so brilliant, we can understand the Commandments, we can summarize this. I am just giving you a little background on how these non literal, these attempts to either bring philosophy or to reconcile Judaism to other systems. To reconcile them either to science or to reconcile them to the contemporary philosophical doctrines over a particular time have resulted in major confrontations. Two years ago, again the issue arose with respect to books by somebody, who was personally a friend of mine, somebody who had spent many Sabbath meals at our home by the name of Natan Slifkin who undertook to try and reconcile most of the difficult questions which confront a Jew coming form a secular non religious back ground when he faces the Torah and to show that each one of these could in fact be reconciled. His works were basically unknown or certainly not read widely and but at some point somebody called attention to them to various rabbinical eminences some of whom were also my - my teachers and I was personally toned a sunder by this controversy it's a controversy which is not abated to the state it's a controversy which found its way recently in to the wall street journal which Bruce mentioned in his introduction in the the title of their article it was title of the speech is Darwin Kosher, there Rabbi Slifkin who gives no quarter in this debate or subscribes giving no quarters said appreciating the role and rule of natural law is an essential prerequisite to appreciating the law and rule of spiritual law and the Torah. I think that's generally a fair point Judaism is not anti-scientific. The same - and his point is until we understood that there was an ordered universe that in some sense the idea of a creator who impose order on the universe, who created the world and created it with an order is a basis for scientific thought if there is no order in the world, how can you derive scientific laws how can you invent scientific laws. And that point I think Slifkin is right that wasn't the controversial point. The point what I think made this dispute even more fierce than it might other wise had been was that - and this is an issue that comes up again, Natan Slifkin is a 27-28 year old young man, he is not an eminent Torah scholar, he is a person who feels extremely confident of his own powers his own originality and and was not one who was interested in being told anything, and he wrote and I think he was in some ways the tone as much as what he actually wrote, a tone of dismissive ness of the knowledge of our sages the sages of the Talmud with respect to scientific evidence and attempt to take the allegorizing tendency which I said is always a possibility, it's always part of that here intention in Jewish law to a great extreme and simply treat himself as if he was Maimonides, I mean it's one thing where Maimonides says something, the greatest figure of his generation and he is knowledge is such by all his contemporizes even those who call for the burning of his books understood his greatness. Natan Slifkin for although he is an intelligent young man he is not Maimonides and his willingness to put himself in those shoes also created a sort of sense that some thing was amiss here and left far enough if the justification was we have to make the Torah accessible and believable and compactable with modern science what ever that science of the time tells us than we put the Torah in a subservient position. We have shown ourselves a lack of confidence in its ultimate source of truth. You have to understand in Jewish tradition the Torah is not just a law, a set of moral Commandments which are given to man. It is the blue print for creation, it's a blue print as a cabalistic statement - a famous cabalistic statement frequently quoted says "God looked in to the Torah and created the world, the Torah pre-exists the world" it is the divine blue print meaning that among other things among the corollaries of this is that those that many of the natural laws could be derived from the Torah, Maimonides himself for instance just a random example was the first person that we know to write the pie is an irrational, that pie is an irrational number, before this point was ever, that it doesn't repeat at any point that this about 500 years before this was you know definitely concluded by others there are other examples that are knowledge of that the liver, regenerates and how much that a person that an animal or person from who a large part of the liver been cut off was not necessarily bound to die with in year which has certain implications in Jewish law, they discovered this long before it was known to contemporary medicine. So there are examples which would suggest well, they must have another source of knowledge this was something that Slifkin dispensed with easily casually as it worries. And well you know they made mistakes, They wrote in the science of their time, their knowledge of scientific manners was limited to this. It was this - I think the smell what the torah authorities who came out so strongly against him. There was some thing that they smell that's what I was pointing about out by Mendelssohn. Mendelssohn himself was fully observant. Natan Slifkin is fully observant, no one questions his level of observance of the commandments. The question was is there some thing here that extremely dangerous an on that the sense of contemporaries has always been very good whether it was a sense of contemporaries even of Maimonides, that there was a danger in the hyper rationalism which was taking hold among those who were following in Maimonides path or whether in time of my Mendelssohn, there was a danger inherent in this idea of abstracting the idea behind the law as if the idea and the law were congruent, that once you had understood the idea you didn't need the commandment itself, the sense the ability to smell danger has always been particularly acute and then here they came out very strongly against Slifkin this in that bring us to this subject. Now the fact of the matter is in my opinion and I am not a great torah scholars, so I will never get in the trouble I would never presume to write on these subjects I am also not a scientist which gives me two great pluses here in areas about which I know little I tend not to want to want to comment a great deal even though I am a columnist which by definition is a person who writes frequently about subjects about which he knows little. But in any event I would not get up here and presume to address audience at the Discovery Institute. But I think it is quite clear that ultimately the near Darwinian Theory cannot be reconciled, cannot be reconciled with the belief in torah as we know it of the divinity of the five books in Moses. There is a famous comment by Nachmanides at the end of the description of the Exodus from from Egypt, there are two really similar advance if you look in Jewish history, the two that we refer to most frequently in our prayers are the going out from Egypt and the giving of torah at Sinai and at the conclusion of the biblical account of going out, the going out from Egypt Nachmanides says the torah went in to this with great detail and great description why because there are three principles fundamental principles which every Jew, every person must know which I derived from the going out of the Egypt. The first is that god has absolute dominion over the natural order, that you see through the miracles that were done in Egypt that every aspect whether it was - some of the miracles took place in the air, some of them took place on the land some of them took place from the heavens, where ever they came from he has absolute dominion over the whole created universe. The second point is the truth of the prophecy of Moses because so many each time before two out of the many of the plagues Moses tells pharaoh this is going to happen and then it happen and the torah tells us Moses said this is going to happen and then it happened. They also my former high school debate partners and the audience they used to tell us in high school debate first tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them and tell them that you told them. So the torah does this in great detail here to emphasize the truth, the reliability of the prophecy of Moses. Any time in the torah where that absolute truth of their prophecy was questioned then you, you find as when Koreh led his rebellion and he said who told you to appoint your brother as the high priest, and Koreh finds a punishment that never happened to any body else before the earth swallows them up, this is to know how serious it is to correct - to question that anything that came from Moses was his prophecy from god given in a fashion that was never given to any other prophet. And the third point Nachmanides says is that he intervenes in the world, Jewish thought has no room for divine clock maker we cannot be deists, god intervenes in the world as he intervene to bring these place in to the world he is involved in the world other wise much of our prayer would make - would be non sensible, if we for what ever we address god it's simply meaningless know that he is involved in human history in the Jewish view the Jews through their history are the symbol - the story of god's revelation to man kind takes place preeminently, through his relationship and treatment of the Jewish people, but this is the third major principle and this is a principle which is hard, that I would say impossible to reconcile with the idea of randomness, the idea that the whole engine for the multiplicity all the granger of creation of of organic creation of living beings is simply a process of random selection, of random generation or mutations which has no other basis, it's simply randomly generated with no end in mind, with no goal towards no end with no direction, with no creator or if you will no designer, and that that is a negation that the whole process is one that takes place with out any possible involvement. Now I think that there is a amazing I just saw an article in new republic recently, by some body who is talking about Michael Bees book a latest book on intelligent design ofcourse one of the preeminent fellows of the Discovery Institute, and he and he says, well Bees really started he has conceded every thing, look what he has conceded? He has conceded that it is a 4.5 billion year old Universe is conceded that there is evidence of evolutionary changes and morphological change, within species, he has conceded that there are vestigial straits that may be - have been left over in the process of some of those morphological changes, he has given up every thing, the only thing he doesn't give up, is the idea that random mutation provides the raw material for the evolutionary evolutionary theory view that that evolutionary theories view that random mutation provides the raw material for evolutionary change, that is the point. Every thing else as I mentioned at the out set is we could find, that we could live with, that is the point, that random mutation is the gas as co inputs which drives every thing in evolutionary theory, that you can explain only explanations only possible explanation of the proliferation of life in this in the world as we know it is through this random process which had no goal in mind as one of the leading scientists said, it is a random process through which it had now goal to man wasn't to sum it, man wasn't the goal, that there is no sense in which man represents of the periphery of the ultimate height of creation, that is some thing by the way which, no one however they interpreted the biblical verses however they interpreted genesis, that man is the "Suma" of creation that man is the goal to which creation was describing, that man is qualitatively different, than any other aspect of the animal or plant kingdom, these are fundamental beliefs which no one can deny. This was George Simpson one of the leading paleontologist describing that he is the he has a result of a random process which did not have him in mind, and that and that in a nutshell is where we must part company, all the other issues are not the essence the essence is what is the mechanism that powers whatever degree evolution has taken place? And that would still be there to be large disputes about that, because we have you know - you have things that are completely inexplicable in evolutionary theory, to in the fossil records are not definite over the fossil records are complete mystery, the explosion of life in the Precambrian period and so forth and so on where new species suddenly appeared, the fact that most species as far as we can tell through out their history and earth were unchanged, and departed through some catastrophe not because they generated some superior successors who more evolutionarily developed. There are lot of problems with how the grade is the degree of morphological change but even if you will concede that that takes place and that has some evidence of that, what is the mechanism which generates that that is the fundamental question, is it random or is it not random? And here is where we have part of a country - a company, now I one of the article that I have written, called the Myth of Scientific Objectivity, one of those eight books that that Bruce referred to that I wrote was on a figure, Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler, considered perhaps the preeminent Jewish thinker of the first half of the 20th century, probably the most side and most widely read, now Rabbi Dessler was a product of a Yeshivas in Leesylvania, he came to England, to recoup some business losses that his father had incurred and was then too old to try to recoup them himself and he found himself tutoring a group of young boys, he gathered around him in London and that period of his life, young boys many of them who were, they were all public school students, many of whom were scientifically inclined one of them Siruel Dom is now a fellow of the Royal academy of scientists, and he is a leading physicists and he dealt with them and he dealt with all their questions, that were raised that they felt we were raised by science, because certainly science has replaced what Aristotelian philosophy was for Maimonides science is for questioning educated Jewish and observant Jewish use today, and he tried to answer that questions, one of the things that Rabbi Dessler emphasize and I have talked to many of the students in the course of writing this book, many of whom went on to scientific careers is that he said never make never forget don't believe that the scientists is some how objective, because he has his great method the scientific method the method may be objective, and the method may be valid, and it testing of hypothesis and the data in terms of hypothesis and retesting and so forth and reformulating, there is nothing wrong with the scientific method, but don't be confuse science with the scientists, or take every pronouncement that comes out of a scientists mouth as if it is the definite word of science which is as we will see and talk about a little more is that that is one of the things that the Darwinians the proponents in neo Darwinian theory and so forth claim that mantle of being all knowing about all things, it is interesting and rabbi Joseph [0:37:00] ____ said mostly knowledge makes people arrogant, the study of torah is supposed to make people modest, the study of torah is inherently an active submission it's an act of lessening one self first in relation to previous generations, every generation before ours is always looked at the generation that's closer, to the giving of torah at Sinai. We are, further we move from this central revelation, in and the one thing that's absolutely forbidden in Talmudic debate, is to say, well, may be they made a mistake, even where they debate amongst themselves to say well, this one just made a mistake, or if I can't understand one of the commentaries from 800 years ago, to say, well, this doesn't make any sense and therefore he is wrong, and I am right, you always start you always start with that active submission, one time - one of the great contemporary rabbis Aharon Cutler gave a celebratory meal after he solve the problem and a commentator was only 200 years in advance of him, and at the celebratory meal, he said the only reason that I was worthy and privileged to ever solving and explaining what he meant and how he made this comment was not once in the 25 years that I worked on it, - that I ever think that the problem lay with rabbi [0:38:28] ____ I knew the problem lay with me and with my understanding. The sense of humility with respect to the tradition which is being interested in past and on to you, that is some thing which is too frequently lacking from science today - from scientists not science but scientists rabbi Dessler in a characteristic passion passage and the type of message that he passed on to his children, go straight to the issue of scientific bias and I think we will see how, that has implications for the debates which are ranging around evolutionary theory as well. He invites the students, think of a person who by the power of his intellect alone wants to reexamine some fundamental problem, such as whether the world was created for a purpose, let us assume that that person possess a keen intellect is well educated and well formed, so as far as his character is concerned, however he is pretty average, he has never seriously tackled his moral findings, now let us say that we were talking about a very comprehensive problem, solution - the solution of which will determine whether he will be obliged to struggle constantly with his basic desires, or whether he will live with no restrains on his desires apart from those he tends to place up on them. Can we seriously believe that he will arrive at a true conclusion merely by the exercise of his intellectual powers, in other words can we seriously believe that the exercise of his intellectual powers will not be guided by his desire to live in a world in which, there is no moral authority, he is not forced to struggle against his basic desires. That's not a small question. And in so far is that is implicated in the scientific work that he is doing, do we have to take him at his face value that he is an unbiased, an unbiased provider. William Provine who is a historian of science at Cornell provides a pretty good example of the scientist the theoretical scientist or person to being described by Rabbi Dessler. Writing about evolution, he writes second modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws. That's his conclusion, that and I think perhaps the best treatment of this or the best with which I am familiar is that of Philip Johnson who makes no bones about it. Sometimes there are those who tend to blur the implications of Darwinian Theory and they say well, Darwinian Theory is dealing with one realm, the physically created world and religion deals with another realm which is removed from that they don't clash because they are not dealing in a parallel universe. And Johnson shows that what degree that may be an artful treatment by some scientists, who don't want to raise religious objections, they don't want people to question their work. In some way it is an artful technique so that people don't question the authority of the scientist to defer criticisms. They say now we are dealing with different realms, that deals with moral realms, but in their realm they are claiming a degree of knowledge and a degree with implications. Here Provine is much more forthright. We in Israel appreciate the people who are forthright, who say exactly what's on their agenda. We have been very blessed with the Hamas movement at least one sense who Hamas has been good enough to tell us that they aim to destroy us and thank God that they are very honest even when they have been given all kinds of rewards and offer rewards to simply say they don't intend to wipe out the Jewish state, they continue to say, "But we do intend to wipe out the Jewish state. That is our goal and we will not amend their government" and will say it again in case you didn't hear it the first time. I mentioned on the radio this morning I was delighted when the British Journalist the Union voted to boycott Israel, since now at least they won't be able to claim that we have no bias, we have no dogging this fight there; that we don't have any bias in our reporting of what's going on in Israel. Very good, let them vote to boycott Israel, let them single out Israel from every other country in the world as the worst violator of human rights anywhere and vote that journalists who are supposed to be objective and unbiased, let them indicate their biases as clearly as possible. So Provine here I am very grateful to say, this is the implication that we find in this work that there are no moral or ethical rules because the world that we know can be explained completely by mechanistic rules. Now here is what I think by the way that Natan Slifkin made a serious mistake. I think he was too credulous in his attempts to reconcile science and Torah and show that there are no inherent conflicts. I think first of all he took the science and this is one of the criticisms that was raised. You take the science as a given, you take it as something that can't be questioned. If there is a consensus of scientific opinion on something then that is the given and we have to somehow match the Torah to the science which those who were critical of him saw that as dangerous, but I think he was too credulous with respect to the science. He himself his own record in this Wall Street Journal article dismissing the idea of intelligent design, he says, "Well I think it's even minimizes God, it creates God in the gaps." I think that's an unfair criticism. I don't think he really really understands fully the science that's involved he was too quick to accept an apparent scientific consensus. I think religious believers in general shouldn't be too quick to give up with a belief. You should understand that until 50 years ago, from the time of Aristotle until 50 years ago, it was absolute scientific consensus unanimity on the point of view of the eternity of the universe; which is if you want to take something that was fundamentally irreconcilable to religion is the idea of eternity of the universe; which was an antithesis of creation - ex nihilo, the creation from nothing, which is the biblical kind of genesis. If one thing that genesis is certainly telling us is that god created the world and he created it from nothing. It's from that creation by the way that Maimonides for instance prove that Incorporeal in some of his reinterpretation of biblical verses, some of which refer to parts of god you know, as if he had a hand, there were an outstretched arm and so forth and so on. He says these are all metaphors. How do I know they are metaphors, because that Torah tells us that god created ex nihilo; that means he was not on a par with that which was created; the creator was fundamentally different than the create they created it, because otherwise you just get another question well, who created God. And that which is I mean you have to be an idiot to answer that question, now Richard Dawkins does ask that question and thinks he is very smart. But that's that idea of the creation form nothing. Until 50 years ago there was an absolute consensus which was irreconcilable to the view of the Torah and the view of every other revealed religion. Until first there was hypothesis of the big bang and then there was a scientific evidence by two scientists working at the Bell Labs who came up with the you know, who discovered the radioactive emissions which were evidence of that original big bang and then there was empirical evidence to support the big the theory of creation. Now interestingly here you see a classic example of how scientific bias can affect the very greatest of scientists. I don't think anyone would deny that the greatest scientist of the 20th century with the possible exception of Newton, the greatest scientist of all time was Albert Einstein. I mean in 1906 he produced, in one year, three papers each one of which was seminal, not just the he should have won the Nobel Prize for all three of them. He didn't even win it for the theory of relativity. But in one year he produced works which transforms science in at least three different areas. He was the greatest scientist. When confronted with the big bang theory, Einstein was first unwilling to accept it and he made in his attempt to disprove it, made elementary arithmetic mistakes not complicated mathematics. Arithmetic mistakes then published in opposition of the big bang theory this his reputation. Even a scientist is great as Albert Einstein when something went against his received notions and his understanding of the world was he could be led into fundamental you know; into the basic arithmetic mistakes. We are not lacking we are not lacking today and I think that of examples of where scientific consensus or where people consider to be the scientific consensus. I mean a lot of things that we are presented with today as consensus everybody believes that global warming is generated by human produced carbon dioxides. I mean usually they say; everybody believes in global warming. Well, you know, it's the monster pull over the last 100 years that there has been a slight increase in average temperatures around the globe where you go from there and what it's causation is, is another matter. But everybody believes often means that the scientists have managed to convince The New York Times that this is the case and it's the end of debate. For the last 100 years for instance, there was consensus among all the better people the enlightened intelligence here, Freudianism held sway absolute sway over western intellectuals. Today, as one of my friends, my college roommate now a psychoanalyst said to me if if Freud were gross stock I don't think I would buy it. You find very few therapies you may find insights from Freud used in therapies, but you will find no therapies which are based you know you don't find any attempts to empirically use scientific method to prove to prove Freud or you find increasingly therapies all moved away from models based on Freud. I am just giving you an example something which everybody knew or which was so widely accepted which today it no longer enjoys anything near that preeminence in pantheon of ideas that it once did. So I think that that's important. It's also important to understand how widespread how widespread and we will talk about this specific case of evolution; but how wide spread is this attempt to close down debate among scientists; distinctly unscientific behavior because if there is one thing should characterize science it's the openness to debate and counterevidence. I mean Thomas Kuhn in his structure of scientific revolution points out, millions of desperate facts can be raised and until an alternate theory comes apart people will continue to hold to the existent theory until another paradigm presents itself no matter how many divergent facts there are. That's how new paradigms come into existence, even when until but until that paradigm comes into existence, the theory is held on to with a great degree of determination. I am sort of reminded by a statement by a character in one Tom Stoppard Play who says "if a person is bright enough you can convince him of about anything." And to some extent I would say that this applies as well to the questions that are raised by about the evolutionary theory the neo-Darwinian hypothesis. As David Brodzinsky who is a fellow of the Discovery Institute wrote in one of his in one of his incredible articles in commentary; he said "The evolutionists would like you to think that everything is agreed upon, everything is understood, it's only when you turn out the lights that you find out they became rather feral with respect to one another. When the lights are out and they think nobody is looking then they really go after each other. I mean everybody knows the leading popularize of our time of evolutionary theories; besides Dawkins, Steven Gould but Steven Gould is anathema or was anathema in his life time too; many a leading evolutionists because he broke completely on one central point; Darwin said if you give me cell patients if you give me major changes in the structures and major changes not the accumulation of slight changes over a period of time, that's a refutation of my theory. Gould said you can't get away from it. The fossil record dictates that and he came up with all kinds of theories and many others who confronted with problems in evolutionary theory great scientists, leading scientists, said the mathematics is impossible, so therefore we have to believe in the cell patients which Darwin himself said were would be fundamentally irreconcilable, with his his theory. You find many cases in which the degree of consensus is indicated but it's not really there. One of the things that commentary talked about not so long ago on issue of global warming, how did the Danish Academy of Sciences react to Bjorn Lonberg, somebody who published a study, in which he said, whatever impact whatever the impact of human produced carbon dioxides on the global warming, the efforts to remove that would be so catastrophic and economically with the money that it would cost you could cure all the malaria in the world, you could you know, there was no there was no consideration of what are the economic trade ups and how that money might be spend and what are the things that could be done; you have only the most catastrophic presentation and every thing the oceans will rise 14 feet sweeping all the before them and the world will enter into a new flood, instead of an attempt to anybody who raises, there was an attempt to silence him. The attempt wasn't to debate him; the attempt was to silence him. There was not an attempt because and there is in this debate as in so many any others a heavy ideological component. It's interesting how often you see people who are the most catastrophic with respect to global warming, like they once were with respect to population explosion. I mean don't forget there was a book everybody read in 1968 called the Population Bomb and everybody billions of people would die in America, not just in the world, in America, would be dead by 1980's sort of mass starvation because population was growing too quickly, nothing like that ever happened All Darwinians theory is based on Malthus, and Malthus has been refuted for over a150 years. I mean these things and but there was always a bias in there. The bias was people are bad, people are screwing up the world, the world would be a fine place if they would just get rid of the people, if we would just impose stricter limits on population control, get rid of Catholics, get rid of Orthodox Jews, take care of all these take care of all these relegate groups and get rid of all the people, the world would be fine. And then also in addition there is also another nice benefit because once you have such a catastrophe on our sight then all those who really don't believe in democratic government and realize that in a catastrophic situation you have to turn over rule to the better educated, the elite, those who understand the real problem and know what to solve. So now the scientists become the demigod. He is not just telling you a particular theory; he is now the person you have to turn to what is the solution to our problem. Tell us what the solution to the problem is. You have turned by the emphasis on that's another way in which scientific bias comes into the equation, by the the desire of the scientists to turn himself into the repository of knowledge, not only the not only the repository of identifying a particular process, but now I will have the solution, you have to turn to me for the solution. Regulation is necessary, the populist cannot be trusted to figure out how we can confront this the the catastrophe confronting us is too great. We have to impose a solution from above. And and in which process the scientist will always be at the supreme, the top person. Another one of the ideological biases which as Provine already mentioned, is the desire to portray man as indistinct, is absolutely indistinct from the animals. I mean that is what Simpson is saying when he says he is a product of an evolutionary process, a mechanistic process, which do not have in mind, man is one product, the animals are another product. Among those who the most the devotees of evolutionary theory, they always want to expand it into ever new realms, socio-biology, evolutionary biology, whatever you want to call it, is always this hostility to man the idea that man is different. Peter Singer who has written articles, published recently in the Jerusalem Post, an article in which he argued that he can prove all religious belief, all moral belief is also an evolutionary adaptation. And how do you prove that? Well if you ask people around the world if you ask people around the world, if you have a choice between saving a baby from falling over the Niagara Falls, but you might get your pants wet what would you do, and amazing that 90 percent of the people in the world think that it will be worthy to get your pants wet rather than that the baby go over Niagara Falls. So that degree of consensus demonstrates that there is only one possible explanation for that, which is that there must be some evolutionary reason behind that, so you see that all our moral beliefs are evolutionary. That is what passes and this is seriously I mean Peter Singer is an endowed chair in ethics at at Princeton, he has written in conjunction with a Harvard professor; this is what passes through science. These are if you can find a consensus on this question, he asked they only asked three questions. And this questions that you have demonstrated that people think alike and if people think alike, there can be only one explanation. That explanation must be that it's a product of an evolutionary process. So, if he is a product of evolutionary process he is just another animal, which has a number of implications. First of all I mean Singer takes it to the extreme, he says all our prescriptions on bestiality should be done away with, he hasn't quiet worked out the consent problem with respect to the animal partner. But yeah I don't even know if he recognizes that as a problem; but but he is a fanatic on animal rights. On the other hand on the other hand, he says among the views if you ask me what views will no longer have any place in the intellectual horizon in 25 years, he told the New York Times, one of them I would say the idea of the sanctity of human life. And in fact he has lectured frequently and he is enthusiastic proponent of euthanasia, of you know, persons not right but duty to shuffle off this mortal coil when he gets to 70 years old, that he might be using up too much of the resources. This idea that man is just another animal. That's the that's what that in the example that Rabbi Dessler gives that's what we are talking about. Somebody who says there is no reason to try and control my basal impulses because all these impulses, whether good or bad, altruistic or not, they are all evolutionary they are product of an evolutionary process and I am not forced to struggle with this. After all animals do everything by instinct. Whatever I am doing is a reflection of my instinct. I look a little bit different but that only gives me a certain greater ability to solve my needs or to create new needs and to find new ways of satisfying those needs. But it doesn't make me fundamentally different than an animal. This is also and this is as I said before implicating all the socio biological thinking which people who are basing themselves on Darwin that the genes I mean this is an amazing theory. Sometimes you just have to sit back and listen to the evolutionist talk with idea of commonsense. I mean this is one of the things that Philip Johnson did in his book "Darwin on Trial". He says I am not a scientist, I am a professor of law; I am actually a Professor of Evidence. My study is the study of argument, to try and figure out how arguments are made and to find out how they are credible. And sometimes if you just listen with a commonsensical view I mean there is an Australian philosopher by the name of David Stove who wrote a book called "Darwinian Fairytales", which is mostly a refutation of Dawkins and Dawkins discussion of socio biology. According to Dawkins, the whole world is based genes seek to and as E.O. Wilson at Harvard, genes seek to propagate themselves. Every genetic means the real secret of the universe is the genes seeking to create other genes to propagate themselves further. And every time that you see in human life it's just an example of that. So one scientist predicted he predicted that if a person could save two half relatives who shared his gene pool, in that case he might give up his own life because it would have a net advantage for his gene pool. But not in the terms of further removed relatives. About which Stove said, "I don't really believe this for a very simple reason, I am not an idiot", because as any proposition ever been advanced which is so more readily capable of empirical refutation, throughout history, people have given up their lives for those who have shared no common gene pool and there are many people who have refused to give up their lives for two people who may share half of their gene pool or three people who may share half of their gene pool. If this theory were correct, incest would be almost a would be mandated by almost every human society and it's taboo in every known human society, because nothing would further the development of a particular gene pool. As he says "they in their place in their eagerness to remove God, I mean Dawkins has famously said "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." But they have turned the genes into the new Gods. Genes never disappear, they always go on, they propagate themselves, they find new ways of going on like Dawkins talk and they are imbued with a degree of intelligence and intention which no the greatest engineer is not imbued with. And further whether it's Dawkins describes, a certain cuckoo bird which plants an egg in another bird's nest which that bird thinks as it's own egg and then sits upon it and it uses the other bird to warm it's eggs. What a clever way to advance its own gene pool? It has discovered a means of disguising its egg and getting another bird to lay on it, I mean who would ever be able to come up with it. But the genes are all knowing, all powerful, all thinking and they can do every thing. There is an element that they they are giving all the intention with God, there is no intelligent designer, there is no manifestation of design in the world, but the genes, they can plant out the they can go on. I would like to express basically there is a then there is a question the final question is really a question of burden of proof. Lets say we have two theories, one of the theory is that random random mutation is responsible for the universe. And it's this is where Johnson makes his single contribution. He points out that the rhetorical device frequently resorted to by Darwinians is well you know what, if random mutation is not the mechanism, what is. So you say "I don't know". So they say, so we can't allow any mechanisms that we can't allow into the discussion any divine intervention, we can't define a planner or a design because that's not scientific, we can't prove god scientifically, we can't measure him scientifically. He is as Maimonidian said, "incorporeal we can't he will not turn up on any of our sensory devices, so that's not admissible". So since you can't come up with an alternative, then evolutionary theory must be true. Then which was excluded at the beginning of the argument, or prior he excluded because it's non scientific, he is now broad backing his as disapprove at the end of the end of the argument. The fact in the matter is at least my sense of it as a religious believing person is it's quite enough that the currently expressed Darwinian Darwinian hypothesis is eminently deniable. Certainly it's conclusions are eminently deniable and in two respects. First of all even if you grand every thing that they claim, then one major problem. All Darwin ever does at the best is explain the proliferation of life forms after organic life exists. But it can't explain the origin of life. I mean even this the most fundamental living thing as a single cell makes a space ship look like it's a technological marvel compared to the most advanced space ship. Where did they ever come from? Where did the first organic life come from how did it ever rise and what is the mechanism which neo Darwinian theory is it's improvement and Darwin is we now know about DNA, we now know where mutations come from. We now know that mutations do occur in genetic coding they don't occur very frequently but they do occur. How did something so complex as DNA how did it come into existence and there is no remember here in George Gilder's point of it as there is no relationship between the chemical composition of DNA and it's purpose. No relationship between, just to identify a couple of amino acids and the way that it works as a coding device. How could that have come into existence and with this ability to code and transmit itself and to mutate and whatever it does and passes on from generations to generations how did that come into existence. And then there is absolutely no answer from any scientists, there is a lot of humming in the hind, but to give you an example of how far it goes. Dawkins himself says well "that's a problem so and Steven Weinberg a Nobel prize winner and an admirable scientist in many way, somebody who refuse to go to Britain in response to the academic boycott of Israeli institutions but Steven Weinberg he says "well, there is millions of parallel universes so we can't really say that there is no place else that something like this has occurred may be it did occur, Dawkin says "you know, if you lived a 100 million years sitting at the bridgetable and seeing everybody dealt 13 cards of the same suit would not seem as real". Well if you do the mathematical calculations you would still have several billion years to live before you would see anything like that trillions of years before you would see anything like that mathematically but you know, they give up answers which simply are not answers we have no clue. So if in this area you have no clue, I think won two Nobel prizes said it's absolutely inexplicable and therefore it must have arrived for a outer space. It came on a space ship from outer space and these are the kinds of answers which are argued by those who only rely on empirical evidence. And I don't and obviously considerably brighter than Jonathan Rosenblum doesn't even seem to appreciate that having a ride from outer space is hardly in solution to the problem because you would also like to know, how did you get on that space ship and get here in the first place. and this is when you see the fumbling, when you see where they are tripping over themselves and answers, Dawkins says nothing with respect this other than to say many possibly millions of parallel universes. Isn't everybody is talking about Dawkins recognizes this. So the here is where I think that the Discovery Institute has made a signal contribution in bringing out first of all the biases that have been shown throughout the Jonathan Well's book "icons of evolution" which discusses in great detail ten of the most frequently raised proofs of evolution and how all ten of them are known to be faulty and some of them are known to be absolute fabrications. The developmental, the embryos of hackle who Bruce plan out to me from lunch was also a leading Nazi theorist or leading Nazi racist theorist or progenitor of Nazi racist theory were simply total fabrications and that they continued to be presented in biology text which are taught around the world as if they were proofs the the mass were probably place there and so forth and so we all know that the examples from high school biology and this continued to be taught long after they have been conclusively refuted and shown to be falsification. So you see the bias that's here in the process, and you also see the major you know, the major arguments that once had occurred to anybody. In a book I just read on a plane over "Not By Chance" which I hardly recommend to you by Dr. Lee Spetner an orthodox Jew of PhD from MIT, person who has worked in information sciences whole life and bases much of his refutation and the incapacity if I know how if I know examples of where DNA results and added information to the cell and then that's passed but above that does a mathematical calculations. If you assume that it's about one in 10 billion the genetic codes are areas that are making the codes and the mutations and then you will assume which is already agreed by the Darwinians that any given mutations if chance of survival in a given population is by .003 and then you assume that to move from one species to another like in the differences in the various rigid answers that of course that you have about 500 distinct steps that each one of these steps, you would have to multiply that process of spreading a gene throughout the population by which had a one in 10 billion chance of happening and then that change at a .003 percent of finding this way and to the rest of the population then that had to be multiplied by itself 500 times and so forth and so on. If you take all those together the whole thing is mathematically impossible. You have to introduce some other element. If you think that the process was random the mathematics don't work out, the world hasn't the universe didn't require any calculation as it existed the allowed amount of time. If you look at some of the things, I mean some of the things are commonsensical which I thought in the beginning if we take a blow fish and it has a poison and it has a delivering system, both of which are marvelous of technology. The deadly poison it has and the technological system. How do they become congruent in the same fish? Neither one of them according to evolutionary theory would have had any adaptive value. These are just commonsense examples, the eye, the human eye the avian wing, hemoglobin, these are all examples that he brings the blow fish I don't know if it's his example or my example but this things can be congruent each one of which by itself has no independent adaptive advantage, so what are they left to do. They are left to make up stories Well, it really probably did serve some other purpose anyway just lying the adornment until the poison could come along and then presto it all worked out so well and then they came together but each one but if you pass it 500 different changes, each one of them had an advantage that would just lay there and spread through out the population. Each one of these changes is such an advantage that if you talk about a wolf became a whale. Wolf became a whale because at some point it became better to be able to live in the sea than to live on the land. But we are talking about a process that according to their own account would have taken billions of years along the step, may be the conditions that made it better to live in the sea were no longer applicable by that time it's not like you had to wait to get there unless you imply some intension in this process or some overall purpose, it's just it's almost mind boggling and how nonsensical it is to think that this was all generated randomly that each one of these parts fit together so perfectly and so complexly that life came into existence. Here and that's enough as far as I am concerned to supply an alternative explanation to tell you exactly what the mechanism, that's not my that's not my brief. My brief is you want to say "God is no place in this, you have solved all the riddles" the burden of proof lies upon you. You want to claim that science is answer to all things. The burden of proof is on you and than God for the Discovery Institute has made clear that that burden is by no means born and it's been supported by a lot and great deal which is not scientific forms of argument which evade the scientific questions and so forth and so on and presented as if consensus have been formed where no consensus exist which reflects by us to treating ourselves as beings who are subjected to know ethical or moral restraints the treaty in ourselves is nothing more than more intelligent animals but having no more restrictions placed upon us and intelligent animals to placing ourselves in a world in which God doesn't exist and in the absence of God that the scientist who explains more and more things is the new God who is entitled to rule over everybody else. I just want to express my gratitude to Discovery Institute to make it Darwin sufficiently deniable and I think more than sufficiently deniable and they worked hard upon this to point out how far we are from any theory which gives an account of a purely mechanistic universe in which there is no direction, no design, no creation. Thank you very much.