The influence of evolution on the strength of faith

You are of course right that truth is above all else.
As for the matter, I read it several times and really didn't understand.
After all, evolution is a completely logical system that is built into objective reality, which takes a simple cell and perfects it. Although there are strict conditions to enter this system, these conditions are the same conditions that allow life + the first cell. Evolution turns the possibility of life (and the cell) into a sophisticated animal, turns a possibility into a reality and this is logical (I don't mean logical in the conventional sense, but necessary on its own).
In other words, to enter the evolutionary system, all you need is the possibility of life + the first cell. So it's not clear to me how the length of the process strengthens b. After all, it's enough for God to know what conditions allow life (fine tuning), and to know how to create the first living cell, and automatically a human being will emerge from this in an evolutionary process after billions of years.
What is not true is that someone who knows how to fine-tune life and create the first cell is not guaranteed to also know how to create a human body all at once.
Maybe I missed something? Maybe for evolution we need more possibilities for life and a first living cell?

You definitely missed it. Do you think abiogenesis and evolution are synonymous? So what is abiogenesis being studied now?
For example, heredity is required for evolution but not for abiogenesis (because there are no replicating creatures there yet). Even if a primary chain were created, it would not have evolved if there were no natural laws that allow it.

I understand. Thank you very much, Your Honor.
Do you think the ”gain” in evolution is greater than the ”loss”?

If you have already addressed this, then I will explain what I have not understood for a long time.
In the parable of the drunkard, Gold showed that sometimes external constraints cause a predetermined result, and the rabbi said that it is the one that gives – The external constraints are the laws of nature and they were enacted by G-d.
However, the rabbi did not address the fact that the main law in evolution is natural selection, which is a teleological law, so although there are several laws that must exist for evolution to be possible, within the framework of these laws it is a matter of random behavior, the ”wall” that leads the drunkard to his place in Gold's parable is natural selection, and the rabbi also admits that G-d did not establish the laws of logic, so they are a necessity of reality.

Yosef, in my opinion the gain is significantly greater than the loss.

Danny, not true. First, it is not a teleological law. Lamarckism is teleological. Evolution is causal (it has a result that is teleological). Second, natural selection is only one of three components required for the evolutionary process. There is also the formation of mutations and genetics. I explained this in the article on evolution here on the site and in my book (and I think in the third notebook as well).

Back to the substance of your discussion.
If I already *know* that there is a God, and now I am faced with two possible ways in which He created man: A. Directly, like a sculptor sculpting. B. By enacting laws that lead from a singular point to man, then clearly if He chose path B, it shows greater intelligence on the part of the designer than if He had chosen path A.
But is this necessarily also true regarding the strength of the conclusion about the existence of such a creator? Does a path of creation that seems more “difficult” make the conclusion about the existence of God stronger and more plausible? It sounds a bit strange from a logical perspective.

Wow, Danny, it's interesting what you say, I think I agree with you.
It can be presented this way:
Before evolution, the probability of God's existence is 90%, and His intelligence is at level 8.
After evolution, the probability of God's existence is 80% (because the miracle of the first cell's perfection within the laws was removed), and His intelligence is at level 9 (because He managed to build a system of laws that would lead to a singular point for man).
The numbers are for illustration purposes only, of course.
Evolution slightly lowered God's probability, but greatly increased His intelligence.
And perhaps the Rabbi also meant His intelligence and not His eyesight.

Danny,
If there are laws that lead to man over a period of 14 billion years, this clearly indicates the existence of a Creator. It is difficult to quantify to what extent, but the feeling is that creation from nothing by chance could accidentally lead to man, but a long process that progresses consistently over a long period of time indicates more strongly a Creator.

Hello Rabbi.
A. But this is exactly what we agreed on above, that the laws cannot be considered as: “leading to man in a 14 billion year process”, because they should only lead to a simple chain (where the wonder really grows compared to creation in a moment), and from there evolution plays the entire role, and in the end 100% that man will emerge.
B. And besides, why does the length of the process strengthen the conclusion that there is a Creator? If the process had been 20 billion years long, would the Rabbi have concluded more strongly that there is a Creator? Of course it is a process and not all at once, but it is strange that the longer it takes, the stronger the conclusion.
C. Can you explain what the feeling is based on that a long and consistent process indicates a Creator more strongly?

I would appreciate a response to the three points, thank you Rabbi.

A. I don't know what we agreed on above (the slow pace and the gaps make it difficult for me to follow and remember). I didn't understand your argument.
B. The longer the process, the more it could deviate in other directions. If it remains focused on its goal, then it is clearer that there is a deliberate hand. You need to distinguish between the length of a process that allows for more random experiments that happen to hit the target, in which case the length weakens the argument, and the length of a deterministic process, in which case it is clearer that it is premeditated.
Think about the action plan of some secret anti-Israel group. If you see something happening that harms the State of Israel, there is no indication that it is the result of its actions. But if you see a long process that consistently and focusedly leads to such harm, this is an indication that it is a plan of such a group. The longer the process - the better the indication (because the first steps take on meaning in light of the result obtained in the end).

But this discussion seems completely unnecessary to me. What does it matter what weakens and what strengthens the evidence. The question is whether or not there is evidence, and that's it. It's a waste of all of our time with this nonsense.

Sorry for bothering you, Your Honor, I'll try one last time, even if I don't understand what you're saying, I won't respond here anymore.
There is a “logical reality” that given a single protein chain and fine-tuning, a genius is automatically created after billions of years. My question is why the argument from complexity is always presented in this way: “How many sets of rules will lead from a singular point to a human being?” Apparently, there is a deception of the reader here, after all, the sets of rules are divided into only two types:
1. A set of rules that does not create anything, not even a protein chain.
2. A set of rules that creates a human being with a huge brain (even if he looked different from us, with 4 arms, etc.) after billions of years.

There is no set of rules that will create only a protein chain, because evolution will automatically turn the chain into a human being after billions of years.
So a fairer formulation of the view from complexity should be: “How many sets of rules will lead from a singular point to a protein chain”.
The presentation that there is added value in creating a human being seems misleading.
Thanks for everything.

Hello Yosef.
Above I already explained that the laws responsible for the formation of the first protein chain (abiogenesis) are not the laws responsible for evolution (for example, heredity-genetics belongs to the second set and not the first).
Indeed, evolution will inevitably turn this chain into a genius, but that is exactly what I am asking: Who is responsible for the laws of evolution that do this?
In other words, the sets of laws are divided into three:
1. Those that do not create anything.
2. Those that create a protein chain and stop.
3. Those that create a protein chain and continue.

[Sorry I'm going beyond what I wrote and won't respond anymore, I just can't 🙂 ]
Wow, I probably didn't understand until the end (I didn't know there was a 2nd option).
I didn't understand how there could be laws that create a protein chain that has the ability to replicate, and can't make it turn into a human? After all, once there is a protein chain that has the ability to replicate, nothing more is needed to get to a human, because the fine tuning is also needed for the first chain.
And a set of rules that does abiogenesis, means a set of rules that creates a cell that can replicate = a cell that changes its coding slightly with each replication (and there is evolution anyway).
In other words: a set of rules that creates a protein chain, means a set of rules that contain the laws of genetics and the Torah, I don't understand how there is a cell that can replicate without the laws of heredity, my dear.
Ugh… core studies…

We're going back to something I wrote a long time ago. Why didn't you ask there? You assume that the basic laws of nature govern both abiogenesis and evolution, and they don't. On the way to abiogenesis, heredity is not needed (because the first protein chain did not use heredity to form). Of course, if you say that heredity is a necessary result of physics and chemistry - fine. But there is currently no clear information about this (this is the question of the reduction of biology and chemistry to physics). The existence of a cell that can replicate does not require heredity. The actual replication requires it. For example, there may be a person who has the strength to lift 100 kg, but there is no 100 kg weight in the world for him to realize this.

Sorry Rabbi 🙁 .
To summarize what is already clear to me, then there are: A. Physics and chemistry. B. Abiogenesis mechanisms. C. Heredity that requires evolution.
I just didn't understand what it means to have a cell that can replicate if there were no heredity? So how does it replicate? And if it doesn't replicate, then there is no cell that can replicate here, only a living cell.

I explained, didn't I?
A person who has the strength to lift 100 kg, but there is nothing in the world that weighs 100 kg. Does he have the strength or not? So a protein chain that has the potential to replicate if there are laws of heredity in its environment. Now put such a chain in a world where there are no such laws but other laws, then it will not replicate. A body with mass has the ability to fall down, but if you put it in space (when there is no other mass pulling with it) or in another universe where there is no law of gravity, it will not fall. Does this mean that it does not have the ability to fall in the presence of another mass in our universe? That's all. Not very complicated.

I understand that. But I don't understand how the analogy to the laws of heredity is possible. What are the laws of heredity? They are not laws at all. All you need is an object that can be replicated (a protein chain).
It's like saying that there is a printer that can print but you still need the “laws of printing” for it to work. Really strange.

Why do you think? The laws of heredity are laws like any other law. Even a printer needs our laws of nature for it to print. In another world with other laws it wouldn't print anything.
Think about it and you'll see that it's extremely simple.

It is clear that heredity and the printer need rules, but my feeling is that these rules are necessary for the very existence of a printer, and for the very existence of a protein chain, so that there is nothing in heredity beyond fine tuning, and there is no possibility of a system of rules that creates a protein chain capable of replication, without it reaching a person, but that is probably due to my great ignorance.
I will try to think, thank you, I have no words to thank you.

I found a refutation of the previous rabbis' statements.
The rabbi wrote: “After evolution, there is a million-fold miracle of how there is a system of laws that takes a concentrated point of matter and passes it through billions of years of an incredibly complex process and it arrives exactly where it was originally supposed to be”.
But this is an a posteriori claim and the desired assumption, since before we conclude that there is a God, it is not possible to say a sentence like: “To where it was originally supposed to be”, because there is no “original” before we conclude that there is a God, and therefore this argument can only strengthen the wisdom of God and not His very existence.
The rabbi also wrote: “The longer the process, the more it could deviate in other directions,” but this too fails in the same way, because evolution must ultimately lead to a sophisticated brain, even if not necessarily to a person with two hands, etc. Any product that was created in the evolutionary process (a flying horse with a pink horn and a brain) would be considered by us to be “not where it should have been.”

I answered that in my notebook and in the book. In short, my answer is incorrect:
1. Not every set of laws will create a complicated and complex being. Absolutely not. Only a completely negligible number of systems will do so.
2. The uniqueness of life is objective and not just in our eyes. Their entropy is low, and this is an objective characteristic that can be calculated.
Therefore, none of this has anything to do with belief in God. This is a conclusion from the argument, not its premise.

Sorry, the Rabbi didn't understand me.
I'm talking about the claim that the laws show more strongly the existence of God compared to a one-time creation, because according to you: “They get to where they needed to be from the beginning”, and I argue that it is not appropriate to say “from the beginning” here, because we must first know what the Creator's ultimate goal was in order to conclude that they got to where they needed to be, but here we have not yet concluded about His very existence, and we come to conclude about His existence from the wonder that the laws did indeed get to where they needed to be, but how do we know that He planned to get to a man with a brain and not a horse with a horn and a brain?

I understood you and that's exactly what I answered. You see that there is a special result for a long and complex process. The obvious conclusion is that this result was the goal of the process from the beginning and if so, there is someone who built all of this to reach it.

Ugh, I still haven't been able to understand.
Maybe the Rabbi can explain this using the example of the printer? How can a printer have the ability to print and still not print because the "printing laws" don't exist in reality? What are the "printing laws"?

And here is the gist of the laws of printing:
1. When ink is thrown onto paper, it is absorbed there and maintains its shape.
2. When the printer moves, it does not continue to move in the same direction all the time, but returns line by line to the beginning of the line. (That is, when it encounters a stop, it does stop and does not penetrate through it)
3. When the switch is turned on, an electric field is created.
4. When there is an electric field, it causes the mechanism to move.
….

A printer who dares to break the rules will be arrested and severely punished. (Didn't we agree that this is already exhausted?)

Well, I probably won't understand.
Because all these things are already included in the printer, that's exactly what the sentence means: the printer has the ability to replicate, the same goes for the protein chain.
All the best, thank you, and sorry.