Science and faith

Hello.
1. Sounds reasonable. This is a possible formulation of the physico-theological evidence. See my website in the third and fourth notebooks.
2. This is nonsense, of course. For there to be an evolutionary process, mutations and inheritance processes are required. This does not exist in cars and rooms, of course.
3. Again you ignore data that clearly shows that there is evolution. See the books God Plays Dice.

I quickly went through the link you sent and it contains quite a few errors, and a lot of unnecessary arguments that are stated in a decisive manner without any real coverage.
In general, I say that it is wrong and unreasonable to attack evolution in order to confirm faith. If evolution is a good scientific theory, then it should be accepted. If not, then it should be attacked scientifically, regardless of faith. In any case, scientific knowledge is required for this. In my book, I make sure to show that even if evolution is embraced out of hand, it has no bearing on faith. If anything, it only strengthens it.

Good afternoon
———————-
Asks:
Thank you for your response, Dr. Abraham.

Regarding 1. This is definitely proof in a way that negates the existence of a designer for the world.

2. I’m not talking about an evolutionary process specifically, but about an ordinary car. According to evolution, man’s ancestor was bacterium-like. Since, according to evolution, a bacterium gradually evolved into man, and since man in turn created a car, according to evolution, a car evolved in a chain of natural processes, the beginning of which was a bacterium.

3. I read your book quite a while ago (several years ago). I think you talked about the process of creating new species. But even devout creationists accept that. What they don’t accept is the creation of new families of creatures. For example, like the transition from a dog to a cat or a monkey to a human. What we do see in nature are new species of flies or dogs or bacteria. But the bacteria and the dog and the fly remained bacteria, dog and fly, and did not evolve into something else. Therefore, this is not evolution. In fact, even supporters of evolution admit that a transition of this kind requires millions of years and therefore cannot be examined. They claim that over millions of years, small changes can accumulate into large changes. However, there is a serious problem here: Suppose we had a car with the characteristics of a living creature: that is, with the ability to reproduce and occasionally pass on errors to its car descendants. Is it possible to believe that over millions of years, that car could eventually turn into an airplane? The answer is of course no, because the transition from a car to an airplane requires coordinated changes all at once. An airplane engine, for example, is very different from a car engine. Therefore, it is not possible to gradually transition from an engine compatible with a car to one compatible with an airplane. If such a transition is not possible, why should it be possible in the living world?
———————-
Rabbi:

​2. I didn’t understand. How does all this happen without inheritance? And actually how do you compare a process with inheritance to a process without inheritance. When a person creates a car, it is not through an inheritance process. It seems to me to be a play on words.
3. Many have already discussed this too. There are intermediate stages and there are different models that show possible development without coordination. But as mentioned, I have no interest in entering into a defense or attack on evolution because it is an internal scientific matter. It has no theological implications.

———————-
Asks:
Regarding 2. Imagine that the universe was surrounded by four enormous walls. That is, a kind of huge room that in the beginning was basically nothing or some initial substance. Today, after about 13.7 billion years, there are cars and airplanes inside it. That is, in principle, it can be argued that in a closed room a car was created by a chain of some processes.

3. Regarding the claim of intermediate stages: Vehicles can also be arranged in a hierarchy. For example: motorcycle, car, truck. Does this mean that the car is the intermediate stage between a motorcycle and a truck? Does this indicate evolution? The answer is of course no (even if vehicles were to replicate or contain DNA like a living creature). Therefore, dental stages do not prove evolution either. Another problem is that many intermediate stages do not appear in the correct evolutionary order. For example: According to evolution, fish gradually evolved into tetrapods (four-legged creatures). The problem is that the first tetrapod fossil appears tens of millions of years before the intermediate stage between fish and tetrapods themselves!:

http://www.livescience.com/6004-legged-creature-footprints-force-evolution-rethink.html

That is, evolution predicts a certain order, which if represented in numbers goes like this: 1,2,3. Instead we find 1,3,2. In this case, is it being claimed that creatures did not evolve from each other?

Regarding the models – you may be talking about genetic algorithms. However, those algorithms have a predefined goal and every correct step is preserved and continues on. Which is not the case in nature.

Regards…
———————-
Rabbi:
2. I continue to not understand a word of this argument.
3. We know that there is evolution and there is heredity, so there is no reason for the similarity between this and cars. This is not a mere serial correlation. It is true that there is a great deal of speculation in a genealogical tree, but these algorithms have better justifications than just visual order. This is a rather complicated mathematical field, and that’s it.

———————-
Asks:
Regarding 2. I will put it this way: According to the atheist position, the entire world was created through a chain of natural processes. Since cars also exist in our world, it can be argued that a car was created through a chain of natural processes.

3. I would love to see factual support for the claim that “there is evolution.” As mentioned, variations such as changing fur color, changing height and weight, etc. do not constitute evidence of evolution. Only a change at the family level can serve as evidence of this, but a change of this magnitude, as mentioned, requires millions of years, and therefore is not observable even according to evolution itself. The analogy to cars is good, assuming that it includes features such as inheritance and occasional change. In other words, we could ask the following question: Assuming that we have a car capable of producing offspring, with a mechanism that causes changes from time to time. Will this car eventually be able to turn into something different like an airplane? According to evolution, the answer is yes. Because in this case the car complies with the rules required for evolution (inheritance + mutations). Do you think so?
———————-
Rabbi:

Regarding 2, see the comments. It’s just a play on words in my opinion.
Regarding 3, it’s worth asking evolutionists. As mentioned, I don’t see why it matters at all on a theological level whether evolution can create new species or not. On a principled level, I see no reason in the world that new species shouldn’t be created through evolution. It’s not fundamentally different from the creation of a change within a species. This and that are genetic changes in the protein chain. Such changes happen throughout evolution, so what’s the problem with new species being created? But as mentioned, it really doesn’t seem important to me. It’s a scientific question that should be addressed by scientists in this field. It has no implications for anything beyond science.