You are of course right that truth is above all else.
On the matter itself, I read this several times and really did not understand.
After all, evolution is a completely logical system built into objective reality, which takes a simple cell and refines it. True, there are strict conditions required in order to enter this system, but those conditions are the very same conditions that allow life + the first cell. Evolution turns the possibility of life (and the cell) into sophisticated living creatures; it turns possibility into reality, and this is logical (I don’t mean logical in the usual sense, but self-necessitating).
That is, to enter the evolutionary system you only need the possibility of life + a first cell. So it is not clear to me how the length of the process strengthens b. After all, it is enough that God knows what conditions allow life (fine tuning), and knows how to create the first living cell; automatically, a human being will emerge from that through an evolutionary process after billions of years.
Whereas someone who knows how to fine-tune life and create the first cell is not necessarily guaranteed to know how to create a human body all at once.
Maybe I missed something? Maybe evolution requires more than just the possibility of life and a first living cell?

You definitely missed something. In your view, are abiogenesis and evolution synonyms? Then what are they currently researching in abiogenesis?
For example, heredity is required for evolution but not for abiogenesis (because there are not yet reproducing organisms there). Even if an initial chain had formed, it would not improve evolutionarily if there were no laws of nature that made that possible.

I understand. Thank you very much, Rabbi.
In your opinion, is the “gain” in evolution greater than the “loss”?

Since you already touched on this, I’ll mention something I haven’t understood for a long time.
In the drunkard parable, Gould showed that sometimes external constraints cause a predetermined result, and the Rabbi said that that is precisely the point – the external constraints are the laws of nature, and they were legislated by God.
But the Rabbi did not address the fact that the main law in evolution is natural selection, which is a teleological law. So granted, there are several laws that need to hold for evolution to be possible, but within the framework of those laws we are dealing with random conduct; the “wall” that leads the drunkard to his place in Gould’s parable is natural selection. And the Rabbi himself agrees that God did not determine the laws of logic, so they are necessities of reality.

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

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

Back to the essence of your discussion.
If I already *know* that there is a God, and now there stand before me two possible ways in which He created man: a. Directly, like a sculptor who sculpts. b. By legislating laws that lead from a singular point to man, then clearly if He chose path b, that shows greater wisdom on the part of the designer than if He had chosen path a.
But is this necessarily also true regarding the strength of the inference to the existence of such a creator? Does a mode of creation that seems more “difficult” cause the conclusion that God exists to be stronger and more probable? Logically that sounds a bit strange.

Wow Danny, what you’re saying is interesting; I think I agree with you.
It can be presented like this:
Before evolution the probability of God’s existence is 90%, and His wisdom is at level 8.
After evolution the probability of God’s existence is 80% (since the wonder of the development of the first cell within the laws has been removed), and His wisdom is at level 9 (since He managed to build a system of laws that would lead a singular point to man).
The numbers are only for illustration, of course.
Evolution slightly lowered the probability of God, but greatly increased His wisdom.
And perhaps the Rabbi also meant His wisdom and not the strength of the proof.

Danny,
If there are laws that lead, over the course of 14 billion years, to man, that clearly indicates the existence of a creator. It is hard to quantify how much, but the feeling is that creation ex nihilo in a random process might happen to hit on man by chance, but a long process that advances consistently over a very long time indicates a creator more strongly.

Hello Rabbi.
A. But that is exactly what we agreed above one cannot relate to the laws as “leading over the course of 14 billion years to man,” because all they really need to lead to is a simple chain (where indeed the wonder is greater than creation in a single instant), and from there evolution plays the entire role, and in the end it is 100% certain that a human being will emerge.
B. And besides, why does the very length of the process strengthen the conclusion that there is a creator? If the process had taken 20 billion years, would the Rabbi infer more strongly that there is a creator? Fine, that it is processual rather than 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 be glad for a response to all three points, thank you Rabbi.

A. I don’t know what we agreed on above (the slow pace and the spacing make it hard for me to follow and remember). I did not understand your claim.
B. The longer the process, the more it could have deviated in other directions. If it remained focused on its goal, then it is clearer that there is a guiding hand. You need to distinguish between the length of a process that allows more random trials that might accidentally 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 was directed in advance.
Think of an operational plan of some anti-Israeli clandestine group. If you see something happen that harms the State of Israel, that is no indication that it is the result of that group’s actions. But if you see a long process that consistently and focusedly leads to such harm, that is an indication that it is a plan of such a group. The longer the process, the better the indication is – because the earlier stages acquire meaning in light of the result obtained at the end.

But this discussion seems to me entirely unnecessary. What difference does it make what weakens and what strengthens the proof? The question is whether there is or is not a proof, and that’s it. It’s a shame for all of us to waste time on these hair-splittings.

Sorry for the bother, Rabbi; I’ll try one last time, and even if I don’t understand what you answer, I won’t comment here anymore.
There is a “logical reality” in which, given one protein chain and fine-tuning, a genius human being is automatically formed after billions of years. My question is why the argument from complexity is always presented in this form: “How many systems of laws will lead from a singular point to a human being?” Seemingly there is some misleading of the reader here, since systems of laws divide only into two types:
1. A system of laws that creates nothing at all, not even a protein chain.
2. A system of laws that creates a human being with a huge brain (even if he would look different from us, with 4 arms and so on) after billions of years.

There is no system of laws 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 argument from complexity should be: “How many systems of laws will lead from a singular point to a protein chain.”
The presentation as though there is added value in the fact that a human being was formed seems misleading.
Thanks for everything.

Hello Joseph.
As I already explained above, 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 necessarily turn that chain into the genius human being, but that itself is what I am asking: who is responsible for the laws of evolution that do this?
In other words, systems of laws are divided into three:
1. Those that create nothing.
2. Those that create a protein chain and stop.
3. Those that create a protein chain and continue.

[Sorry that I’m deviating from what I wrote, that I wouldn’t comment anymore; I just can’t help myself 🙂 ]
Wow, apparently I did not fully understand (I didn’t know option 2 existed).
I didn’t understand how there can be laws that create a protein chain with the ability to replicate, and yet cannot cause it to turn into a human being. After all, from the moment there is a protein chain with the ability to replicate, nothing more is needed to get to a human being, because the fine tuning is needed for the first chain as well.
And a system of laws that produces abiogenesis means a system of laws that creates a cell that can replicate = a cell that changes its coding slightly in every replication (and consequently there is evolution).
In other words: a system of laws that creates a protein chain means a system of laws in which the laws of genetics and heredity exist. I do not understand how there can be a cell that can replicate if the laws of heredity do not exist; that is self-contradictory.
Ugh… core curriculum studies…

We are going back to something I already wrote long ago. Why didn’t you ask there? You assume that the basic laws of nature govern both abiogenesis and evolution, and that is not so. On the way to abiogenesis you do not need heredity (because the first protein chain did not use heredity in order to form). Of course, if you say that heredity is a necessary result of physics and chemistry – fine. But today there is no clear information about that (this is the question of reducing biology and chemistry to physics). The existence of a cell that can replicate does not require heredity. Actual replication does require it. For example, there can be a person who has the strength to lift 100 kg, but there is no weight of 100 kg in the world for him to actualize that strength.

Sorry Rabbi 🙁 .
If I summarize what is already clear to me, then there are: a. Physics and chemistry. b. Mechanisms of abiogenesis. c. Heredity, which evolution requires.
I just didn’t understand what it means for a cell to be able to replicate if there is no heredity. So how does it replicate? And if it does not replicate, then there is no cell here that can replicate, but 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 too a protein chain that has the potential to replicate if the laws of heredity are present in its environment. Now place such a chain in a world where there are no such laws but other laws instead, and it will not replicate. A body with mass has the ability to fall downward, but if you place it in space (where there is no other mass pulling it) or in another universe where there is no law of gravity, it will not fall. Does that mean it does not have the ability to fall in the presence of another mass in our universe? That is all. Not very complicated.

That I understood. But I don’t understand how the analogy to laws of heredity is possible. What exactly are the laws of heredity? Those aren’t laws at all. You just need an object that can replicate (a protein chain).
It is like saying that there is a printer with the ability to print, but you still need the “laws of printing” for it to be able to work. Very strange.

Why do you think that? The laws of heredity are laws like any other laws. A printer too needs the laws of nature of our world in order to print. In another world with different laws it would print nothing at all.
Think about it and you’ll see that it is very simple.

Clearly heredity and the printer need laws, but my feeling is that those laws are needed 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 laws that creates a protein chain with replication ability without that system reaching a human being. But that is probably because of my great ignorance.
I’ll try to think about it, thank you; I have no words for how to thank you.

I found a refutation of the Rabbi’s earlier words.
The Rabbi wrote: “After evolution there is a million-times greater wonder: how there is a system of laws that takes a concentrated point of matter and carries it through billions of years of an astonishingly complex process, and it arrives exactly where it needed to arrive from the outset.”
But this is an a posteriori claim and begging the question, since before we infer that there is a God, one cannot say a sentence like: “where it needed to arrive from the outset,” because there is no “from the outset” before we infer that there is a God. Therefore this argument can only strengthen God’s wisdom, not His very existence.
Likewise the Rabbi wrote: “The longer the process, the more it could have deviated in other directions,” but this too fails for the same reason, because evolution must ultimately lead to a sophisticated brain, even if not specifically to a human with two hands, etc. Any product that would have emerged through the evolutionary process (a flying horse with a pink horn and a brain) would be considered by us “where it needed to arrive from the outset.”

I answered this in the booklet and in the book. Briefly, it is wrong in two ways:
1. Not every system of laws will create a complicated and complex creature. Not at all. Only a completely negligible number of systems will do that.
2. The uniqueness of life is objective and not only in our eyes. Their entropy is low, and that is an objective characteristic that can be calculated.
Therefore none of this has anything to do with faith in God. It is a conclusion from the argument, not an assumption of it.

Forgive me, the Rabbi did not understand me.
I am talking about the claim that the laws point more strongly to the existence of God than a one-time creation does, because in your words: “they arrive where they needed to arrive from the outset,” and I argue that one cannot say “from the outset” here, because one first has to know what the creator’s final purpose was in order to infer that they arrived where they needed to. But here we have not yet inferred His very existence, and we are trying to infer His existence from the wonder that the laws indeed arrived where they needed to. But how do we know that He planned specifically to arrive at a human with a brain and not at a horse with a horn and a brain?

I understood you, and that is exactly what I answered. One sees that there is a special result to a long and complex process. The required conclusion is that this result was the purpose of the process from the outset, and if so there is someone who built all this in order to reach it.

Ugh… I still haven’t managed to understand.
Maybe the Rabbi can explain it using the example of the printer? How can there be a printer with the ability to print and yet it still won’t print because “laws of printing” do not exist in reality? What are the “laws of printing”?

And here is a summary of the laws of printing:
1. When ink is sprayed onto paper, it is absorbed there and keeps its shape.
2. When the printer moves, it does not keep moving forever in the same direction, but returns line by line to the beginning of the line. (That is, when it encounters a stopper it does in fact stop and does not pass 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 that dares to violate the laws will be stopped and severely punished. (Didn’t we agree this had already been exhausted?)

Okay, apparently I won’t merit understanding.
Because all those things are already included within the printer; that is exactly the meaning of the sentence: the printer has the ability to replicate. Likewise regarding the protein chain.
All the best, and thank you, and sorry.