For me, the most interesting aspect of Professor Miller’s approach is his switching the issue away from ‘steps’ to ‘parts’. In other words, Professor Behe’s point is that an irreducibly complex system cannot be assembled by a step-by-step process. In particular, you cannot start with a precursor system (i.e,. the same system, but in a simpler form) and build up that system step-by-step to create an irreducibly complex mechanism (the reason being that by necessity the system will be non-functional at some point along the way).

Professor Miller in some ways seems to actually accept that point (although he clearly doesn’t give that impression – and his use of the mouse trap may indicate otherwise). What he does argue, though, is that one can start with a DIFFERENT system, and then modify that system in a step-by-step manner until you can switch it over to the irreducibly complex system [I hope that was clear].

The problem is that all of the examples that he offers are multiple steps away (including his mouse trap examples). They may be one PART away, but modifying that part requires multiple STEPS. This is where I think his argument breaks down. We still have no indication that it is possible to create an irreducibly complex system in a step-by-step manner (and we have very good reasons to think that you cannot do so).

I hope to write this up more thoroughly at some point in the future.

Thanks for commenting, by the way. If you have any other thoughts on any of the other articles I’ve written (or on this comment), please feel free to share them.

Be well,

Moshe

All of that implies the need of a Creator. Or, put otherwise, if science indicates that there was a point of absolute beginning to the physical universe, then that directly implies that you need some agency independent of our physical universe to bring the universe into being. As Stephen Hawking himself noted: “A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God”

Whether or not the Big Theory is ultimately true or not I am not qualified to discuss. The arguments I have heard for believing in the theory sound scientifically sound as far as historical scientific theories go, but I have not looked into the details of the theory yet.

Either way, though, what is interesting is that modern physics has (against the will of many physicists) come up with a theory that seems to resonate very closely with Genesis 1:1 – as I’ve heard stated in the name of Arno Penzias (who won the Nobel Prize in Physics for his contribution to the Big Bang theory): “The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the bible as a whole.”

MY RESPONSE
Needless to say, I don’t think this needs to be the opening. Anyone who takes the time to investigate can see that something unique is going on here – and what true intellects and honest people do when they see something unique is they try and understand it in its context and according to its terms.

What many modern conversations attempt to do is to relate to G-d and the Torah on their terms in their context and then argue that G-d and the Torah don’t need to be taken seriously. I hold that that is not a serious position to take and actually leads to the conclusions that those driving the conversation want in the first place.

If one wants to seriously relate to G-d, then one needs to note how serious people throughout history have related to him – and then take the time to do likewise themselves.

Be well,

Moshe

MY RESPONSE
Again, what is noteworthy is that one particular work, written at one particular time, in one particular region of the world, from the midst of one particular culture, should end up with such a universal appeal and influence. Homer, Plato, Descartes and Shakespeare don’t have that – not even close.

Not that these works weren’t influential (as has been noted, philosophy is one long foot-note on Plato), but their particular influence has waned to an extent. Some people are aware of the works of Homer, others of Plato, still others Descartes or Shakesepare. They have their appeal and influence, but it is of a radically different kind, much more limited and particular. The Torah, on the other hand, has reached a level of universal appeal and influence that none of these (or any other) works can touch.

One does not need to start out believing the Torah is divine to note that fact. Similarly, one can note the radical difference in content between the Torah and these works – regardless of their religious beliefs or affiliations.

Let’s take Plato. Plato was concerned with justice and the ‘good’. Let’s compare what Plato came up with and what the Torah came up with. Is there anything like respect for the stranger, taking care of the poor, loving thy neighbor as oneself, etc.

Who was concerned with cruelty to animals, not abusing capital punishment, making sure that trials were fair, that people were honest in the work-place, etc. And what were their suggestions for dealing with these problems and issues.

If one wants to argue that the Torah is simply another work of literature, then they need to back that up – and that means a serious, rigorous comparison. A comparison in terms of the types of stories told, the content of the stories, the underlining philosophy, the moral system, etc. If time and time again the Torah’s content is shown to be radically unique, then that is also noteworthy.

In fact, I would venture to suggest that reason, logic, philosophy, science, literature, etc. originate certain types of ideas, but that there is a category of ideas that solely originate from the religious personality in general and the Torah in particular (I would also argue that the Torah has been a massive influence on reason, logic, philosophy, science, literature, etc.).

If this is true, then that would indicate that the attempt to treat the Torah as another literary work says a lot about the person making the suggestion and little about the Torah itself.

Either way, if one wants to take this project seriously – then they need to do a lot more research than I have seen done. I, for my part, think that the results of a serious comparison would show the uniqueness of the Torah, not its similarities.

To be continued…

MY RESPONSE
One can always try and argue for a possible interpretation. However, it’s worth noting that there is no end to the reinterpretation game (just like there is no end to the speculative theory game). It just goes on and on.

If all they have to offer is another plausible-sounding (if that) explanation then there is no reason to take them seriously. The history of ideas is full of plausible sounding theories which have been just plain wrong. What they need is to offer some sort of solid reason to take them seriously.

And by reason, I mean a reading or interpretation which seems to flow from the text rather than the mind of the reader or else something akin to what science developed – solid evidence, demonstration, predictive power, etc. A documentary hypothesis without a document is simply a hypothesis. No reason to take it seriously. A literary reading which reads into the text rather than out of it is just a reading. No reason to take it seriously.

At the same time, this game has been going on for a few hundred years now – it’s worth looking at the success of their ideas. How reasonable does the documentary hypothesis seems today? How reasonable do Freud’s explanations seem today. How accurate do the conclusions and statements some archeologists made 100 odd years ago seem today? If for the most part the old explanations fall short, then why should I take seriously the new ones.

Furthermore, what these interpretations often fail to take into account or consider is why has the Torah been so overwhelmingly influential? 3000+ years is a long time – a lot has been written and transpired since then. And there have been written many other religious works since then. If this is just another work of fiction, then why is this one so popular and influential among such a vast variety of peoples over such a long period of time? People who fight and disagree or differ about almost everything else all seem to center around this one book and this one ‘idea’.

To be continued…