Caution: Too Much Science May Make You Religious

Chabad ^ | Nov. 2004 | Velvl Greene

[yonif]

Before birth, a baby lives in its mother’s womb surrounded by water. It doesn’t breathe. Its lungs are collapsed, folded between the two upper chambers of the heart. There’s a hole in its heart so the blood circulates. And there’s a tube connecting the aorta to the pulmonary artery.

Within ten minutes of birth, its lungs have to expand, the hole in its heart has to heal, the tube has to seal off.

In fact, 67 different steps have to happen in sequence so that the baby can go from a creature that lives in water to an oxygen-breathing baby. Miraculously, these things take place routinely every minute of every day.

That is science, when we understand what happens. And we know that no human being or scientist could have developed or engineered this sequence. If a company tried to build it, it wouldn’t work.

Indeed, if we knew what goes on in our very own lives, if we knew what goes on in the birth of a baby, we would get on our knees and thank G-d forever. All of the vast scientific studies that have been made over the past hundred years keep pointing to the concept of order and sequence, and therefore, in my opinion, a creator.

A professor of mathematics came into my study one day. He was a real atheist. He said to me, “I’ve just calculated that it’s impossible to have the human eye evolving in the five billion years that they give us.” He said, “The person who believes in evolution, that is the person making the leap of faith.”

Science doesn’t contradict the Torah. Science teaches us that when the Torah says, “I have created the world,” “I will care for you,” “I will heal you,” and “I will provide,” you know what? G-d was right. In 1998 it was reported for the first time in human history that enough food has been grown to feed every living person on the planet. Theoretically, no one on this earth should have to starve. And there’s a statement in Psalms that says, “You open your hands and you give to all living things its need.” G-d has provided. And that’s what science says: You know what? He was right. When a doctor heals a patient, that’s what science says: You know what? He was right. G-d has provided.

There has never been a rabbi who has ever said to a scientist, “stop searching.” There’s never been a rabbi who has said, “quit looking.” Because the ultimate believer of truth, and the Torah is all truth, will ultimately believe that anything you find in nature that is true will reflect and react to the glory of G-d.

When I was younger, I worked for the NASA program. And I looked for life on Mars. We spent hundreds of millions of dollars looking for life on Mars -- for which, if you haven’t been thanked as taxpayers before, let me thank you. During that time I asked the Lubavitcher Rebbe, “Is this right? Can I really do this? Other religions say you shouldn’t search. And the Torah doesn’t say there’s life on Mars.” The Rebbe replied in Yiddish, “Professor Green, you should look for life on Mars. And if you don’t find it there, you should look elsewhere. And if you don’t find it there, you should look elsewhere. Because for you to sit here and say that G-d didn't create life elsewhere is to put limits on G-d, and no one can do that.”

[yonif]

Ping.

[mel]

Amazing isn't it.

[Fiddlstix]

Great Post!

[reflecting]

Great read! All truth is indeed the truth of God, and we should not fear the search!

[ALLAH-ya-out-a-here]

looks like we're all gods creators

[In veno, veritas]

I had a question I thought of today for an evolutionist. Why does maternal DNA stop and not go on to when we were monkeys?

[TASMANIANRED]

All the carbon on earth was formed in exploding stars.

Now there is a really big miracle.

[Sola Veritas]

"That is science, when we understand what happens. And we know that no human being or scientist could have developed or engineered this sequence. If a company tried to build it, it wouldn’t work."

I agree, and I think anyone with a mind should see this. However, many just refuse to accept the concept of a creator/designer. For if one exists, then we may be accountable to him. So, in their view, we are all just products of chance or spontaneous generation.

[bjs1779]

The Evolutionists here could do it better than God, I am sure. They just need to think a little more highly of themselves.

[ops33]

Of one thing I am firmly convinced; there is not, nor can there ever be, a contradiction between science and God. The same God that wrote the Ten Commandments is the same God that wrote the laws of physics. All things are a manifestation of Him. Whenever we see what appears to be a contradiction between science and God, it is because of our limits in knowledge and understanding.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Now in scared the fuzzy cheese in my fridge is growing and im afraid to cut into it for fear of finding life on uranus !

he he he

[Marie]

It was my love of human biology and physics that convinced me that God existed. Every time I look at the math I have a feeling of profound respect for our Creator.

[Clypp]

Who is G-d?

[VadeRetro]

A professor of mathematics came into my study one day. He was a real atheist. He said to me, “I’ve just calculated that it’s impossible to have the human eye evolving in the five billion years that they give us.”

This guy is just jerking off. The challenge is never doing the math, it's modeling the process. He has the wrong quals to do that.

[Fester Chugabrew]

He has the wrong quals to do that.

And just what kind of qualifications does it take to bring a human eye into existence? Any worth noting?

[VadeRetro]

And just what kind of qualifications does it take to bring a human eye into existence? Any worth noting?

Variation, natural selection, time. For the last, maybe a quarter billion years after life goes multi-cellular.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Variation, natural selection, time.

And how much of these given the absence of any intelligence?

[VadeRetro]

When biologists and mathematicians disagree on biology, as happened here:

Addendum B: Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept?

The point was made that to account for some evolutionary changes in hemoglobin, one requires about 120 amino acid substitutions...as individual events, as though it is necessary to get one of them done and spread throughout the whole population before you could start processing the next one...[and] if you add up the time for all those sequential steps, it amounts to quite a long time. But the point the biologists want to make is that that isn't really what is going on at all. We don't need 120 changes one after the other. We know perfectly well of 12 changes which exist in the human population at the present time. There are probably many more which we haven't detected, because they have such slight physiological effects...[so] there [may be] 20 different amino acid sequences in human hemoglobins in the world population at present, all being processed simultaneously...Calculations about the length of time of evolutionary steps have to take into account the fact that we are dealing with gene pools, with a great deal of genetic variability, present simultaneously. To deal with them as sequential steps is going to give you estimates that are wildly out." (pp. 95-6)

... go with the biologists. You have to understand the process to be modeled or it's just "Garbage in, garbage out."

[VadeRetro]

And how much of these given the absence of any intelligence?

Given it's Fester "trying" to understand it, you ain't gonna. So what?

[azhenfud]

Tomorrow AM, if I may, I will post to you a parable of seven sons and seven gifts. Your nice post of the Sovereign's providence reminded me of it...

[Fester Chugabrew]

That wasn't very nice.

[VadeRetro]

The science of not getting things wears thin.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I forgive you.

[VadeRetro]

It's a free country.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Good thing, to be sure.

[VadeRetro]

For the last, maybe a quarter billion years after life goes multi-cellular.

My bad. That's for the first eyes, not for human eyes. But then human eyes are only so-so.

[ccmay]

It was my love of human biology and physics that convinced me that God existed. Every time I look at the math I have a feeling of profound respect for our Creator.

There are four things that do it for me:

1. In biology: Chirality in embryonic development.

   How does a developing fetus know that the aorta belongs on the left, and the liver on the right? Why are half of us not mirror images of the other half? There is nothing in science which explains this.

2. In complex analysis: the equation e^(pi*i)+1=0

   Here is a beautiful little equation that combines all the important constants of higher mathematics: 'e', the base of natural logarithms; 'pi', the well-known constant relating a circle's radius to its circumference and area; 'i', the square root of -1 that makes complex analysis possible; and '1' and '0', unity and nullity, the bases of binary arithmetic, and so much else.

   'e' and 'pi' are not just irrational numbers, they are transcendent numbers, which means they are not roots of any polynomial equation with rational coefficients. It seems inconceivable that they should have any relation to each other that could be expressed in such a simple equation-- yet they do!

3. In arithmetic and geometry: the Golden Mean and the Fibonacci sequence.

   Take the polynomial x²-x-1=0. Its positive root 1+sqrt(5)/2 = 1.618... This is 'phi', another irrational (but not transcendent) number of great significance. This number pops up over and over again in nature.

   If you draw a rectangle with one side that is 'phi' times the length of the other side, and you cut a square off it or construct a square on the longest side, then the new rectangle will also have one side that is 'phi' times longer than the other. This is the Golden Rectangle, and the Parthenon in Athens is constructed to its proportions.

   Inscribe a spiral within the boundaries of the shrinking rectangles, and out pops the geometric figure describing everything from DNA to a snail shell to the Milky Way Galaxy.

   
   

   (From http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emt669/Student.Folders/Frietag.Mark/Homepage/Goldenratio/goldenratio.html)

   If you start with a square of size 1, as you add squares you will find their sizes follow the sequence 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21... where each number is the sum of the two preceding it. This is the famous Fibonacci sequence and is related to everything from the number of rabbits breeding from an original pair, to the number of ears of corn on a stalk.

4. From physics: Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism.

   And God said,

   
   

   And there was light!

   (From http://home.usit.net/~cmdaven/electro.htm).

There are many other examples of the handiwork of an Intelligence surpassing all others. These are my favorites.

-ccm

[Capriole]

Mathematics is the language of God.

[GarySpFc]

Ping

[fish hawk]

I've always loved this little story told to me by a minister years ago:

A teacher was speaking to students when he mentioned God. One of the students raised his hand and said "there is no God". The teacher asked him, "do you know everything that there is to know?"

The student said, "well no".

The teacher then said, "Do you know half of everything there is to know?"

The student said...."well no".

Then the teacher said, " let's say you do know half of everything there is to know, do you think it possible that God may exist in the half that you don't know?"

[mysterio]

I work in research biochemistry and molecular biology. I work with DNA, and I often see it recombine and mutate over time. I believe in evolution. And I totally believe that it is God's creation. God created science, and science gives us a picture of God's greatness.

[Yaelle]

Isn't that beautiful?

G-d gave us all incredible, though so comparatively limited, intelligence. And intellectual curiosity. Every work that man creates, every new step in understanding our world, every new invention, was G-d allowing us to be a small partner in His creation. G-d leaves it to us to choose how this wondrous power will be used, and trusts (hopes?) that we will always choose wisely.

[American in Israel]

Irreducible complexity of the human eye has already been disproven.

Only to the faithful Darwinists out there. Others simply appreciate the wonders of design. The wonders of science are there to be seen. Faith is its own measure. If you choose to not believe or to believe in God there is more than enough evidence for Creation. Biological diversity is going down not up. The moon is an unstable balance that cannot last millions of years, the rate of rotational decline of the earth, why don't all creatures have dozens of appendages that are random evolutions that don't work but are there anyway? Everything I see is finished designs, not works in progress.

But a person will argue that they were not speeding yesterday when the radar clocked them at 90, and if they do it long enough, they will believe it. People tend to believe what they want, and build excuses from there. Its called justification, not science.

In the end, you will believe what you want and be judged for it. It is a fair system.

[ashtanga]

Well, I can only say that the more educated I become, the more I believe in God. Which God? I know, I know, I'm stepping into the intellectual molasses when I say such a thing. I mean simply that it appears that a supreme intelligence has engineered reality as we experience it. I would like to think that this God has his roots in the Bible, but I don't want to overflow with wishful thinking. It is as easy to pick apart the Bible without context as it is Darwinism, so I'm not looking to make any enemies tonight.

[American in Israel]

This is a beautiful example of intelligence that surpasses my understanding! -grin-

I am not a mathematician, I am an outdoor type. I spent years as a prospector, a logger etc. Nothing quite like seeing the incredible order in nature, to bring an appreciation for the Creator for me.

It is like the difference between the Metric and the Imperial measurement system. Metric was conceived by people who do not work with their hands but with numbers on paper. A man who works with his hands builds in quarters and thirds. He uses his hands and feet to measure with, his eye to balance. While metric works great on paper, it is an aesthetic looser when building a cabinet, or a house.

The example of the snail shell is an example of imperial building, it being built by a rotating rectangle of increasing size. It is partly why it is so ascetically pleasing.

It also is a simple clue that the design is one of a creator rather than random. Mathematics favors metric. While creation favors esthetic's.

[Boot Hill]

Amen ping.

--Boot Hill

[quietolong]

Good one

[geopyg]

-----The example of the snail shell is an example of imperial building, it being built by a rotating rectangle of increasing size. It is partly why it is so ascetically pleasing.------

I recall hearing someone saying how the wonder of creation may not even be in the creation itself. It is WHY do we look upon the earth and moon and stars with such awe and wonder and look upon it as good and beutiful?

[tortoise]

The same God that wrote the Ten Commandments is the same God that wrote the laws of physics. All things are a manifestation of Him. Whenever we see what appears to be a contradiction between science and God, it is because of our limits in knowledge and understanding.

A pretty sane perspective. My only concern is that when there is competition between some people's conception of God and science, they'd rather contradict science than change their conception of God. As though understanding God is easier than understanding simple physical patterns in nature. I personally am much more inclined to decide that I do not understand God and that science is mostly okay.

[the invisib1e hand]

Caution: Too Much Science May Make You Religious

This ought to be a contender for "Headline of the Generation."

[Cronos]

Science doesn’t contradict the Torah.

Quite correct -- and anyone who tries to say Oh, evolution can explain the creation of life, is, in reality, substituting one religious belief for belief in another thing!

Science is good and it's helpful and needed -- but science's role is in explaining what we see in life, Empirical science, not vague theories like cosmology (which I fail to really see the use of)

[tortoise]

1. In biology: Chirality in embryonic development.

That is an artifact of chirality conservation, which shows up all over the place in biology and chemistry. There is no reason to think this is not an extension of that very pervasive effect, since it will be expressed in macro structures.

2. In complex analysis: the equation e(pi*i)+1=0

With all due respect, yours is essentially an argument from incredulity. It is not as profound to people familiar with the art (e.g. mathematicians like myself) as you make it seem.

3. In arithmetic and geometry: the Golden Mean and the Fibonacci sequence.

See the above. These are natural consequences of the properties of the system that is our universe that these particular functions are so commonly expressed -- there are many potentials that are not. Again, more an argument from incredulity than one of significance.

I have no comment on Maxwell's Equations, though they are pretty elegant.

There is a tendency for countable systems like our universe to have very simple and elegant properties, though for theoretical reasons that are anything but "simple to describe" by most standards. Elegance and simplicity do not really indicate design of our universe, as they are emergent properties of the fundamental characteristics of an entire class of ordinary mathematical systems. There are some intriguing mysteries out there, but I do not class any of the above as meriting evidence of God's design.

[American in Israel]

Spirit is not explained in science. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You have hit the nail on the head.

[azhenfud]

There once was a rich man who had seven sons. It came to be that the father was called to be away from them for a period of time, and so before his departure, the father carefully selected and lovingly wrapped gifts for each son. Their father had painstakingly chosen those gifts with attributes which would closely represent him and remind each child of the father's constant love and care.

It came to pass on the day of the father's departure, he called his sons together and declared, "I leave these gifts for you so you may remember me while I am away and that these may remind you of me and of my love for you." And so the father sojourned on his way.

Each of the sons, after having received their gift, later placed it upon a shelf to admire the pretty packages. For a while, thoughts of their father would developed at the sight of the packages. However, it came to pass that one of the sons asked of the others, "What do you think our father has left inside the packages for us?" The other sons sternly scolded the one and claimed that questioning what was inside was blasphemous to the father and that had the father intended the gifts be opened, he would have given them that way. They reasoned among themselves that they should never question their father's actions for the risk of seeming ungrateful.

The seventh son decided to open his gift, and upon doing so, found many treasures that reminded him of his father's nature and deepened the son's admiration and understanding of his father.

Now I ask the question: Upon the father's return - who do you think would find more favor in the father's eyes by demonstrating an appreciation of his gift to them and a genuine desire to know more of the father's nature?

[bjs1779]

Well, I can only say that the more educated I become, the more I believe in God. Which God? I know, I know, I'm stepping into the intellectual molasses when I say such a thing.

Personally, I picked the God that said don't put any other god before me.

[Clypp]

Who is G-d?

[Yaelle]

You know, we Jews don't like to write out His name completely because if His name is on something, that something is not to be destroyed. So if it's online or on a piece of paper that we might throw away, that's what we do. Hope it didn't offend you.

Blessings.

[Ichneumon]

I had a question I thought of today for an evolutionist. Why does maternal DNA stop and not go on to when we were monkeys?

Um, what?