The Day that Shook the World

-) Pascal - They have always been preserved, however, and their preservation was foretold... My encounter with this people amazes me.. -) Paul Johnson (American Historian) - [they] stand at the center of the perennial attempt to give human life the dignity of a purpose. -) William Rees-Mogg, former Editor-in-Chief for The Times of London and a member of the House of       Lords - One of the gifts of [their] culture to Christianity is that it has taught Christians to think like [them], and any modern man who has not learned to think as though he were [one of them] can hardly be said to have learned to think at all. -) Have carried a book with them for over 3000 years that claimed many of these things would happen -) light to the nations -) will be exiled from their land -) will return to their land -) will be driven to other nations Well, times up. How many did you come up with?

Quiz: Name at least 10 groups of people/societies that have: -) Had a common law for over 3000 years -) Have won nobel prizes: -) 20 % of all -) sciences: -) % medicine (>20%) -) % physics (>20%) -) % chemistry(>20%) -) Are 1/3 of !% of earth's population -) Have returned to ancient homeland -) Have revitalized ancient language -) Have been exiled from many countries -) Have created a democratic nation in the wink of an eye -) Have had quotes about them: -) Winston Churchill - the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has appeared in the world -) Nietzche - could take over Europe if they wanted to (paraphrase) -) Mark Twain - all things are mortal except [...them...] ... what is the secret of their immortality -) John Adams - have (...) society more and more happily than any other people -) Leo Tolstoy - that sacred being who has brought down from heaven the everlasting fire, and has illumined with it the entire world. He is the religious source, spring, and fountain out of which all the rest of the peoples have drawn their beliefs and their religions

Watson (of Watson and Crick the DNA people) is a product of the science that Stephen refers to, and his contributions are perhaps as life-changing as were Darwins...and, arguably, broader. And Watson sees people as being worthy of euthanasia - or at least sterilization - if they were born with too little intelligence. He has a number of pretty shocking beliefs and asserted them many times publicly. He gets it from a religious Darwinistic belief system, that the Natural Way IS survival of the fittest. That the fittest MUST survive and that human efforts to cater to and serve the 'underendowed', is actually de-evolution and ought to be repressed. THAT is the only real humanistic fruit of Darwinian science, rather than what Stephen suggests it is (the unity of mankind and liberation from a caste system). Yes, much of Muslim society, Chinese society, Ayurvedic society, and African society - is based on a caste system, where 'birth' determines one's 'worth'. Terrible...But the liberation accomplished by Darwinian science is actually liberation from humanity itself. It substitutes the natural acceptance of INDIVIDUAL abilities and innate INDIVIDUAL worth with a drivel that leads to DENIAL of gender and DENIAL of individuality. Judaism and many other religions and societies accept individual roles and see a mother's place and a father's place in the family. But Darwinism's fruit is the denial of all that, and a breaking from the bonds of individuality. It is actually advocating sexual, philosophical, and psychological fascism. We are all one, individuality is shunned. No one can be born into any role, and property rights are only 'Natures'. Is that the way you want to live? I think not. Like Marxism, it all sounds so nice when it is about one person, or maybe a few consenting ones. Henry David Thoreau's Walden works for individuals...if ALL of us go to the woods, we find we are in a city of people again! Darwinism is the deatkhnell for humanity, itself.

Go and do your own research? And it is not the theory of evolution..................... ..........................................

Reprobates don't like truth, especially if it's God's truth.I'm glad you chose to reply in scientific terms rather than biblical terms. I, myself wrote a reply, but chose to put it in a biblical rebuke. As a result, the good folks at Aish chose not to post it, needless to say, I'm disappointed. Never mind that I took the time to write, but I felt it necessary that a Biblical answer is appropriate,especially to a Rabbi,and to some others,who tend to stray from the path of God's word. The temptation to get along with the world is great, but the children of God are not appointed to get along with darkness, but to oppose it, to be light to the nations. (God's light, of course)

Have you read "The theory of Evolution"? Darwin admits clearly (I think on page 29) that there are major problems with his theory in that it cannot explain the survival of elephants and demise of mammoths which were more advanced than the elephants. Moreover, their complete undecomposed carcasses were found frozen in ice in Siberia which clearly indicates catastrophic or revolutionary, rather than evolutionary, change. Thomas Huxley (grandfather of famous Aldous Huxley, author of "Brave New World"), a noted British biologist and Darwin supporter (also an avowed agnostic and orignator of the term) in his private letters stated very explicitly that he thinks Darwin is wrong, but he supports him because it gives him a chance to attach religion, and attacking the basis of religion, was, by his own admission a goal so important that it did not matter to him if he compromisd the truth. Both Huxley's publioshed writings and public debates were fundamental in giving Darwin and his theories support within and without the scientific community in spite of serious scientific flaws in their formation. The scientific evidence that the Bible is of Divine Origin (go to Aish's Disocvery Seminar) are far more scientifically based than Darwin's now out-of-date theories Moreover, misreading the Bible can cause errors. Only three times does the Bible use the verb "bara" which means "to create ex nihilo." The other verbs are "to make" or "to fashion," which means that G-D caused certain things to happen, and in some cases it is Biblically acceptable that there were natural changes. Also according to Jewish tradition, the timeline of "6 days of creation" and is based upon the speed of light rather than the earth's orbit (because the sun and stars were not created until the 4th day of creation) and, according to Jewish tradition, this took, in modern terms. about 14.8 billion years. It is easy to misunderstand the Bible if you are looking for an excuse not to keep mitzvos.

Well articulated answer to Stephen Chaim's comment below. I found one of your quotes from Aldous Huxley admitting why he wanted to prove religion wrong in another aish.com article: SEE: http://www.aish.com/tp/b/sw/48942081.html

I appreciate that David and Ben Aliyah responded to my comment. I ask David, What book is "The Theory of Evolution"? There are several books with that title; none of them written by Darwin. Further, Thomas H. Huxley, far from thinking Darwin wrong, was a proponent of Darwin. His nickname was "Darwin's bulldog!" Huxley did not agree with (or maybe did not understand), natural selection. I repeat that I'm a rabbi and not an evolutionary biologist, so I cannot explain the scientific disagreements between those two geniuses. BUT, T. H. Huxley did support Darwin and I'd like to see David's evidence to the contrary. I suspect that David is confusing Thomas Huxley with his grandson Aldous. The fact that Aldous Huxley chose not to believe in God is NOT a refutation of Darwin's theories!! (This is why Ben Aliyah misses the point, although he at least cited the correct member of the Huxley clan.) Both respondents seem to think that I was trying to reject both God and religion. Please note that I didn't use either word in my message. I do mention Judaism -- twice. And both times I express my love for it and pride in it. So ultimately, what is the problem that D and BY are articulating? -- I have no idea. Belief in God is one thing. Darwin's explanation of evolution (although he never explained why life exists in the first place) is not about God or religion. It's about a great truth that he, Darwin, brought to the world. He published 150 years ago. There have been refinements since then, of course. But I find my two new friends to be missing my point, and I still contend that Charles Darwin had the two greatest ideas in history -- neither of which, for what it's worth, impedes me from being an ohev Yisrael and (I hope) a devoted rabbi.

Someone above wrote that the greatest idea in history came from Charles Darwin. I believe it's a "WIN/WIN" story, because what's WON, is what's ONE, and I am following a language-based story, and so it could be said, of course, for Darwin, and of course for all Discovery that has resulted in great healing for us all. And it does seem, all discovery has an edge, as knowledge has an edge, and surely the "guerilla" warfare following Darwin, all this furor about monkeys, about gorillas, about ancestry, is part of this. Could it be, the comic, in cosmic? Could it be, God is laughing? Let there be light! As for Sinai, of course it was a MAJOR and reverberant event. It WAS momentous. And people still debate the depths of those commandments. They themselves are not without some ambiguity, as we go through life, and experience the most amazing of human ethical conundrums. It does seem there's a bipolarity to life, and even atheists, keep us honest. We were there, as souls, on Sinai. And what cannot be denied, is the power of being there, on the mountain. Life is ascent, and a scent, and we're climbing, as stories are also for climbing.

Though I'm a rabbi and I identify with all praises and appreciations of Judaism, I suggest that the greatest SINGLE IDEA in history -- two ideas, really -- are evolution by mutation and natural selection, and the common ancestry of all living things. I am endlessly committed to my Judaism. But the greatest idea(s) in history come from Charles Darwin, and every thinking person must reckon with them.

His evolution theory encompasses a very important aspect of science. However this pales when confronted with all the other aspects which have affected the daily life of every human being.

It's pretty surprising to hear that a rabbi believes Darwin's idea to be of such great importance. Unguided mutation and natural selection is now increasingly questioned by "thinking persons" as an explanation for how we have gotten from prokaryotes to sentient man. It is increasingly apparent that life is the product of an Intelligent Designer. Darwin's idea might be considered to be the one idea that has made more public school students question the idea of G-d, that much I'll give Darwin, for if Genesis isn't true, then why would anything else they've been taught about their faith be?

Ayla makes a good point. But why is"thinking persons" in quotation marks -- is this meant to provoke doubt as to whether those people truly think?? If it is apparent that life comes from an intelligent designer, then I wonder why the vast majority of evolutionary biologists disagree with that proposition. In overwhelming numbers, the best experts in the field, Jews and non-Jews, do not believe in ID. I am not a biologist. But I think the question is worth asking of Ayla and others of that mind. Yes, Torah says that God created the world in six days. But Rambam says that we have to accept the truth from wherever it comes. I am not surprised by the rabbi. I rather admire his effort to love both Judaism and truth. What's surprising in that?

a neurosurgeon, Ben Carson, who has been referred to with terms like "one of the most extroadinary people on earth" was recently invited to speak at college commencement and recieve an honorary degree; 500 academicians and alumni protested; he was allowed to speak, but the president of the University made sure to modify the future selection process would ensure that such an error never happens again; what was his crime? he doesn't believe in evolution, and thinks it leads it no ethics (which most famous philosophers of evo agree - see Michael Ruse); if the academy can "expel" such an individual (look him up) what chance do regular mortals have of speaking against this theory; I know a pHd candidate in bio who asked an advisor how a certain thing could have evolved, and the response was a whispered "it's a miracle" , but don't say it too loudly around here.

Mr. Dalkins: I put thinking persons in quotes because that's the term the rabbi used in his last sentence. You say that the vast number of evolutionary biologists disagree with intelligent design, but I wonder if that's really true... the current climate in academia is threatening to anyone who admits to having questions about Darwinism, and scientists fear losing their jobs if they attribute anything to a designer. Darwinism proposes that we arrived at sentient man by a series of mutations acted upon by natural selection, which is an undirected process, that is, no goal of having an outcome of any sort. It is in direct conflict with Judeo-Christian faith, where man is the goal - where man is imbued with G-d's image. It's my opinion that there are a lot more who look at the mind of man, and ponder where conciousness comes from, and who question the precise fine-tuning of our universe, and perhaps secretly believe that there is a Designer - but aren't willing to put those questions out there for fear of retribution.

The reason that some scientists, biologists and the "best experts in the field " disagree with the most obvious truth of intelligent design by an Intelligent Designer is fear. Because this recognition obligates us to worship this Designer, to sing praises to His great and glorious Name, and to follow His will. The whole creation calls out to us "Look at Me, I'm here. I am your Creator Who gave you all this beauty and magnificence". But if one says, "Oh no. It was just an accident" then he can do what he wants, eat what he wants, act how he wants with whoever he wants. And that is why people keep searching for a different answer.One theory falls, they'll come up with another , and another, anything , any thing, but G-d. There is no camera or telescope that can compare with the human eye, no plane that can compare with the bird, or computor with our brain. Is there a paper or wrapper in existence that can compare with the peel on a carrot or an onion? Is there a clearer proof of a Creator Who loves us and wants us to quench our thirst than the packaging of a coconut? Open your eyes! See. Think. Open you rmouths and call out, "How great are Your works, H-shem, You have done everything with wisdom. H-shem, my Creator, I love You:"

There is so much fear brought on by the consideratiion of different ideas that I'm sure G-d laughs loudly at our troubled minds....when we should recognize His hand and His plan in all things.

Caroll - i don't understand the logic in statement "God laughs at our troubled minds". Searching for truth is fundamental to the human condition forced on us if for not other reason - and i believe there are many reasons - is to not allow for lies to win!

I'm not sure what you mean when you say you "identify with all praises and appreciations of Judaism". That sounds like a euphemistic way of saying that while you intellcutally understand what others like about Judaism but don't actually believe anything in Judaism. Not sure who gave you the honorific of "Rabbi" that you claim, but I question your qualification as a spiritual leader and authority on Judaism. Maybe you are a fine scholar or teacher of Hebrew, Talmud, etc. But what do you actually believe, if anything, in Judaism? I'm not aware of any evidence in support of Darwinian evolution that mathematically, scientifically, or logically precludes the traditional Jewish scriptural accounts (not limited to Tanakh) of the development of the earth and life on earth.

I never knew about those wonderful comments that were said about our people!!! Let's hope we can still live up to those accolades!!

These accolades are well deserved as they are based on facts and involve a few. Alas we too have our rotten apples. These people are Jewish in name only, breaking every commandment in order to achieve fame and fortune

nice- very, VERY nice.