November 7, 2002
Contents:
1. Criticism From a Geologist and historian
of science
1. Criticism From a Geologist and historian
of science
Subject: Re: "Brit-Am Now"-139
Science is the only system of knowledge
that is self-correcting and abides by
a system of logic that demands proof
without faith, instead of faith without
proof. The age of the Earth is well
calculated through several different
scientific methods based in the first
order principles of physics, chemistry,
and geology. Your belief in a 6000
year-old Earth is simply irrational and
places you beyond the realm of reason.
A system of spiritual belief is not
necessarily incompatible with science,
but you have unfortunately made it so.
You should not be speaking for any
group, and certainly not the Jewish
population that has provided more of
the world's best scientists per capita
than any other ethnic or national group
on Earth. Every scientist I know (I
know hundreds from all over the world)
understands that the earth is 3, 550,
000,000
years old--NOT 6000.
William Glen, Ph.D.,Geologist and historian
of science
Reply from Yair Davidiy:
I was not speaking on behalf of anybody
other than myself. I will send out
a clarification.
I said:
><<Answer: Regarding "Orthodox
Jewry" in general I would say the approach
>is the same as that of
>all Bible-believers: Some say that
all the Biblical account is to be taken
>literally at the simple level
>and that the earth is only 5763 years
old. Others take a modernistic
>approach and say that so-called
>"scientific" doctrines can be reconciled
with the Biblical story once we
>understand both Scripture and scientific
findings properly.
>I personally take the first view that
the earth is only about 6000 years
>old BUT the matter does not worry
>me one way or the other. Both approaches
are worth considering and can be
>learned from.
>As for the dates in the article: That
was what the author of the article
>said, not I . The dates were derived
by backward logic,
>i.e. it was assumed that such and
such phenomena began with a certain
>culture that archaeologists
>date at a certain time therefore the
phenomena is as old as the culture.
>Another way for dating DNA historically
is to compare samples and see what
>changes took place
>and then estimate how long it would
need for the said changes to appear
>one after the other BUT this is
>all guesswork. >>
i.e. I was saying that:
Amongst Orthodox Jews there are those
who opt for "about 6000 years" as
well as those that,
<take a modernistic approach and
say that so-called "scientific" doctrines
can be reconciled with the Biblical
story once we understand both Scripture
and scientific findings properly>.
This is an accurate appraisal of the
Orthodox Jewish approach.
I also gave my personal opinion but
I left the matter open and said: <Both
approaches are worth considering and
can be learned from>. This subject
has nothing to do with Brit-Am belief.
It does not really especially
interest me one way or the other.
We believe in the truth of the Bible
but we do not claim to have a
"monopoly" on how the Bible should
be understood.
You said:
<<Every scientist I know (I know
hundreds from all over the world)
understands that the earth is 3, 550,
>000,000 years old--NOT 6000.>>
This maybe so, but no-one has proved
it. They once believed that the earth
was flat and every day scientific doctrine
is being revised, sometimes
drastically. We must be open to numerous
possibilities.
In Israel there are a group of scientists
who believe the earth
is only about 6000 years old.
Regarding evolution see "Not by Chance.
The Fall of Neo-Darwinian Theory"
by Lee M. Spetner (who is a scientist).
This work corresponds with our belief
that animals and men do not evolve
BEYOND adaptation to environment according
to genetical potential that they possess
from the very beginning.
On a personal level (as distinct from
Brit-Am belief) I am convinced that:
a. Regardless of how old the world
is, modern man as we know him did not
exist more than 6000 years ago.
b. All of present day mankind are descended
from the Sons of Noah.
c. That the two above points are consistent
with all available knowledge,
archaeological and otherwise, since
the present methods of dating are unreliable
and the stratigraphic
sequences and written records that
can be verified
are consistent with points (a) and
(b).
d. All evidence that appears contrary
to the above can be explained
scientifically in ways that are consistent
to the above.
I repeat I personally do not care one
way or the other and do not want this
subject to become confused
with Brit-Am.