R' Slifkin's Response

This was in the comments of the post below, I'm moving it to the blogpage since it deserves a post of its own. Notice I changed my actual post below and my responses here. My questions are in italics, and I added numbers to slifkin's response.


Q:How are you so sure G-d wouldn't want to show directly His continued involvment in the world? How does that minimize evidence of G-d? What do you believe about miracles such as yetzias mitzrayim?

RNS:(1)It seems very strange that God would only want to show His direct involvement for a small number of specialists. Miracles such as Yetziyas Mitzrayim were exceptional events that took place for the entire nation. ID is limited for those who study cellular biology. (2)And it has nothing to do with God's direct involvement, just His involvement while creating things. (3) ID downplays and negates the idea of seeing Hashem in other aspects of nature that science can explain.
(4)Even the miracles of yetziyas mitzrayim largely took place within a naturalistic framework. (5) I strongly recommend that you read my new book The Challenge Of Creation for an understanding of why there is a strong trend amongst the Rishonim to minimize the concept of supernatural miracles.

Q:How do you explain the Mishna about ma'amaros (and pesukim) ?

RNS:(6)I don't see what this has to do with ID.

Q:Why do you have such great faith in Darwinism? Do you also believe in Freudinism and Marxism?

RNS:(7)That's a remarkably strange question. I might as well ask you why you have such great faith in Judaism - does that mean that you also believe in Freudism and Marxism?
If you want to know why I find major parts of evolution to be convincing, I suggest that you read my book, where I lay out my reasons.



My Rejoinder:

1) Many miracles happened in front of only a few people, tanach is filled with examples. Anyways, anyone can read the biochemistry behind blood-clotting or vision and understand that they couldn't have been produced by random darwinian evolution.

2) Scientists can't say "it can all be explained, there is no need for G-d" if there is proof of His involvement. Also, if there is evidence of G-d's involvement for 15 billion years prior to the creation of man, its hard to say "yea, but G-d has nothing to do with the Universe anymore".

3) How? Do miracles? They both show there's a G-d in a way thats hard even for an atheist to deny.

4) iy'H to b discussed in the future. ( in the meantime, see end of post on ma'amaros)

5) I've reserved the book at the library and hope to read it soon.

6) Read post on it. The Mishana counts ten acts of creation in the Torah and answers those who say "G-d couldv done it with one ma'amar so He must have."

7) Many people say "all those scientists cant b wrong!" and therefore believe in darwinism. but look at the other influential ideas of many decades ago. they were accepted by millions and now are obviously known to be idiotic (though still believed in by some).
a theory proposed by atheists to explain how the full complexity of the universe came about entirely randomly is ridiculous.

3 Questions to Slifkin

In a recent article in the Jerusalem Post, R' Nosson Slifkin declares ID to be against Judaism:

But there are also significant theological problems [with ID]. If God's existence is being demonstrated in phenomena for which there is argued to be no scientific explanation, then what about all those phenomena for which there is a scientific explanation?

...and a few papagraphs later:

So where does that leave the rest of the universe? What about all those structures that do not, even by the admission of the ID camp, present irreducible complexity? The unstated implication of their position is that these things do not attest to a Creator. Don't have a grasp of cellular biology? Sorry, you won't be able to perceive that the universe was created by God.

Either God is everywhere or He is nowhere. But He is certainly not limiting His appearance in the universe to the bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting system.

When I wrote about this issue a while ago*, what Slifkin calls a rejection of ID I called "ID - natural process?" I explained such a view:
"They basically feel G-d could have done it with just one ma’amar so surely he did. Why ‘bother’ with 10 ma’amoros?" Slifkin is now also claiming that the ten ma'amaros would mean G-d's design can't be observed in anything else. While I understand why he wouldn't like a theory that sounds like "G-d of the gaps", I have some questions for him:

1. How is Slifkin so sure G-d wouldn't want to show directly His continued involvment in the world? How does that minimize evidence of G-d? What does slifkin believe about miracles such as yetzias mitzrayim?
2. How does Slifkin explain the Mishna and pesukim about ma'amaros that say G-d created the universe with many steps ?
3. Darwinism's primary purpose is to explain how the great complexity of the universe could have happened randomly, taking away the need to believe in a G-d. Eventually, it will have its place in history with theories such as Freudinism and Marxism. Why does Slifkin have so much faith in it?

Maybe I'll post his response.


*(See "Ma'amaros and Miracles". Of some relevence is "G-d and Design".)