Modern Intellectual Prisons

Has the contemporary religious Jewish world forced itself into two “intellectual prisons” (frameworks) that were unknown to the medieval philosopher rabbis?

The intellectual frameworks I’m referring to are:

1. Scientism-Darwinism, ie attempting to explain the intrinsic nature of reality and existence solely by use of natural, scientific causes without any metaphysical concepts, and
2. A rejection of any scientific intelligibility to the world based on certain Kabbalistic concepts like “shevira“, such as expressed in the eighth chapter of Chabad’s Tanya.

Some concepts of medieval metaphysics, as taught in seforim like the Rambam’s Moreh Nevuchim, not only do not conflict with modern science, but they actually provide a better perspective on the world than the first two intellectual frameworks I mentioned above.

Modern science has basically eviscerated the former concepts of Metaphysics that were used to explain the Universe and promote monotheism, despite that fact that these concepts remain as implicit in many modern scientific theories. Unfortunately medieval metaphysics concepts like “formal cause”, “efficient cause”, and “final cause”, have regrettably been gutted from much of modern science to the detriment of monotheistic religious thought.

Evolutionist’s Dishonest Obsession with Noah’s Ark

The obsession of Evolutionists with Noah’s Ark is actually a form of intellectual dishonesty as I see it.

Evolutionists often attack the story of Noah’s Ark in an attempt to invalidate the whole Jewish Bible.

However, there are severe logical flaws in the attacks of the Evolutionists. I’m not expecting that Evolutionists should believe in a Creator, I’m asking them to use honest and logical arguments.

If the Universe was created by a supernatural Creator, then that Creator could also bend space-time to make room for all the creatures in the Noah’s Ark.

This is to say that during the Flood, the Creator could have easily interfered with the natural order He created in order to fit all the animals on the Ark. In fact, we believe He rarely interferes with the natural order so that we can assume scientific law is valid at most times, but possibly not at the incident of Noah’s Ark.

For thousands of years, many people believed in an eternal Aristotelian Universe that precluded any miracles. However modern science has effectively debunked Aristotle’s theory with its discovery of a beginning to the Universe, so now the possibility of miracles must be admitted.

Evolutionists could only falsify Noah’s Ark IF-

a) they could observe the non-existence of Noah’s Ark during the ancient Flood

and/or

b) they could prove the Universe was not created by a supernatural Creator, rather an eternal Universe or eternal “Multiverse” exists. In an eternal Universe, God would not have free will to cause miracles during Noah’s flood.

Evolutionists certainly cannot achieve a) so they are left with b). However they cannot scientifically prove b) so therefore

Evolutionists cannot honestly disprove the story of Noah’s Ark nor can they disprove that any other miracles described in the Bible occurred.

Religion of Darwinism

Darwinist evolution theories have morphed into a type of faith based atheist religion, a substitute for belief in a Creator and belief in Biblical creation. Regrettably many “progressive” Jewish intellectual types have become militant missionaries for the Darwinist religion. There is no real evidence in the fossil record for Darwinism, which in fact violates many scientific principles (such as the laws of entropy). For example, the fossil record clearly shows that species appear suddenly and then later disappear without any significant change. Also, Darwinist evolution is at a complete loss to explain the origin of life. Despite numerous experiments no scientist has ever produced life from non-life in a laboratory.

In the Talmud it mentions that one of man’s unique qualities not possessed by animals is the ability to speak. I believe that to prove that any ancient species of primate can be considered any type of man (as opposed to an animal), there must exist some evidence the ancient primate could speak. It would seem that the only clear evidence a creature could speak is IF we discovered any evidence the creature could write. In this case, we would have conclusive evidience the ancient creature was NOT an animal.

A few years ago I actually challenged one of the senior research scientists at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History regarding a display of “Australopithecus”, an ape-like creature that is presented as some type of ancient species that had evolved from apes to become more like man. I asked that scientist to prove that the Australopithecus had any actual human characteristics and was not simply a type of ape.

Intellectual apprehension is one of the primary characteristics that separates man from animals. I asked that scientist:
Where is there the slightest evidence that the Australopithecus creature could speak, write, or that it possessed any intellectual apprehension?
Without such evidence, how can the creature be considered human in any way?
Perhaps that creature was only an ape?

The scientist took me into the museum’s extensive research laboratory in the basement, which contained many collections of fossils of various species. The scientist took out an Australopithecus skull, an ape skull, and a human skull. As I recall the Australopithecus skull was pretty much identical to an ape skull. The scientist attempted to provide some circumstantial evidence that “Australopithecus” walked upright, but I was not shown the slightest evidence that the creature could speak, write, or had any intellectual apprehension.

Darwinism: A Rehash of Ancient Epicurus

Darwinists would have us believe that evolution is a novel, modern, sophisticated scientific theory unknown to the ancients.

Certain “religious” blogs such as the “Rationalist Judaism” blog identify with the alleged “rationalism” of Maimonides, while also advocating for Evolution. This is an absurd contradiction IMHO.

Maimonides was a “rationalist” within Medieval thought, he was not a modern materialist attempting to explain the Universe by recognizing only material causes. Maimonides would have sharply rejected Darwinism.

In the 12th Century C.E., Maimonides dismissed the ancient version of Darwinism.

“But it would be quite useless to mention the opinions of those who do not recognize the existence of God, but believe that the existing state of things is the result of accidental combination and separation of the elements, and that the Universe has no Ruler or Governor. Such is the theory of Epicurus and his school, and similar philosophers, as stated by Alexander [Aphrodisiensis]; it would be superfluous to repeat their views, since the existence of God has been demonstrated whilst their theory is built upon a basis proved to be untenable.”

(Maimonides, Guide to the Perplexed, 12th Century C.E.)

“some classically educated contemporaries of Darwin saw in his ideas little but a 19th-century rehash of thoughts that they had once studied in ancient Greek and Latin authors in their university days.” (evolutionnews article)

Ghost of Epicurus