0:00 / 0:00
Historical Verification of the Torah - Part 4 - Rabbi Dr. David Gottlieb
1,008 views
Follow us: https://www.hidabroot.com https://www.youtube.com/@Hidabrootcom https://www.instagram.com/hidabroot_global https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbCYZjl1CYoa4ulQIK2q A fundamental axiom of Judaism is that the Torah is a living book. Is scientific research part of the Torah? What is the exact age of the universe? Did dinosaurs live in ancient times? Rabbi Gottlieb answers these questions in detail. For more inspiring content: @Hidabrootcom
Categories:
Torah
Comments(0)
Transcript
Auto-generated transcript. Not time-synced to the video.
[Music]
I'm trying to show that it's reasonable
to believe in the total and I gave two
arguments so far now when you try to
show something's reasonable there are
two jobs one is to show this evidence a
favor and the other is to say that if
they're quick criticisms you can answer
them someone raised yesterday the
question about the age of the universe
scientific matters so what I think to do
today is talk about two famous
scientific matters and show you that we
have what to say
and then tomorrow and Wednesday I'll
take you through as I can one more piece
of positive evidence but I think
especially in today's climate if you
think that we're under pressure from
science people feel very defensive
science has a gigantic prestige most of
which it doesn't deserve and they feel
if I take a position which puts them at
odds of science to start I'd be able to
handle it they people are going to
regard them as having fallen off the
deep end
so let's first talk about the age of the
universe that's what was the question
was asked just today there's only a
little bit of a discrepancy that a
current scientific picture is 13.8
billion years and we are in Year 5775 so
just a little bit of a difference there
that could be addressed and give it much
too much time as we how about talk also
about the theory of evolution 13.8
billion years how do we how they get
such a figure how do they manage how can
it do something like that
well there is the computed distance of
the galaxies and the speed of light
they're that far away and the speed of
light tells you how fast light is going
then you know how long for traveling so
you know how old the universe is and you
have radioactive decay you have stuff
that's radioactive and decays like
uranium
and we have a halflife law which says
that over a certain period of time half
of it will be decay
so you assume that once upon a time it
was all pure radioactive and then you
say well the only 2% left so in the
first period of decay half-life was down
to 50 and the next one was down to 25
next one is down to 12 and a half and if
the half-life is 100 million years or
something like that so you add up the
hundreds of millions of years and you
get a much longer period of time and
then as far as the Earth's age is
concerned you have ice core samples that
go down and record the layers of ice
over thousands or tens of thousands or
hundred thousands or millions of years
course of rock is you're supposed to go
back billions of years you have a
variety of different ways in which you
can calculate the age of the universe
and the happy fact is that they coincide
more or less about ten years ago there
was a little problem that there were
some stars that were older than the
universe that doesn't fit too well and
then they revised some figures and some
measurements and they somehow brought it
into line I mean there are some tensions
of the picture but that's how it's done
now there is an assumption underlying
this picture assumption that was taken
for granted and accepted so widely that
people don't bother mention it but it is
an assumption nevertheless and that is
that the laws of nature that we are
using to calculate this result have
stayed the same always have always been
the same laws so the speed of light has
always been the same speed of light and
the force of gravity has always been the
same force of gravity and the half-lives
of the radioactive elements have always
been the same half-lives and so it goes
that there's there are the laws of
nature which we use to calculate
backwards well if it's only 2%
radioactive and it started 1%
radioactive and it's a half-life so you
need some of the many helpful
to get down from 102 - assuming the
half-life has always been the same and
you can add them up again
how disabilities are billions of years
if it's always been the same as the
speed of light has always been the same
if the force of gravity has always been
the same if so then you're gonna add
them up one ought to ask what reason do
we have to think that it's always been
the same it's dad supported by
observation by evidence by calculation
calculation of the basis of what usually
when you make calculations you're using
the laws of nature now we're asking
about whether the claws of nature were
constant or not not obvious how you
going to bear go about that kind of
calculation now let me tell you a story
Maimonides was confronting our stuff
Aristotle was in favor of 13.8 billion
years Aristotle said the universe is
infinitely oh it's a big gap between
13.8 billion and infinity right the gap
is infinitely big and he had all of
science and all the philosophy on his
side the best thinkers understood the
universe has no beginning and here we
are within those days instead of five
thousand four thousand how you gonna
face an opponent who says it's
infinitely old when you say it's four
thousand seven years old he's gonna
wanna tease did he said imagine the
following scenario child is born a meal
and a few months after birth his father
takes the child to a community of only
men no woman child grows up and becomes
an adult and he begins to wonder he
never sees any new members so yes his
father where did we come from how did we
begin we people we he does males of
course that's all he's ever seen and if
father tells him well there are others
who
very much like us but different in some
respects and every one of us starts out
as a miniature inside the abdomen of one
of those and after nine months comes out
and grows to be the way you see us so
the young man says to his father let's
see well we are miniatures inside the
abdomens of those others can we breathe
father says no can we eat father says no
can we drink father's no so then he says
well then what you're telling me can't
be true this can't be true
everyone knows you don't breathe for
four minutes you think you don't eat for
three months you're dead you don't drink
for three weeks you're dead your story
kid be right now giving what he knows
about the world his objection is correct
he observing what we would call life
after birth humans living or even
animals living you cannot survive
without breathing you cannot survive
without eating you cannot survive
without drinking it's just not possible
you just die of course the truth is that
the fetus in the womb exists in a very
different condition vision you can't
even imagine and under those conditions
you don't have to breathe you don't have
to eat you don't have to drink things
are very different for the fetus in the
world after birth there's a radical
change in the way that creature survives
supports itself since he can't imagine
because he has no experience nobody told
him about it nobody explained it to him
he can't imagine what it's like to be
that other condition condition of a
fetus he can't accept it as correct
Maimonides says that the six days of
creation that we read about in the Torah
are the gestation of the world it's the
world in its embryo state it's the world
before birth
the six days of the of creation are the
development of the world before birth
the end of the six days the birth takes
place and what we see is only after
birth we're like that boy well becomes a
man in the community of men who knows
only the lives of people after birth
because that's all he's ever seen
we too know only the lives of the
universe with the laws that we see
operating because we were we were
created into that world that's all we've
ever experienced but before we were
created what we were brought into the
world the laws that we see were not
ready indeed the six days of creation
are not only the creation of stars and
galaxies and space and time and energy
it's a creation of the laws of nature
also it's a developing and building and
creating of the laws of nature and what
we know we know only after the creation
process is over what we experience of
the world so to speak after birth and
that makes it very difficult for us to
imagine what the world was like when it
was developing when the laws didn't
apply just like that child grows up in
the community of men has no conception
what it's like to be a fetus in the womb
and therefore projecting our reality
backwards without limit saying that the
laws have always been the same it's just
as inappropriate as that boy say to his
father store you tell him he has to be
false because no one can live without
breathing because in fact the laws that
we see weren't operating during those
six days by the way people always ask
how did the plants grow on day three
with no Sun in the sky for
photosynthesis it's a non-starter you're
worried about photosynthesis because
that's part of the world that you see
that's just like the boy s key how could
we live that weren't breathing well you
don't happen to know but we had an
umbilical cord that's out so we didn't
need to breathe during the six days
plants didn't exist from photosynthesis
that's not how they existed exist in a
different way because the law that to
cry so deposit this wasn't in place yet
some emeriti says if you assume like
Aristotle did more or less where's the
chicken come from an egg where's the egg
come from a chicken chicken egg chicken
egg chicken egg or ever where you gonna
get an egg without a chicken we're gonna
chicken without an egg chicken egg
chicken forever and the skies I told you
last time for the Greeks the skies never
change the skies never changed the
heavens never change
so especially circular orbits he's going
around in circles nothing ever changes
in that way and it's always been that
way well that's just assuming that what
you see today has always been that way
now you can make your assumptions as a
free world but like I said the other day
you don't have to roll over play dead
because of somebody else's assumptions
that's the assumption that he makes we
have a different picture I have to twist
and it only started after the end of the
six days not being the case it's
incumbent to project backwards into that
six-day period because of a different
state of the world it's operating that
time and by the way if you need to back
this up from a source that's not a
religious source Niels Bohr one of the
great founders of quantum mechanics said
that projecting back to the early age of
the universe is not competent
for this reason from a scientific point
of view because laws have been changing
the laws have been evolving and that
being the case we don't know what the
laws were in earlier ages projecting
back into those ages is just not
competent so it comes out that
scientific world has its picture and
this picture is based on an assumption
and as I said it's a free world you can
make whatever assumption you want but if
we get tied that we're not going to
accept that assumption because we have a
different point of view we are perfectly
justified in saying that we don't have
to accept their conclusion and we can
accept that
questions up to you okay now that's just
the age of the universe if you ask but
what about all the fossils what about
all the developments what about all the
sequence of events that the scientists
describe there are several ways to
handle that but I'll give you one which
psychologically is easier
psychologically is more comfortable I
don't think in logic it's any better
than the others but I'll give you
something which you can you can lean out
with some confidence this is due to a
Schwab who wrote to send an article
published it then it was accept it as
one way to explain the Jewish point of
view not the only way and as I say and
logic is that maybe the best way not any
worse than any other sir others are
equally good but I'm just telling you
this way because it's easier to relate
to because the laws that we see weren't
operated during the six days things
happened faster everything the
scientists described is true there were
dinosaurs
it's just that whether dinosaurs when
they talk about 100 million years where
the dinosaurs ruled the earth
so in our timeframe that comes out to be
about an hour and a half because things
happen much faster and if you'll say as
one critic did but then if it's
happening much faster it violates the
laws of nature things like to move too
fast to them to be stable and bones will
break and some others so on yes that's
true
little violate the laws of nature but we
said now three times already during
those six days what we call the laws of
nature we're not operating after all the
Torah describes it in holy miraculous
ters God made this and God made that and
God commanded and the earth brought out
this the earth brought out that it's all
described in miraculous terms so from
our point of view it's not surprising
that we think it's a miracle that's the
language of the verses and that being
the case we say it all happened it's
just that you stretch it out you stretch
it out because you assume that
the speed of light was always the same
the force of gravity was always the same
and radioactive decay you had always had
the same half-life you assumed that and
you use your assumption okay but we
reject the assumption and ever thereby
we're not stuck with the 13.8 billion
years well that might be correct but
then on the same grounds the scientific
picture is also only a possibility it's
not a probability because how shall I
describe that this laws of nature have
always been the same is that a
probability not sure why since you don't
know what happened but I understand that
but the claim that something's probable
needs evidence in its favor what
evidence are you going to offer in favor
of assuming that it was the same rather
than
okay that sounds to me not really like
probability that sounds to me more like
I can't think of a reason now I can't
think of a reason it's really a
confession of maybe the limits of our
imagination or the limits of our
inventiveness or we don't want to
tolerate novelties probability has to be
baked based on something more than I
can't think of a reason doesn't that
doesn't back up that's like a
probability it's really a question of
method you know if you're going to
tolerate the possibility of changes then
sky's the limit so then you'd be left
with no method at all it's just going to
arbitrarily allow someone to say that
that changes took place then you could
have any any number of changes and you
lose any way of making progress and
understanding anything that's the way
action I think is put and I think it's
it's a reasonable objection until you
look at the details let me give you an
example person is accused of a crime
murder now we have his footprints
outside the residence and we have his
fingerprints at the place of the murder
and we have a motive and we have a
murder weapon that's the same kind that
fired the bullet I found in his
possession looks pretty bad looks pretty
damning the defense attorney says my
client is being framed by the Mafia yes
the footprints are there in the
fingerprints are there the gun my
clients being framed by the Mafia will
that get him off for sure not because if
you could get off with that you could
never convicted II no matter how much
evidence you had could always say it's
framed by the Mafia so that's not going
to be tolerated but now let's suppose
change the case a little bit and the
footprints and the fingerprints yeah the
murder weapon but you also have an
eyewitness who saw the defendant a
hundred miles away at the time of the
crime
now you have a contradiction in the
evidence and now the defense attorney
says you know where the circumstantial
evidence came from the footprint the
fingerprints on the gun he's been framed
by the Mafia now I think there'll be an
investigation because there's a
contradiction in the evidence you can't
stop every criminal prosecution on the
grounds that it was a frame-up because
then you can't Curtis you can't convict
anybody but when you have a
contradiction you have all the
circumstantial evidence in the other
eyewitness who says no the investigation
maybe he was right friendly does happen
it does happen from time to time when
there's a contradiction so that's what I
say here yes if someone can simply say
you say 13.8 billion I say 5 million
because things change and he says 24
billion because things change the other
way so many sell to us by 5 minutes
because he thinks change the other way
that makes it free plain that means you
can't make any progress at all but I
claim that we have a contradiction in
the evidence because on the one hand you
have what the scientists present to us
on the basis of their assumption that
the laws have never changed and the
other hand you have our evidence for the
Jewish tradition period like the
evidence for Revelation like the
evidence of prediction of the future
history of the Jewish people which we
saw yesterday came true against all
expectation so if I look at my picture
of the world my whole picture of the
world and its evidence I see evidence in
favor of the scientific picture based on
the assumption things have stayed the
same and I see evidence in favor of the
Jewish picture which doesn't agree with
the scientific picture and I have to
make sense out of the whole thing making
sense out of the whole thing I say well
I have a way to explain away the
scientific evidence scientific evidence
is based on an assumption and the Jewish
picture has a different assumption there
I'm not just short-circuiting all
inquiry short-circuiting all
investigation on the grounds that I can
always say it was different I'm
appealing to real evidence on the other
side I don't think that is a legitimate
someone who mix it up it just picks an
arbitrary time it says I could say it
changed at that time I agree that that
was short-circuit all investigation it's
not appropriate but I'm not doing that I
think I think we have a we have a reason
to say that
yeah so regarding your claim that the
scientific laws of flight physics have
changed things like dinosaurs have
existed for 65 million years prior to
the advent of humans
the scale that they used specifically is
earth years 365 days 24 hours moreover
when you claim that these laws of
physics have been malleable I think he
was referring to specifically the so my
question is how do we reconcile these
types of issues I maybe I'm maybe I
didn't explain it clearly enough I
wasn't saying that Bohr will agree with
us all I was saying was if someone has
this picture that the laws are always
the same I want you to know that there
is a respectable scientific point of
view that they haven't always been the
same I'm not saying he's going to agree
with our 5,000 he was saying was after
like the events surrounding BIGBANG is
that these laws have made pretty
stagnant and I think would be very hard
to find a scientific community that
disagrees with things like theory of
gravity or relativity past this point so
now we understand that dinosaurs existed
it exists
65 millions prior to the coming of
humans this isn't the same scale ok I'm
not proposing Bohr as a model for us I'm
just pointing out that there's a it's
not uniform that the laws have stayed
the same forever let me give you let me
give you an example of this kind of
thinking within the scientific community
that is accepted although it's coming
under pressure now there are problems
with the Big Bang
how's that we know since it was
officially adopted in 1965 palms that
were known what is the horizon problem
the university you look how to look at
the distribution of free energy it's
very very uniform something like the one
point in 10,000 on part in 10,000 how
come it's so uniform now you know very
well if you take a warm glass of water
and you put in some ice
after a while the ice will melt and the
glass of water will be cooled off and
it'll all be a uniform temperature we
know that when things are different
temperatures you put them together
there's a heat flow and they become of
roughly the same temperature but that
takes time takes time drop the ice in
for two seconds to pull it out it's not
going to happen so now the thought was
well in the early universe there were
all sorts of different pockets of
different temperatures but it evened out
so he did some calculations they found
out I was expanding so fast there wasn't
enough time for it to even out so how
come it's so even happen are you going
to tell me that
it started out exquisitely even that
doesn't sound natural
that doesn't sound but we expect any
universe without a designer without a
creator we expect it to be random
that means patchy along came Alan Guth
in 1980 and invented cosmic inflation
cosmic inflation says this you imagine
the Big Bang and what you imagine is a
world that starts expanding quite
rapidly and then the expansion slows
down because of gravity and you think of
that it's a more or less uniform process
it's expanding and then slows down and
expands more slowly that's not what
happened that's not what happened what
happened is this the very very first
fraction of a second it was expanding
fairly slowly then it shot up by a
factor of 10 to the 80 in a triple a
trillionth of a second or less gigantic
jump and then it slowed down again let
slowed down to the leisurely expansion
that we observed except for the
acceleration which discoveries in years
ago okay that's called
cosmic inflation there was a moment of
inflation now here's the picture slow
expansion bang inflation and then
continuing slow expansion now be
calculated look at the first phase the
first phase of slow expansion was there
enough time when it was that small and
expanding so slowly was enough time for
the ice
melt and make the water the same
temperature was enough time for heat
flow to go from one place to the other
the answer yes oh boy I wouldn't say
that hey you know we found a solution we
now can understand why the universe is
so even in temperature because the
earliest phase was one that was slow
enough to balance out to eat the
differences in temperature what happened
to the uniformity button to uniformity
expanding Spain in the same way have you
slowing it down how did you stick in a
blip a change right a change a gigantic
change expansion of 10 to the 80 power
in a fraction of a second how you stick
in it
well we stuck in it because because we
need it and if we put it in then we
could make things work it's okay okay so
how committed are we really two things
have always been the same not very not
very it's a starting position its
position which you take because yeah I
passed no reason to go otherwise but
when you have a reason
if you can't split in a second you can
cancel in a second because you need so
it's not as if we have a hard scientific
scientific commitment to things haven't
always been the same a uniformity it's a
starting position which is maybe
simplicity or maybe where else you're
going to start because if you try to
start otherwise it's arbitrary but it
isn't that solid I'll tell you something
else without going into great detail
unless you like I know that he fails on
this when it was this carbon the
universe is getting bigger or let's put
it this way let's be more careful when
it's discovered that things are moving
away from one another
galaxies are moving away from one
another it was thought that means it was
thought that means the universe is
getting bigger
that means the past that was smaller
smaller and smaller further and further
the past smaller and smaller well it's
got to be a limit to this you can't be
smaller than zero so it's got to be a
beginning nobody likes that Stephen
Hawking says that here the beginning
smacks of a creator and we didn't want
that so they invented a theory which
could avoid that
call the steady state theory you can
look it up but Wikipedia which avoided
that now maybe I just this isn't this
isn't necessary but for those who get it
steady state theory says the space is
infinitely big no beginning the universe
never began they're always doing the
same thing
things are moving away that's true and
we're being away for one another but
we're going on forever how come we're
not all infinitely spread out answer is
new stuff is coming into existence
throughout the universe all the time new
stuff out of nothing out of nowhere new
stuff is coming into existence all the
time course you don't observe it because
the rate is something like in a cubic
meter of space in a hundred years we'll
get an electron no you're not gonna see
that and you're not gonna be able to
discover it with that the cont the
density stays roughly the same now let's
just stop a tick steak take stock of
this the scientific community adopted
new stuff coming in out of nothing what
happened to the conservation laws that
mass mass energy always stays constant
well you know if we need to balance
things and we need to have more mass
energy coming in so we'll just take more
mass energy coming in you know because I
in the laboratories you don't see that
the laboratories not that sensitive
whenever laboratory around 400 years
monitoring a single cubic meter of space
to find an electron we never did that
so how solid our thesis assumption of
here's really the same and really
constants over the Sun when you get into
trouble and you need it you can cancel
them at will
so they aren't really that well
established they're a starting point
that you take for convenience sake for
simplicity sake but they're no more than
that if there were real probability you
couldn't do that if there were a real
probability you couldn't do that you
have to have counter evidence against
the probability but since it's only in a
some starting point you need to cancel
it you can cancel it and nobody stopped
to think new stuff coming out of nowhere
nothing how could that be
could be we need we needed to make a
consistent picture so put it in 1965
when they discovered the background
radiation they took it out because they
didn't need it anymore
no question but but the point is this no
one said but that's so improbable you
can't use it you can't use it gotta look
for something else it's not an
acceptable theory nobody said that they
said okay you want to change that and
then things will work out okay that's
fine if you had real probability hood
real evidence in favor and somebody to
say oh I got these experiments if these
observations servers and so on if I just
assume that water boils at 120 degree
centigrade everything will be fine what
people say excuse me it doesn't for that
hurt when TV Center it boys I had to be
sent away just you can't do that because
we know what's not right you have too
much evidence a favor of this so look
for a better theory because that
Theory's not going to work honey nobody
said that which means that you don't
have a theory with real positive
evidence in its paper you have an
assumption a natural assumption and it's
the naturals hope you keep up until you
need to change it now you change it
that's not the same as having real
positive evidence that's why I said I
don't either but Buddha means you've got
some experience you check the
alternatives you check the predictions
none of that has been done okay that's
the age of the universe now I want to
tell you one thing about evolution and
I'm issuing this as a challenge not only
to you but to your teachers your
professors your philosophers who believe
in this I'm finishing this challenge for
30 years and some pretty famous people
issued it reasonably only I I have my
way of presenting it which I think it's
very intuitive and if you can get me an
answer to this question I'll be better
educated and I'll give up one of my key
arguments I'll give you an analogy and
then I'll tell you how it applies I have
an object and on this object I have
painted on one of its sides I've painted
an X now I tell you the following story
I threw the object into the air
and it landed on the X three times in a
row by accident vaccine I didn't throw
it in any special way it's not wait it's
not magnetized it hasn't got ridges that
catch the airflow I throw it up and it
came down three times in a row on the X
by accident do you believe me
can you believe me three times in a row
okay most people are satisfied sometimes
in the ropes pretty septa ball but I
left out one key piece of information
what didn't I tell you how many sides to
object hands maybe you were something it
was a coin it was a coin the probability
of getting the X 3 times 0 is 1 in 8
that's 12 and a half percent that
happens more than a tenth of the time
not hard to believe that I threw a coin
in the air three times it got I had to
hit three times in a row by accident
that sort of thing happens one tenth of
the time suppose this is silicon
shooting the gun has a thousand sides so
that means the probability of getting 2
X 3 times 0 is 1 and up billion I think
you shouldn't believe it if I tell you
it's a sugar you got and I suppose I
refuse to tell you what object it is no
time but I tell you my story I put the X
on one side I threw it in the air three
times in a row three times in a row it
in then on the X do believe me or not I
think the appropriate response is you
haven't given me enough information to
make up my mind you're telling me
something happened by accident well to
believe that I've got to believe the
probability is reasonably high if you
told me it was a shilling gun I reject
it right away one in a billion
that doesn't happen told me it's a coin
I've accepted chords it's twelve and a
half percent you don't tell me how many
sides it has so you don't tell me what
the probability is that I can't make up
my mind now I think that's rock solid
find me somebody disagrees with that and
thinks you can't have an answer without
knowing the probability I'll be very
surprised but I'll learn something new
that's rock solid
ok evolution tells me that the
development of life on the planet from
the first self-replicating to
butterflies and
orangutan sand redwood trees and
porpoises and the rest all of it is due
to an accidental process in this sense
that the variations that created new
forms are accidentally sure selection
determines which ones will survive
because of the differential reproduction
fine and good but the generation of new
forms of accident cosmic-ray it's the
DNA or whatever okay so give me a
probability tell me according to your
picture what's the probability of
getting this envelope of life from the
first self-replicating by the process
that you described they can't do it they
haven't if they've been chance to do
this for 40 years
the latest challenge came from Thomas
Nagel card-carrying atheist one of the
most eminent contemporary philosophers
published a book with Oxford University
Press called mine the cosmos and he said
where's the probability if you can't
show me the probability is reasonably
high let's say 1 in 10,000 that's
reasonably high what probability of what
that your process will do it in the 3.8
billion years since they arrived since
the first life is detected on the planet
if you don't if you don't do that so
then why should I believe it
you don't give me a probability there's
no reason for me to believe it it
remains a possibility is evolution
possible sure leprechauns are possible
also we talked about that but without a
probability you haven't given me enough
information to make up my mind so it's a
presented and say that I have to roll
over and agree is simply wrong it's
wrong i straightforward intellectual
grounds and with all of the outrageous
response to niggles book no one no one
was able to refute that point but maybe
I'm missing something write to your
professors right depressors of biology
and professors of philosophy and get me
an answer to this question how am I
supposed to be required logically set
the theory of evolution if you can't
give me a probability yeah
that's something I struggled with I feel
like the problems like the unlike the
probability of humans developing through
the process evolution is also a reason
to believe as well well you see I'll
show you why my problem really cuts both
ways when you try to say that certain
things that happen for evolution is very
unlikely
you have to presuppose you know exactly
all of the factors that will contribute
to the evolution but we don't know that
I don't know if you've heard of Steve
for councilman Cashman at the Santa Fe
Institute California he says maybe there
are laws of self-organization in nature
chemically we know there are nearly a
preacher genie in the 1980s won the new
book Nobel Prize for self-organizing
chemical systems there's certain
chemicals you put them together and heat
them and it changes from red to blue
every half-second exactly red blue blue
nobody planned that nobody predicted it
you're mixing the chemicals and they and
they that's what happened if you heat
water on the stove you have a pot you
have a central heat that forms
convection currents the water goes up in
the middle down on the sides and that
determines how it what and when boilies
start fast and drop that
Kevin noticed when you're boiling in a
pot in a kettle that just before it
boils it gets quiet and then it starts
to boil that's because the convection
currents are changing at that time that
means the water doesn't move around
randomly no it moves in strict formed
patterns and it always does that so he
said if there are self organizing
principles of chemistry maybe there are
self organizing principles in biology
also now of course the key word in that
sentence is maybe yeah but maybe for all
we know in which case evolution could
have happened much faster things just
organize you know
daisies organize into a frog maybe so
can I prove not have we tried all the
possibilities no so that that means I
can't say that it's too unlikely because
I don't know what the principles are
that our
moving the changes Richard Dawkins by
the way you know what his cheer was at
Oxford at Oxford University with a chair
in the public understanding of science
he never was a scientist and ever made
any scientific discoveries Selfish Gene
he took from a fella named Williams
published it a decade before his chairs
in the public understanding of science
which that means you could be more
forgiving when he makes gross errors in
science and blind watchmaker he said
sure
if you're looking for the development of
life by a purely random process just
putting all the pieces together but
that's not how it happened it happened
by starting changes and then with
changes taking off the best ones
how many do that it's easy he said I
took a random list of 50 letters and I
transformed them into a quote from
Shakespeare over lunch I set my my
computer to make you manthan changes and
picking out let's say 10 random changes
on the string picking out the one that's
closer to the to the target quotation
for Shakespeare and over a few thousand
changes I got Shakespeare out of
nonsense ok ok
as someone had written in a book before
that before that called by Denton he was
first name it's called the evolution
theory crisis pointed out you can't just
make changes and pick the best when you
make the changes the thing it changes
into has to live it had to survive
that's reproduce what you really should
have done if you wanted to make a model
you should have started with one
sentence of 50 letters and your target
should be another sentence of 50 letters
make random changes and make sure that
each one in between is a full formed
perfect English sentence try that answer
so you try that you'll never get there
because English sentences in the sets of
letters are almost vanishingly small now
let me go from sentence to sentence by
random changes but Dawkins didn't do
that so what did he do he chose a false
model and false model is if you have too
many degrees of freedom we don't know
how many degrees of freedom there are we
don't know what the principles are so
you say human evolution is too unlikely
it's only too unlikely if you say the
only things that are going on or ABC and
ABC can't produce it but there might be
de F going on also nobody knows so to
convict evolution of a mistake on the
grounds that is too unlikely falls
before the same ignorant that I'm
accusing them of we just don't have
enough information as to how the
probability works yes it happened three
times did it happen three times by
accident no one will believe that let's
say it's fixed you've got a magnet in
there and your tables magnetized or it's
weighted on that side or you can throw
it in a particular way no one's gonna
believe they're gonna say you're a good
magician and you've hidden them you've
hidden the mechanism so big it's not
like it's meaning what the the
probability man is a lot for me to
decide whether it happened by accident
or not Houdini was tied up and he had
handcuffs on they put him in a sealed
case sealed case had metal bands around
it they threw it down into the water and
15 minutes later he came out
no you don't see well now the word
evolution hazards my point data has at
least five different meanings what you
see is event after event after event the
evolution I'm talking about it's
supposed to explain why those events
took place what's the mechanism that
that caused them to take place you don't
see that you don't see the random
mutation in the selection going on what
you see is the species and the species
and the species at this species we're
talking about what you don't see and I'm
not questioning the fossil record which
could be questioned but I'm not doing
that
I'm not quite let's say that you have
this order of development of life but
why did it develop that way the critics
are saying your picture of why develop
isn't adequate one reason it isn't
adequate is because you can't give me a
probability if it's happening that way
that's what that's what Nagle argued in
this book among a lot of other things so
I think that as far as the age of the
universe and evolution is concerned we
are in a position where we can
neutralize the critique I don't say we
can show that we're right and they're
wrong I say we can neutralize the crit
see we don't have to run scared from the
the scientific critique and that means
that we can hold up our heads in public
and say look you have your position I'm
not attacking your position but I think
you can attack my position either and
therefore we have to just practice
respectful coexistence okay that's the
to the two issues tomorrow and Thursday
and Wednesday we'll talk about choose
survival to your survival is also the
source of evidence for the truth
[Music]
you