User:Davidbena

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

New-Bouncywikilogo.gif


Unified login: Davidbena is the unique login of this user for all public Wikimedia projects.
Wikipedia:Babel
en This user is a native speaker of English.
he
‏משתמש זה דובר עברית כשפת אם.‏
tmr-2 משתמש הדא ממלל ארמיא דתלמודא בבלאה בדרגא מציעא.‏
Search user languages
One of the most beautiful photographs of all time... our planet Earth

One of my favorite pastimes is writing. The professional skills required for good writing are in building a good vocabulary, or, as some may call it, becoming a "wordsmith." Reading many books, and becoming acquainted with the styles of other authors definitely helps. Hopefully, my contribution here, on Wikipedia, will be a worthwhile one and will bring some sense of satisfaction to our readers.

A scholar once wrote: "Literature... depends heavily on credibility. If a text has passed through the professional hands of the author, editor, publisher, and bookseller, the readers will assume with good reason that the editorial frame and, in particular, the alleged authorship is accurate." - D. Trobisch. This does not negate, however, how that we, as editors, ought to be truthful in our reporting. Maimonides, the famous Jewish Rabbi and philosopher, once wrote in his Epistle to Yemen (ch. xiv): “Do not consider a statement true because you find it in a book, for the prevaricator is as little restrained with his pen as with his tongue. For the untutored and uninstructed are convinced of the veracity of a statement by the mere fact that it is written; nevertheless its accuracy must be demonstrated in another manner.”

I will remind our readers here that the age of a book's publication makes little or no difference, so long as the information provided is accurate. The key here is accuracy. Albert Einstein's Theory of relativity is still applicable today. Some of Sir Isaac Newton's laws of physics are still applicable today, such as Newton's third law, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Many of the works on medicine, written by mediaeval authors, such as by Maimonides or by Avicenna, or by classical writers long before them, such as Galen (Aelius Galenus), or Dioscorides and Theophrastus, are still applicable unto us today. Some of their ancient remedies are still being used today in compounded medicines. Do not be misled by a book's antiquity and think to say that its account must be outdated and obsolete, since this is not always the case. Friedrich Hayek once described what he called “the fatal conceit,” that somehow we know better than the wisdom of the ages.

In many of my articles published here on Wikipedia, I often make use of Hebrew quotes taken from reliable Hebrew sources not readily available to our English readers, but which I am careful to add thereto an English translation of the Hebrew text, as well as expanded explanatory notes in the references cited.

"No one is so poor as he who lacks knowledge!" - Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim 41a

On the logic behind "Intelligent Design"

One of my correspondents questioned me about the idea of our being created by Intelligent Design, saying: "Nobody has come up with a viable contradiction of Darwin's evolutionary theory. Nobody. And I emphasise the word 'viable' in this context. Details can be disputed- and often are. This is how a scientific theory progresses and grows. Studies, you can do a thousand studies where n=1 and none of them are valid or useful. They have to be reproducible and they must predict a phenomenon.... and 'n' must be a descent number. I'm not assuming anything. I'm making a factual observation."

My reply to him was this: "1) Darwin's theory is still just that, a theory; 2) If you have yet to see logic in some of the things mentioned to you earlier, I'm not sure how much credibility can be given to this, your most recent observation. As for your assertive statement that a study, before it can be conclusive, must be reproducible and they must predict a phenomenon, and 'n' must be a descent number, I am not sure what you mean by 'n' must be a descent number. Still, the facts speak for themselves. We have already discussed in great detail why Darwin's theory is still far from accurate. In short, for it to have been true, we would have been able to see a continuous stage of human development, to this very day, humans starting to change from the ape family to Homo sapiens family, where animals are beginning to speak and to turn into man. Simply put, the intermediate stages would still be seen in skeletal development for every creature on earth. As it is, there are no such unbroken links (geological records or otherwise) taking us back to primordial species in the developmental stages. Those who truly seek G-d's advice and guidance can find it, as also G-d's help and assistance. Sometimes, though, that person must be educated in G-d's ways, before he can understand why G-d does some things that he does. In any rate, the study has been accomplished on many, the results are reproducible (to the extent that I understood you), and they do predict a phenomenon."

He then replied: "This is what a scientific theory is. 'A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation'. And Darwin's theory should be discussed in the past tense as it is not the modern view of evolution, though the core ideas remain unchanged."

My reply to him was this: "Theories have also been proven wrong, while only a few good ones have been proven right, such as Einstein's theory of how light travels in a direct line and which was later proven, yes, proven correct. No random evolution has shown even the slightest element of truth, excepting only mutations in some species (being different from evolution), since there exists no continuous chain of evolutionary record in fossils by one and the same species. In fact, the logic of having eyes on the top of one's body to facilitate ultimate peripheral vision, it alone would refute the randomness of this ever happening. G-d's works have been demonstrated with assuredness on more than one level and attested to by many people who have put G-d's words to the test. Menashe (one of the kings of Judah), who practised every idolatry that ever existed in his day, eventually came to the realization of the One G-d by invoking his name. On the other hand, some people (and for the lack of a better word, I'll call them those who disbelieve in Intelligent Design) are perfectly content at not seeking their Creator, because that would obligate them."

In a different correspondence, I put forth the following arguments: Someone once wrote: "The first step in the process of scientific inquiry, and one of the most important, is often overlooked: observation and inquisitiveness."

Observation and inquisitiveness are also some of the first steps in understanding our Creator, and understanding that the Modern World has been deceived by foolish teachers. For example, if there was merely an "accidental" existence where we and the creatures on this earth evolved over a long period of time from a living germ, and had there been as these theorists claim, we would have to address the likelihood of any planet in our universe sustaining life, where there are extreme temperatures of cold and heat, and why it is that our planet just so happens to be perfectly situated between those two extremes to sustain life, and doesn't deviate from its course. Robert Lanza, in his book Biocentrism (p. 7), worded it beautifully:

But to think that life upon this planet evolved from a living germ, let them ask their "teachers" who it was that gave the intelligence to the evolving body (i.e. amoeba) and told it that it just might need a pair of eyes to get along in this world, so that it naturally sent out the signals to the body to develop eye-sight??! An amazing feat of evolution, wouldn't you say, that gave to itself the knack and know-how to develop such a sense of sight in order to keep the body from falling off cliffs, and stumbling in the dark, etc.??? And who gave intelligence to the human body to develop bones (a rib cage) around the vital organs in order to protect those same organs from injury, or who gave to it the understanding so that it would make for itself an enclosing membrane around the brain in order to hold the brain in tact and to keep it from becoming a jumbled mass of blood and matter when the head is violently shaken?? And who gave to that amoeba the intelligence to know that a man's fingers should not be made with smooth skin, but rather with skin that has ridges and grooves etched deep within the skin of those same fingers in order to facilitate the grasping and holding of objects without them slipping??!! Everything here points to Intelligent Design. One of the rationales for having two eyes - besides giving us a better perception of depth, dimension and balance - is so that if one eye becomes impaired man would still be able to make use of his other eye - since eyesight is vital sometimes for his survival. The same logic can be said to be true about the necessity of having two nostrils, which are not merely needed for their olfactory function, but also for the intake of oxygen. If one becomes clogged, the other can be used; and if both are clogged, the mouth can be used as a last resort. So, too, the body's need for having two reproductive glands (the testes in the male, and the ovaries in the female), if one is impaired, the other can still be used for procreation. The rationale for having two ears and two kidneys falls along these same lines, viz., if one is impaired &c. Hearing is sometimes vital to man's safety, and warns him of incoming danger.

Now, if our bodies had merely evolved from a germ, the above rational scenarios would not have played any role whatsoever in man's development. Rather, there must have been something else at the very beginning which gave to the body this "life-saving" ability because of perceived dangers to the body, or to ensure its procreation. What limbs were meant to have a "back-up" could have only come from our Maker Himself, who is a rational Being.

Moreover, if I were to prompt you to think about the unfathomable wisdom of our Creator, I'd say consider for a moment how a female dog (bitch), when she is in heat, emits an odour that attracts male dogs, but NOT female dogs, which same scent arouses them sexually for the preservation of their species. Consider this wonder. Had all species evolved from a mere germ, how can you explain this phenomenon in the dog family that causes them to mate with each other (male and female) for the preservation of their species?

I prefer, rather, to think not of the abnormal occurrence of a dog trying to mount your leg (perhaps because of the scent of a female canine that brushed beside you and left her scent on your leg), but of the regular and fixed occurrence in nature (i.e. the sex pheromone in the dog), whereby, if this were merely an accident in nature, it would beg the question "Why?" No, it is no freak accident of nature, but rather ALL THINGS (including dogs) bear testimony that they were created by Intelligent Design.

If you, my friend, cannot discern between rational design which makes only males attracted to the scent of females in order to procreate, on the one hand, and irrational randomness of existence, on the other hand, which, surprisingly (oops!) made everything fall into place, so that there would be the continued existence of canine animal species on this planet earth by emitting a special scent, then, my friend, I cannot help you.

One more thing: Ailments in the human body are not flaws. Therefore, to think that a Creator who cognitively designs an ear with grooves and curvatures to channel sound into the ear, and who makes it produce a waxy substance in order to retard the intrusion of unwanted insects cannot also bring upon man illnesses in the human body in order to punish and/or correct man's behavior, is in itself flawed thinking. Anyone who thinks this way has willfully chosen to limit God's ability to control acts of nature, and has chosen to reject logic.

Speaking of teeth, have you considered how man's teeth have been specially designed by God to suit the kind of foods that he will consume for his body's nourishment (the incisors that cut the food, the canines that tear the food and the molars and premolars that crush the food), but that tigers, lions, leopards, pumas and cats - being carnivores - have all saber-shaped canine teeth to facilitate their capture of prey in the chase, and, subsequently, for their own food intake? How ineffective it would be if these carnivores had teeth like our own! Have you contemplated on this wonder/phenomenon? An evolving creature cannot send signals to itself to grow saber-like canine teeth. Try pretending to be a lion and killing prey by biting them for 50 years and more and you still will not grow saber-like canine teeth. Not you, neither your children, nor your children's children. Only God can specifically create animals to meet their specific needs. Design is without question a fact, but evolution is not. Mutation is also a fact, but it is a far-cry from evolution. Birds that eat seeds have beaks to retrieve their food, and since they have no teeth, a crop helps them to break-down their food. Fish, who basically swallow whole their food, have but rough edges on the corners of their mouths. Each species is uniquely made to meet his own qualifications and specific needs, a thing quite amazing to the observant and which, too, points to Intelligent Design.

Some suggest that the "environment will favour some changes over others," and that "with each remove slight changes accumulate to produce bigger changes over many generations." To that, I say: The environment is not a cognitive element that decides that if a lion must survive by killing its prey such as when it pounces upon it and sinks its teeth and claws into the fawn's neck, it will exert the necessary changes and influences in nature (e.g. heat, cold, etc.) so as to produce in that animal the precise physical changes needed for its better hunting ability and survival, given the unique circumstances at play. Likewise, the environment did not just happen to "think" that if a chameleon lizard has camouflaged skin that blends-in with its environment so as to better conceal itself from its natural prey that it should be so kind as to affect skin-changes in the chameleon lizard for its better survival. The environment is NOT a cognitive element to make such calculations, but God is. Nor can the environment, in the years upon years of constant motion and changes in mean temperatures, produce hereditary changes in fish to the extent that fish will emerge from the waters and breathe in air as mammals do, or grow extended legs to walk upright upon the earth, as humans do. While some climes are known to affect the colour of one's skin, or the texture of one's hair, these are but minor changes and are directly related to the affects of the sun's rays, which can bring-about mutations. This, however, is different from Darwin's perceived notion of evolution. Moreover, often man and the animal creatures have lived in the same environment for thousands upon thousands of years, but each creature grows according to its own specifications. While mutations do exist in nature, still, if you take a man of the Negroid race and put him in Siberia for 5,000 years, his skin will not turn white; nor will an aboriginal human species in the jungles of the Amazon develop teeth like a panther that stalks the forests. The "evolutionary" process that many refer to is not, in fact, a drawn-out process of accumulating changes over billions of years in time, but rather an eco-system specifically designed by the Creator with humans and animals and plants - all needed to complement each other, and to provide a symbiotic relationship, and to assist each other, in one way or another.

Those who espouse to Intelligent Design can see the real benefits it has to them in their knowledge and understanding of our natural world, since the natural world is not without its Designer and that there is "someone" (or "some thing") whom we can, both, turn to and look-up to. This can also be tested, insofar that many who have gone before us (e.g. Abraham the Hebrew Patriarch) had encountered certain revelations from the Creator of the Universe. Of course, other methods of testing the fallacy of evolution cannot be tested, since it would require many, many long years of analysis just to prove one little point (such as, if man can, by conditioning, develop saber-like canine teeth). This, then, would put that specific area of research in the realm of "scientific theory" that has yet to be proven. Still, we can examine the human body and reach solid conclusions that are compatible with science. If you'd excuse my rudeness or bluntness for this once, I'll give you just one or two good examples. Let us consider the human genitalia. Wouldn't it have been a striking coincidence had nature just so-happened to provide the male body with the softest of his skin in his genitalia (more specifically, the virile membrum) which, by design, is meant to be inserted within the female genitalia (more specifically, the womb), without the act causing damage or unnecessary pain? By the way, Albert Einstein is quoted as saying: “Coincidence is God’s way of remaining anonymous” (In “The World as I See it”). Or, let us take two foetuses as another example, one male and one female, both who are twins carried in their mother's womb. Doesn't it strike you as odd that "evolution" would have, by chance, provided the female foetus with a wider pelvis bone in order to facilitate the carrying of children in her womb when she grows older, but the male foetus who is not supposed to carry children has a narrower pelvis bone? Consider that for this "evolutionary feature" to have happened in this way, it would have necessitated the mother who carried the child to send-off, as it were, two independent signals, or for the egg and sperm to send-off two different signals - one for the male, the other for the female, instructing her female offspring to naturally grow a wider pelvis in order to facilitate room enough in her womb for carrying children at some future time. "Evolution," if it exists, cannot see futurities. Only God can see such things and manipulate the human body to act accordingly.

To conclude, just as the primitive Pygmy who builds a fire by rubbing two sticks together does not, in doing so, take away from the profound veracity of modern science which invented the use of electricity, so too primitive pseudo-science that denies God’s involvement in the creation of the universe does not take away from the profound veracity of Intelligent Design that can be seen in nearly all life forms around us.

Jewish aphorism: "Great is labour, by which means a man's lot is improved!"
Click to Enlarge

To my fellow editors, as we work together on the basis of cordial collaborative editing, I say: HAPPY EDITING!

Lovely valley, the Elah Valley

Miscellaneous[edit]


TemplatesTemplate help
Article tags: {{abbreviations}} • {{cleanup}} • {{external links}} • {{No footnotes}} • {{Citations missing}} • {{Citation needed}} • {{Cleanup}} • {{copy edit}} • {{copypaste}} • {{Confusing}} • {{Inappropriate tone}} • {{incoherent}} • {{multiple issues}} • {{Notability}} • {{Not verified}} • {{original research}} • {{overlinked}} • {{peacock}} • {{POV}} • {{primary sources}} • {{puffery}} • {{refimprove}} • {{tone}} • {{Unreferenced}} • {{inline citations}} • {{unreferenced}} • {{verify}} • {{weasel}} • {{Wikify}}
Section tags: {{Disputed-section}} • {{POV-section}} • {{copy edit-section}} • {{expand section}} • {{fictionrefs}} • {{off-topic}} • {{in popular culture}} • {{ref improve section}} • {{unreferenced section}} • {{trivia}}
Inline tags: Category:Inline citation and verifiability dispute templates • {{citation needed}} • {{clarify}} • {{failed verification}} • {{or}} • {{request quotation}} • {{syn}} • {{verify credibility}} • {{who}} • {{whom?}}

Useful links
Example (newspapers.com)
<ref> {{cite news|title=Charles Wingate Obituary|url=http://www.newspapers.com/clip/141558/the_new_york_timesnew_york_new/|newspaper=The New York Times|date=2 September 1909|page=9|via = [[Newspapers.com]]|accessdate = July 21, 2014 }} {{Open access}}</ref>
Example (HighBeam)
<ref>{{Cite news |last= Brunt |title= Solidly GOP District Seeing Spirited Race; Shea's Views Seem to Provide Opening for Biviano |newspaper= [[The Spokesman-Review]] |subscription= yes |via=[[HighBeam Research]] |accessdate= February 10, 2014 |date= October 13, 2012 |first= Jonathan |url= http://www.highbeam/doc/1P2-33774539.html }}</ref>

Wiki Tools[edit]

<ref name="">{{cite news 
  | last =
  | first =
  | coauthors =
  | title =
  | work =
  | pages =
  | language =
  | publisher =
  | date =
  | url =
  | accessdate =  }}</ref>
<ref name="">{{cite web
  | last =
  | first =
  | authorlink =
  | coauthors =
  | title =
  | work =
  | publisher =
  | date =
  | url =
  | format =
  | doi =
  | accessdate =  }}</ref>

<ref name="">{{cite book | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | publisher = | date = | location = | pages = | url = | doi = | id = }}</ref>

  1. ^ Lanza, Robert. Biocentrism. USA 2009, p. 7.