Yellow Cat Offers Rebuttal to Creationist Rabbi
The stakes are higher this time for Higgs. He's going to rebut a much more promient creationist this time. Rabbi Moshe Averick writes for the Jewish newspaper Algemeiner. Let's see how Higgs does in debunking some of the Rabbi's misconceptions about science.
Yellow Cat Offers Rebuttal to Creationist Rabbi
The stakes are higher this time for Higgs the cat. He did fine last week debunking the misconception of anonymous readers, but now I’ve pitted him against someone more prominent.
Rabbi Moshe Averick writes for the online newspaper Algemeiner, which is no minor operation but a major Jewish newspaper whose board is chaired be literary luminary Elie Wiesel. Averick has written what I would consider pro-creationist pieces for them, and last week he emailed me, wanting his point of view presented in my blog after I’d criticized one of his Algemeiner pieces.
In a blog post, I had taken him to task for a quote he’d attributed to a Nobel Laureate, Jack Szostak, to try to make a case that life couldn’t form from inanimate matter through any natural process. Here’s how he quotes Szostak:
“It is virtually impossible to imagine how a cell’s machines…could have formed spontaneously from non-living matter,” is because it is impossible for a cell’s machines to have formed spontaneously from non-living matter. The notion that the functional complexity of a bacterium could be the result of an unguided process is as absurd as asserting that the sculptures on Mt. Rushmore were the result of an unguided, naturalistic process
I had spent a day with Dr. Szostak, written a columnabout his work, and knew that the paragraph above didn’t reflect Szostak’s viewpoint. I called Szostak who confirmed this quote was a gross distortion of statements he’d made trying to explain that organisms as complex as modern bacteria probably didn’t assemble themselves from scratch all at once but evolved gradually from simpler precursors.
I decided it was fair enough to post the Rabbi’s response, though I wanted a counterpoint. Let’s see if Higgs is up for the task.
Rabbi: First of all, I hope you are enjoying your holiday weekend.
On 12/16/11 you wrote a column entitled "Did Creationist Quote a Jack Szostak Imposter?" In that article you accused me of implying falsely that Dr. Jack Szostak - based on what he wrote in a Sep. 2009 article in Scientific American - was a supporter of Intelligent Design theory or even worse, was a believer in God the Creator. This accusation was originally voiced by Terri-Lynn McCormick (Dr. Szostak's wife), in the comment section of my column on Algemeiner.com (http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/12/14/severe-weather-alert-dr-jerry-coyne-militant-atheistic-biologist-is-blowing-very-hot-air-in-chicago/ ). Ms. McCormick's original accusation was posted on 12/14/11 at 6:22pm. On 12/15/11 at 12:55 am (6 1/2 hours later), I posted a rather lengthy response to Ms. McCormick that included the following: "I never claimed that Dr. Szostak supported Intelligent Design theory and I never attempted to give anyone that impression. If it appeared that way it was not done intentionally and I apologize...I know that Dr. Szostak is ...an atheist and has faith that science will eventually present us with a plausible, empirically demonstrable, testable and falsifiable scenario for emergence of life from non-life. This has not yet happened, be he believes that one day it will. I contend that his "belief" in that outcome has no rational basis, and in fact flies in the face of rational thinking...."
You wrote that you contacted Dr. Szostak about the citation in question. However, you failed to see my two lengthy replies to Ms. McCormick nor did you bother contacting me for any type of clarification about what I had written. Two days later, Dr. Jerry Coyne, atheistic biologist at the University of Chicago, repeated the accusation and used it as fodder for his blog. While you (along with Dr. and Mrs. Szostak and Dr. Jerry Coyne), are entitled to your faith that science will find an answer to everything (it is protected by the Constitution), and while you are entitled to believe that there actually is a (as yet undiscovered) naturalistic explanation for the emergence of life from non-life, I would ask that you at least print this letter so that my side of the story is heard. Besides writing two posts in the comments section I exchanged several private emails with Ms. McCormick clarifying my position. Just in case there is any confusion at all, I published a full disclaimer in my latest column at Algemeiner.com (http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/12/22/dr-jerry-coyne-my-culturally-jewish-atheistic-biologist-bro-at-the-university-of-chicago/ )
Higgs: I appreciate your apology but the Szostak quote you included in your story can’t be reasonably interpreted in any way except as an attempt to connect him to the belief that life can’t possibly have come from nonlife through a natural process. And if not natural processes, then what? Gods? Fairies? Angels? The sentiment expressed by this quote is the absolute antithesis of what Dr. Szostak has said many times, including the very Scientific American article from which you clipped a tiny snippet and then elaborated with your own words.
Your accusation that Dr. Szostak holds an irrational belief is tail-end backwards. It’s not only rational to propose that the origin of life happened through natural processes, it’s irrational to think otherwise. Why? In solving other problems, science has always found natural solutions and never supernatural ones. So believing in a natural process behind the origin of life is as rational as believing the Earth will journey around the sun again in 2012.
Furthermore, science gives us some good reasons to think life could emerge through natural processes. First of all, there are no components of living things that are not found in the earth’s crust or atmosphere. Secondly, the laws of chemistry allow simpler molecules to assemble themselves into quite complex structures.
I’d also like to take issue with this statement from the follow-up piece you linked: “The fact that we know nothing about the origin of life is not the Achilles heel of evolution – evolution can take place only after life begins – it is the Achilles heel of atheism.”
I’m afraid you’ve fallen victim to a philosophical trap commonly called “God of the Gaps”. There are gaps in our scientific knowledge because science is not a set of facts but a process. Just because science hasn't yet explained something doesn’t mean God must have done it, any more than it means space aliens must have done it.
You’re also mistaken about the start of evolution. Natural selection can begin as soon as some kind of chain-like molecule forms in a way that allows it to carry a genetic code and replicate itself with some variation among the offspring. What you call “life” is a matter of semantics.
I’d also like to call attention to your misleading use of the word “faith” to describe the thinking of Dr. Szostak as well as Dr. Jerry Coyne. Neither of them ever said they believed science would answer everything. We don’t know which questions will be answered by science in our lifetimes, which will be answered in the future, and which will never be answered. The physicist Richard Feynman has remarked that we don’t know if science will ever get to the bottom of things or just keep peeling back layers of an endless onion. That didn’t stop him from peeling back a quite substantial layer.
Furthermore, science works because scientists don’t apply a religions-type faith to their theories. They get in big trouble when they do. Scientists either change their minds when the evidence turns against them or they risk going down in history as defenders of a wrong or outdated idea. Think of cold fusion.
Some people argue that scientists have faith in the process of science, but this type of faith is not a religious leap but a logical extension of our experience. The scientific method has worked in the past many times. Therefore it’s quite rational to think it will continue to work in the future.
Thank you for letting me express my opinion – Higgs. Can I have a treat?
Read the original Algemeiner piece here. Read the Planet-of-the-Apes column on Jack Szostak’s quest for life’s origin here. Read the Planet-of-the-Apes original criticism of Averick’s piece here.
Do not encourage the rabbi by reviewing his book, making something out of "nonsense." There is only one great book on the topic, Edward Lear's "The Complete Nonsense Book."— jxxphilly- Hey Faye,
Are you going to do a review of my book, "Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist" or not?
Moshe— (Rabbi) Moshe Averick - Oh Faye,
Aren't you the sly one. That's it, No More Mr. Nice Guy!
In the words of Marx (Groucho): "Of course you know, this means war!"
(Duck Soup)
Moshe— (Rabbi) Moshe Averick - The rabbi calls it absurd that something with the functional complexity of a bacterium could be the result of an unguided process. However, the materials of our world are made up of numerous chemicals which have particular properties and which are affected by temperature and pressure. That provides a lot of opportunity for the beginning of living organisms to use. Once some kind of reproducing organism exists, survival in varying conditions guides evolution.— Falls Ed
- "The scientific method has always failed to explain the origin of man. " Baloney. Hard evidence led us to evolution. Hard evidence tells us more about the origin of man every day. What's more, since the Rabbi's people first put quill to papyrus, theology has taught us precisely zero about God. We know absolutely nothing concrete about God that we've learned from theology or faith. Every concrete fact we know about God we've learned through science. Science taught us that natural forces, not God, made the Earth; that natural processes formed humanity, that God does not push the planets and does not live beyond the spheres. Science has taught us solid, irrefutable facts about what God doesn't do, where He isn't, and what He isn't. Yet 2500 years of theology still can't tell us one single irrefutable fact about where God exists, what He is or what He does.— RickK
- If you look at the comments in the Rabbi's original posting, he quickly leaves the realm of reasoned debate and states that the return of the Jewish people to their homeland is proof of God's existence and therefore proof of an intelligent designer. How does anyone, even Yellow Cat, argue against that? I must say that people like the Rabbi make me agree with Christopher Hitchens - Faith is not a virtue.— RickK
- Operagost: The gravamen of Rabbi Averick's position resides in his twisted out-of-context "quote" of Dr. Szostak, and his lame Ann Coulter-ish name calling. His only argument is to hurl "atheist" at his distinguished antagonists. Show me where he engages in reasoned debate?— jxxphilly
- I find the comments by operagost and boknows to be amusingly hypocritical. First, opera wants to ignore that a believer lies, and tries to use the "goddidit" argument himself. Then we have Bo criticises the scientific method that he benefits from every single day.— Vel
- Look, operagast, BoKnows, suppose for the sake of argument that we will NEVER know how life originated on earth. I expect that will be the case, although we will almost certainly know how it COULD HAVE arisen.
But say we never even learn that much. So what?
THE UNKNOWN TELLS US NOTHING ABOUT THE SUPERNATURAL. For example, the fact that we do not know something or cannot explain something says nothing whatsoever about the existence of gods.— phhht - 'Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.'
~ Vonnegut
— richardecredico - "The scientific method has worked in the past many times. Therefore it’s quite rational to think it will continue to work in the future." The scientific method has always failed to explain the origin of man. Using the logic applied above it is rational to think that it will continue to fail in the future. -Bootygasm— BoKnows
- @Boknows & opergost
The scientific method has for over 500 years explained the natural world and it will continue to do so in the future. Conversely, supernatural causes account for exactly 0% of them and counting. It's pretty naive of you two to think that at some time an explanation won't come about considering the track record of the two. Is that faith? Absolutely not. Something that has contiunously worked for half a Millennium is a pretty sound bet that it will contiunue to work for the next hundred millenniums at explaining things. I don't know about you but if ZERO explanations from supernatural causes the last 2000 years is the horse you wanna bet on... I've got a nice bridge I'll sell to you.
As for the your assumption that science hasn't explained "where the origin of man" came from shows that you either don't want to know nor don't care to know. For over 150 years now we have known. All of modern science especially Biology is built on it. In science, if a theory has not been proved false by other observations for over 150 years, we call that a pretty solid Theory. If you can explain to us how humans can spontaneously appear out of thin air without breaking physical laws, maybe we will listen to you....— Aquanerd09 - So... nice red herring, Felis Catus. But you're no smarter than my Snuggles, who attacks invisible mice and barfs spontaneously. Where is your supporting evidence for biogenesis? After all, I thought that's what the Rabbi was debating here. Whether he misquoted or misinterpreted a source is peripheral to the debate.— operagost
- I think you meant "abiogenesis" which is the naural emergence of life. Another important search word would be "astrobiology," as in NASA's Institute for Astrobiology.
I have compiled a "Short Outline of the Origin of Life" that you could look at. It is posted on "Stones and Bones." - There are several experiments and analyses discussing the formation of membranes which is the critical step when going from molecules to cells. Start with Wikipedia and read the references as a starting point.
No... there is no definitive proof for how life originated. However, there are some very plausible models, and some of these have been duplicated in the laboratory.
Look and you will find the evidence yourself.— CRW - Brilliantly written! I have a deep problem though. I am beginning to suspect a ruse. If the authenticity of the plays of William Shakespeare can come under suspicion we should if necessary also have the right to question the authenticity of your own writings. Do I not see the suspicious paw prints of a cat all over your works?— Jim Mauch
- Well said Tatts, Aquanerd09, and jxxphilly.
I have a reasonable expectation that there was a natural, undirected origin of life. That expectation is not a "faith" because it is based on evidence that is public, and repeatable. This evidence does not require any external interventions, nor any violation of the regular physical properties of matter.
For a superior understanding of the relationship between science and revelation from an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi, I recommend, Natan Slifkin's "Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter with Science, Cosmology & Evolution." - I had written a comment to Rabbi Averick last week that was blocked from his site. I posted it to Stones and Bones; http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2011/12/rabbi-averick-and-origin-of-life.html
His recent reply to me was merely that I should look for his email to Faye Flam. Well, this email had nothing to say relevant to the fact that his attempt to "prove" the supernatural by claiming that life must have had a magical origin is logically, and empirically false. His email is hypocritical as several critical comments, by myself and others, were sent to his site which were censored.— Dr_GS_Hurd 
Comment removed.- Crafty Higgs! Because dogs are color-blind to greenish-yellow, orange, and red, he contrived to be born in a grey area. That's a proleptic acquired characteristic by design, a sop to creationists.— jxxphilly
- Higgs the cat is much like the eponymous boson (I assume it was his discovery, was it not ...?) - in that he gives weight to arguments. By the way, I have always thought of cats of such color as being marmalade cats, not yellow and not orange, but marmalade— GaryAllan
- Well-purred, Higgs.
I find the gods-in-the-gaps argument to be particularly annoying. It rests on a blatantly fallacious leap of non-logic: the unknown exists, therefore there are gods.
The inexplicable does NOT entail the supernatural.— phhht - Stating "because I don't understand it or can't come up with a viable naturalistic explanation as of now, then god must have done it" is the epitome of the lazy thinker. That's right Rabbi... you are a lazy thinker. Imagine if history were filled with people like Rabbi Averick... we'd be still living in the Stone Age. Thankfully history is full of people who didn't want to take "God did it" as a scientific answer and so set out to figure things out naturally. There is nothing more pathetic than a non-scientist trying to argue with actual scientists. You are out of your league Rabbi.
“The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about”
-H. Jackson Brown, Jr.— Aquanerd09 - Where to start? Higgs is either a prodigious "sport" or has a very shy ghostwriter. And it's not often one sees a rabbi mix it up with a cat,with the smart money on the cat. Here's the glass chin of Averick's argument: He equates the faith of the religionist with the "faith" of the scientist, revering the first but belittling the second. Which is it? Is belief/faith without evidence (miracles by definition,are devoid of evidence) good or bad? Or does it depend if the faithful is a rabbi or a science nerd? Higgs, by 1st round KO.— jxxphilly
- as always a great joy to read Higg's responses :) It does get tiring when creationists continually lie and have to be constantly beaten back. So much for their claimed belief in a being that hates lies and liars. You'd think they'd go out of their way *never* to tell a falsehood and get every fact right, rather than ending up continually "bearing false witness" with their quotemining and misrepresenting scientists.— Vel
In pursuit of her stories, writer Faye Flam has weathered storms in Greenland, gotten frost nip at the South Pole, and floated weightless aboard NASA’s zero-g plane. She has a degree in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology and started her writing career with the Economist. She later took on the particle physics and cosmology beat at Science Magazine before coming to the Inquirer in 1995. Her previous science column, “Carnal Knowledge,” ran from 2005 to 2008. Her new column and blog, Planet of the Apes, explores the topic of evolution and runs here and in the Inquirer’s health section each Monday. Email Faye at fflam@phillynews.com.
Reach Planet of the at fflam@phillynews.com.
