Was Evolution the greatest idea ever to occur to a human mind ?

Erfisflat

There again, proving my claim that your intelligence is limited to a google search. Ask them why you think you are a monkey on a spinning ball? Plagiarist.

http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2009/01/26/was-evolution-the-greatest-theory-ever/

Joeseph

@Ersflat ;


You say ....There again, proving my claim that your intelligence is limited to a google search.....


My reply .... Says the guy who thinks Mars is also flat and the earth ......hollow 

“intelligence” is never something you’re going to be “ accused “ off 

You say .....Ask  them why you think you are a monkey on a spinning ball? .....

My reply .... This coming from a guy who believes ships fall off the edge of the earth never to be seen again and we live under a large glass ......dome 

You say .....Plagiarist.


My reply ....  I gave reference to where I got the article , maybe the ...... curvature of your screen is throwing you off

Gorbin

I believe that there are other ideas that outweigh what the idea of evolution has brought. To specify, Newton's Theories of Motion and his calculations to understand how gravity operates are what gave birth to our understandings of physics. Through these observations, he even invented a new type of math: Calculus.
But the greatest theory/idea in Human history is definitely Aristotle's Logic-which could be referred to by some the father of logistical thinking and using logic to evaluate things period.
Every time we refer to something as "illogical" or "valid", we are referring to that Aristotelian thinking. 

"Aristotle’s logic, especially his theory of the syllogism, has had an unparalleled influence on the history of Western thought. It did not always hold this position: in the Hellenistic period, Stoic logic, and in particular the work of Chrysippus, took pride of place. However, in later antiquity, following the work of Aristotelian Commentators, Aristotle’s logic became dominant, and Aristotelian logic was what was transmitted to the Arabic and the Latin medieval traditions, while the works of Chrysippus have not survived.

This unique historical position has not always contributed to the understanding of Aristotle’s logical works. Kant thought that Aristotle had discovered everything there was to know about logic, and the historian of logic Prantl drew the corollary that any logician after Aristotle who said anything new was confused, , or perverse. During the rise of modern formal logic following Frege and Peirce, adherents of Traditional Logic (seen as the descendant of Aristotelian Logic) and the new mathematical logic tended to see one another as rivals, with incompatible notions of logic. More recent scholarship has often applied the very techniques of mathematical logic to Aristotle’s theories, revealing (in the opinion of many) a number of similarities of approach and interest between Aristotle and modern logicians."

-https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/

MayCaesar

I am not sure that the "explanation ratio" is a proper metric for evaluating the greatness of an idea. For example, "2+2=4" has a 100% explanation ratio, but if the idea is limited to this fact alone, then it can hardly be called the greatest ever, right?

I would rather use two primary criteria for evaluating greatness: the novelty of the idea, and its impact (with high explanation ratio being a requirement to enter the contest). Evolution is a solid idea, and it definitely allows us to explain a lot of things related to the history of life on Earth - but it is not particularly innovative (Darwin just systematized something that, in a chaotic form, was known or, at least, hypothesized for millennia before him), and its practical applications, at least, at the moment are limited. 

Compare it, say, to such a simple idea as a wheel. At the time it was a very ingenious idea (using a round shape to minimize the friction and smooth the ride - very advanced concepts for the times when people did not even know such concepts as "energy" or "force"), and it defined the entire land transport history, from simple chariots and all the way to modern trucks and tanks.

What would be the single greatest idea according to these criteria? It is hard to say without comparing a large variety of ideas side-by-side, but I would suggest that the principle of energy conservation is a very strong contestant. It is a very counter-intuitive concept at the first glance ("If the energy is conserved, then how can anything work at all? Everything should be static!"), and it was followed by the idea that different types of energy can be converted into each other, defining nearly 100% of the modern machinery.

This is as far as science goes. As far as society as a whole goes, I would say that the idea of a stated law was incredibly influential. While laws existed since the times when wild proto-humans started grouping up to ensure easier survival, the idea of a written law was pretty ground-breaking: it streamlined the resolution of societal disputes, it made individuals' lives much more predictable (they now knew what would get them in trouble with the society, rather than always being in danger for being rejected by the society for an arbitrary reason), and it was the first step towards formation of what we know nowadays as a state. As far as I know, Hammurabi is the oldest person in history we know who implemented this idea in practice - although he probably was not the one who came up with it. By modern standards, Code of Hammurabi was incredibly naive and barbaric, but then, every successful idea started with a broken prototype.

---

Thinking about it some more, I have to concur with @Gorbin 's judgment. Aristotle's logic and its cause-effect principle is at the core of our very outlook on the world. It is one of the few ideas that likely will never be dismissed/evolved, because our very thinking is defined by it, and we hardly can surpass our own mind. 

Judaism

Ha! Luckily for me, evolution was mentioned in both the Talmud Bavli and Zohar well before Darwinism was a thought. See, the rabbis DID have divine revelation after all!

Joeseph

@Judaism

 Nonsense 

Judaism

Joeseph

Nonsense? I can prove it buddy! Why else would I be saying it!

In Jaffa, 1905, Rav Kook responded to a question concerning evolution and the geological age of the world. He put forth this letter: 

"Even to the ancients, it was well known that there were many periods that preceded our counting of nearly six thousand years for the current era. According to the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 3:7), 'G-d built worlds and destroyed them,' before He created the universe as we know it. Even more astonishing, the Zohar (Vayikra 10a) states that there existed other species of human beings besides the ‘Adam’ who is mentioned in the Torah [Bereshit]." [1]

Now, what does the Talmud Bavli have to say on evolution, centuries before Darwin? We read in Erubin 18a, that the Chazel taught us that “Man was first created with a tail like an animal.” Later, in Bereshit Rabbah (23:9), it states: “Up to the generation of Enoch the faces of people resembled those of monkeys.” We have already seen that there were generations before Adam and Chavah who were animals and not humans merely because they didn't possess the divine Neshamah (i.e., soul). As they slowly evolved, with G-d's help, everything became clearer, and man walked upright, as science has recently concluded in the last few centuries.

Again, Jews don't view the universe as being 6,000 years old, we're not Christian Creationists. Let me explain:

. . .What is the age of the universe? This has perhaps been the focal question of philosophy for centuries, and the rabbis were no different, especially with such an important kasha as this. The Torah, when counting all the 26 generations from Adam to Moshe, and then all the way to the present day, lends itself to a blundering cosmology of 6,000 years (approximately), as denoted by both the religious and scholarly community at large. It is a blunder because everything from radioactive carbon dating to the extensive fossil record at our display in any museum shows us that our universe is mere billions of years old. When one further considers the discoveries of further scientific study, such as ice core samples, geologic layering, the cosmic microwave background, red-shifting of stars, and the parallax of galaxies, it’s just one landslide after another, tumbling Judaism to the ground with a knockout blow to the divine status of the Torah. To those who accept this view, the Torah is no longer valid and Judaism has just died. 

But what if I told you that all this doesn't have to be the case? What if I told you that the scholars are wrong, and that Judaism does in fact agree with our most recent findings, and that these rabbinic writings are centuries old?

Well, how does that make sense with the account in Bereshit? Let me explain. G-d created everything 15 billion years ago, man evolved, and that it was all an act of G-d (as stated in Bereshit Aleph). But the Rambam (12th century sage) said that most all of Bereshit, especially the creation account, was metaphorical (or done in maaseh - G-d's thought, His planning stage). [2] Hence, HaShem first created the world with Midot HaDin (judgment), but then added Midot HaRachamim (mercy) after, hence, the world's birthday isn't what's celebrated on Rosh Hashanah, but Adam HaRishon in the last shemitah (cosmic cycle, 7 in total, like the Yovel). The reason for adding mercy is stated in Rashi (11th century biblical commenter), he says that the world would have been too harsh a place of judgment otherwise. Thankfully, Yitzchak deMin Acco (14th century sage) calculated for us the age of the universe via the Sefer HaTemunah (penned by the Tanna Nehunya ben ha-Kanah, kabbalistic text) and Tehillim (90:4); we know he further believed in the Zohar (the main kabbalistic work) because he wrote so in Otzar HaChaim 20 years after his investigation confirmed it - so it doesn't matter if the recent scholars suggest in his earlier work that he didn't believe in Zohar because of the mission conclusion, we already have confirmation here!

Look, I'll break it down for you. Here's his calculation:

42,000 x 365,250 = 15.3 billion.

Keep in mind that the 42,000 years were considered divine years (known to use by the Sefer HaTemunah) [3], each lasting 1,000 years, as Tehillim suggests. This is why Judaism matches perfectly with both creation and evolution, and these things were discussed centuries ago, let's say about c. 1200 CE, so no apologetic here!

Modern science has concluded in the last two centuries that the universe is 15 billion years old, and while some scientists do claim its more like ~13 billion, some stars are obviously older than that! Hence, HaShem revealed to the rabbis the true age of the universe centuries ago, well before the first telescope was lifted to the heavens. Why would He want to do this? Because it is stated in Yeshayahu 45:18-19,

"For so said Adonai, the Creator of heaven, Who is G-d, Who formed the earth and made it, He established it; He did not create it for waste, He formed it to be inhabited, 'I am Adonai and there is no other. I did not speak in secret, in a place of a land of darkness; I did not say to the seed of Yaakov, Seek Me, in vain; I am Adonai, Who speaks righteousness, [and] declares things that are right.'"

What's the central point of this passage? 

"I did not say to the seed of Yaakov, Seek Me, in vain...."

G-d wants us to find Him, and the divine knowledge that the universe is actually billions of years old, is only part of that discovery. May we all praise HaShem! [4]
____________

Footnote:

1. Even though there is a source in Chagigah 13b-14a, B.T., disputing it, it would do us all well to recall that the Marches Elokus held a hashkafah which believed these generations actually existed in the last shemitah, we can't discount that.

2. After having carefully studied this system in depth, I've come to the same conclusion as Rambam, that "the account of the beginning [Bereshit 1] is [in] natural science, but so profound that it is cloaked in parables." This makes scientific sense, as the Zohar, relying to us what really happened, speaks of plant life coming after the creation of the Sun.

3. Originally, The Sefer HaTemunah says that the universe will only exist for 42,000 years. That number jumps to 49,000 when one adds the Messianic age. Remember what I said earlier, that there are 7 cosmic cycles in total, each lasting for a 1,000 years? Well, Yitzchak deMin Acco had a revelation, in which those previous 42,000 years were divine years, and hence, a day on earth = a 1,000 on G-d's end. This, of course, was counted for in his calculation of the age of the universe.

4. The English rendered "firmament" was deceptively mistranslated from the original Hebrew. It's actually רָקִיעַ (raqiya`), and means "expanse." It doesn't mean "dome." 

_________________________________________

P.S., Joeseph, there's your proof! If you can debunk what I wrote (the above was from my blog), I'll leave Judaism cause it would no longer be sufficient and logical to believe in it. If not, then perhaps you'll turn? That must be a scary thought for you, I bet! Anyways, I'm not here to convince you of anything. I'm here to show you the truth, so that when you face your trail with G-d, you'll be reminded one day of the Jew who was right.

Joeseph

@Judaism

I tell you what present that pile of garbage to the Nobel committee and lets see how you get on as I think you agree they only accept proof not fairytales like the nonsense you just posted......Newsflash buddy when you’re dead you’re dead there ain’t no heaven or hell that’s something else you cannot prove isn’t it ? 

Judaism

Joeseph

Can we psak halacha from aggadah/hashkafa?

Many authorities have many opinions. Let's not forget the maaseh rav, nevertheless, to psak, one must know our entire mesorah, former Rishonim, Sugyas and passed Acharonim. Furthermore, he can't overturn a mara d'atra, nor the legal tradition of Judaism, and hence, must weigh his psak accordingly, even if a certain halachot is Minhag HaMakom. In short, he can't go against the d'oraita, d'rabbanan, and da'as Torah, he must follow Beit Hillel over Beit Shammai, Rabbi Yochanan over Rav. But that's halacha, what about hashkafa? Should we support religious Zionism? Should we reject Rav Kook's position that aliyah is in no way a atchalta d'geula, and argue for the Satmar Rebbe, who says it violates the Three Oaths? Rabbi Aharon Feldman said that halacha "applies" to hashkafa. He called it "practical halacha." Yitzchak Elchanan also wrote that his teacher, Rabbi Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveitchik, and his "forefathers," never separated the two. According to him, even one part of hashkafa is still halacha. "Just as there are halachot concerning what one is permitted to do, so too are there halachot concerning what one is permitted to think, what one if forbidden to think, and what one must think." Then, there's the other side, too. Rav Aryeh Kaplan says that while one may be a ke-neged halacha if he goes against the status quo, he does have a choice when it comes to hashkafa.

Let's take an example: There is a passage in the Gemara which speaks of Rabbi Hillel II, an Amora, on whether or not the Mashiach will really come. This rabbi believed no, because the Jewish people have already consumed it all in the days of King Chizkia. Rav Yosef rebuked him by saying, "May his master [HaShem] forgive Rabbi Hillel II! When did Chizkia [reign]? In the period of the first Beit HaMikdash. Yet [the prophet] Zechariah prophesied [later] during the Second HaMikdash period, and he states [in Zechariah 9:9]: 'Rejoice very much, O Daughter of Zion, trumpet, O Daughter of Yerusalem, behold your king will come to you, righteous and redeemed. . . ." Of course, Rabbi Hillel rejected the 12th Yigdal of Rambam, moreover, the Chatam Sofer says categorically that since the overwhelming majority of sages reject Rabbi Hillel's position, we cannot believe it; this is the same attitude of the Talmud, in Yevamot 14a, just like how Rabbi Eliezer ruled that we can perform machshirei milah on Shabbat. During his time, the sages followed his halacha, once he departed, however, they no longer did, even members of his own community dropped out! This was, again, because the majority rejected his position, after all, the Torah does not belong to G-d, but to us! Now, let's be careful here, because at first glance it seems as if the Chatam Sofer IS applying pask halacha to hashkafa, but this isn't so, for we're not allowed to discredit the Torah by discrediting the Tanakh, hence, we must apply psak halacha to matters of the coming of Mashiach!

But what about "pure" hashkafa? Ones that have no halachic ramifications whatsoever? A Baraita says that for two and a half years (a machlokes), the academy of Shammai and Hillel argued over matters of hashkafa. The former said that it would be a no'ach lo for man not to have been created at all, while the latter said otherwise. The Baraita then says "yefashfesh 'ma'asav." What does nimnu v'gamru mean? It indicates that this issue seems to meet the criteria for consideration as pure hashkafa, hence, the sages voted, then followed the majority. This is where they got their psak in hashkafa from, after all, the Bas Kol did say that the halacha agreed with Beit Hillel (and this is ultimately where the Rambam pulled his source from, being that psak doesn't apply to hashkafa). But this is just one means of interpretation. The Maharasha said that nimnu does not refer to a vote, but to a count. Hence, the tannaim counted the number of mitzvot aseh against the number of mitzvot lo ta'aseh; and this process took two and a half years to complete! Hence, since there are more mitzvot lo ta'aseh, man is more likely to receive punishment for breaking them than reward for keeping the mitzvot aseh, thus, the reason why it would have been better had man never been created. Even more intriguing is the fact that the Maharasha claimed that the entire debate (including the year and a half), was allegorical, therefore, he understood nimnu v'gamru as indicating that they reached a philosophical consensus, as opposed to a vote or psak (the Mahari Mintz says the Baraita did have halahic ramification, since it explains that the Chazal phrased the Birchot HaSachar in a negative connotation, being we're forced to battle with the never-ending yetzer hara).

Another example, the Rambam makes this point himself in Perush HaMishnayos on Shavuos, at the end of Makkos. He was basing it off the Gemara, that's his source, specifically to its illusion in Menachos, where it speaks of hilchasa le-meshicha - hence, the Gemara says we can't posken halacha for Mashiach. Case in point: The Gemara says that "These and these are the words of the living G-d," as in a dispute; the expression is found twice, for example, in the beginning of Gitten, where it says about the Pilegesh killed in Givah, by the tribe of Benjamin, and put into charem for a while until it was lifted. For this reason, Chamisha Asar B'Av was made a yom tov, so the Gemara seeks as to why her husband put her away, what was his right, and what did he have against her? According to one view, he found a fly, another says he found a hair. Rav Avyasar spoke with Eliagu what HaKadosh Baruch was dealing with. Eliahu's answer? The Pelgesh in Givah; so both opinions were right. Rav then asked him a question, "But how can there be a question in heaven?" What did Eliagu say? "Both are the words of HaShem." That was it, he offered him no other explanation.

Now, let's move into Rashi. He comments on Bereshit 33:3-4, that, "It is known halacha ("halacha b'yadu'a") that Esav hates Yaakov." By his expression, this halacha means hashkafa as well. This is based on Aruch, who wrote that the term "halacha" connotes a concept that goes on ("holeich") from beginning to end, or, alternatively, a matter by which the Jewish nation goes. Then again, we have other commentators, who noted that in Sifri, the language is antithetical to this interpretation, since, it is stated as a question: "Is it known ("halacha b'yadu'a") that Esav hates Yaakov?" Perhaps this is because that was Rashi's original intent, and that the copyist made a mistake? It is suggested that his original might have read more along the lines of הל בידוע, if so, then the abbreviation was erroneously understood to connote to halacha, whereas Rashi connoted to ha'lo (he wasn't talking about future groups of people, just the hatred between two brothers which was resolved). Moreover, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein posed the argument that halacha is relevant, therefore, Rashi meant to teach us, that, just as halacha never changes or departs, so too does Esav's hatred for Yaakov.

Okay, before we move on to Rambam, I want to cite the Bavli vs. Yerushalmi. According to Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook, there is a difference between the two at the beginning of Perek Eilu Hein HaNechnakim in Sanhedrin, therefore, there's a question as to whether or not psak applies to hashkafa, after all, it is the subject of dispute between two Talmuds! They both examine Devarim 17:8, don't they? It talks about a "matter of davar," doesn't it? No one, then, can rebel against the ruling of the judges, and the place HaShem has chosen for them (note that the Hebrew term "shofet" means "master/teacher," just as rabbi). Now, here's the crux: The Bavli says that davar refers to halacha, while the Yerushalmi says it refers to aggadah (or matters of hashkafa)! What was Rav Kook's answer: That while the Yerushalmi states that the court decides on both matters, the Bavli limits its jurisdiction to halacha only. He said that in Eretz Yisrael, the Torah was learned with prophetic stimulation, which diminished the distinction between halacha and aggadah, but in Chutz LaAretz, learning could only be attained by reason alone, since prophecy was no longer available, hence, the clarity of aggadah couldn't be assessed. But Rav Kook doesn't end there, he says that in the age of Mashiach, both will be accessible again. Now, one would think why not now? After all, many Jews have chosen aliyah over g'lut, right? Not so, says Rav Kook, while some may live in Eretz Yisrael, we're still in the time where Bavli is the operative, and hence, there is no psak hashkafa. Then, we run into other interpretations for the existing contradiction. Both the Pnei Moshe and Korban HaEdah, for example, say that the Yerushalmi's explanation of davar as being part of its definition of muflah she'b'beit din as being the one (with the majority's consensus) to make zaken mamrei applicable, is the correct understanding. They say its novelty position is that the requirement of the foremost member of the Great Court be not only an expert in halacha, but also in aggadah, too; therefore, by this approach, the Yerushalmi has nothing to say when it comes to the issue of psak hashkafa. 

Finally, we can move into the Rambam himself. Remember what I said earlier? In his Commentary of the Mishneh, he writes clearly about the issue, and his thoughts. Well, we'll just have to examine some more sources then. Are you ready?

1. Commentary on Sotah 3:3: "And I have already told you more than once that whenever the sages dispute a matter of perspective or opinion that has no bearing on any actual practice, one cannot say the law is in accordance with one of them."
2. Commentary on Shavuot 1:4: "And we have already explained that in regard to any logical position that does not pertain to any actual practice it cannot be said that the law is in accordance with so-and-so."
3. Commentary to Sanhedrin, Introduction to Chapter 10, when asked about if one has a place in Olam HaBa: "We have already mentioned to you several times that in regard to any dispute among Chazal that does not pertain to actual practice, but is solely in the realm of ideas, there is no room to render a psak in favor of one of them."

Does Rambam therefore reject the notion that one could apply psak to hashkafa? It seems so. Though it should be warned that some contemporary scholars think he might have contradicted himself, the example is found in Hilchot Teshuva (7:4).

The Gemara, in Berachot, says that once there was a dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Avahu as to whether or not a Baal Teshuva is on a higher plain than a Teshuva could be in a lifetime of righteousness. The Rambam seems to agree with the former, keep in mind now that this all deals with hashkafa alone, and therefore, he is committed to psak in this area. This seems to contradict what he wrote in Peirush HaMishnayot, right? In truth, however, there is no contradiction, this is because Yad Hazaka includes a long exhortation of advice on things not halachic! The encouragement for the Baal Teshuva only serves as an illustration of that, and to top that, Rambam writes, "the sages said that the place in which Baal Teshuva stands is one that complete Tzaddikim cannot attain." In other words, this is no halchaic ruling, but the hashkafa is certainly there! In fact, Rambam also said that if there was a dispute on emunah between the Tanaim, Amoraim, and Gedolim, which involved philosophical outlooks, he couldn't offer a psak, rather, we shouldn't be tide down to any one opinion other than that which we admire most; as long as there are no halachic ramifications.

In conclusion, we have seen many opinions as to whether or not there is any psak on hashkafa. After all, are there any definitive rulings when it comes to values, perspectives, and philosophical outlooks? Hence, if psak doesn't apply to hashkafa, then Jews need not worry about whether or not to take the majority opinion (just like they would on a decision of halacha). If this is the case, as it seems to be, then not only are there no halachic ramifications for any particular hashkafa, but we can delight in upholding the view of a da'at yachid, as the Rambam did in Peirush HaMishnayot. This is why no one could announce with absolute authority on whether or not Malachi and Ezra were the same people (Tosfos agrees with this, the Mahartz Chiyus, disagrees), since there is no psak on history either (see Radvaz 8:71 for details).

___________________________________________________

So what was my point with all this? To show you why we, as Jews, can follow the Sefer HaTemunah and claim with authority, the age of the universe. Unlike our Christian brothers and sisters, we're not tied down to the literal interpretation of the Bible. We don't have to believe the world is 6,000 years old because Bereshit actually contradicts it, and because when it comes to psaken halacha from hashkafa, you can take any view you want, it doesn't matter. You're not suppose to psak. We don't have to follow "the majority" on this one, we can choose for ourselves. Surely, the marvel of Judaism.