Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List


subscribe to our mailing list:



SECTIONS

Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes

Counter-Apologetics

Serious Notions with a Smile

Miscellaneous

Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site

Discussion

You can read and reply to the existing discussion threads related to the article, or create a new thread:

Your name *:
Your email *:
Security question *: 15 + 18 =
Related article(s):
Subject *:
Message *:
     Length: (max.: 3000 characters)

 

Title Author Date
Geocentrism, Evolution & Judaism Rabinowitz, Avi Mar 16, 2008
You have a review of my article on evolution and the big bang, and this review is also referred to on the 'Skeptic" website, which also mentions my article on geocentrism. I believe your review does not present your readers with an understanding of my position on the issue, however rather than engaging in long back and forth discussions, I would greatly appreciate it
if you could provide your readers with a link to the articles, which are now on my website, albeit in highly edited form, so that they could read the material and judge for themselves.

re evolution and the big bang: http://www.pages.nyu.edu/%7Eair1/The%20Instant%20UniverseBH%20EJ6.htm

re: geocentrism: http://www.pages.nyu.edu/%7Eair1/GeoCentrism%20&%20EgoCentrism,%20Existentialist%20Despair%20&%20Significance.htm

Thank you,

Dr Avi Rabinowitz

 

Title Author Date
review of my article by Rossow Rabinowitz, Avi Feb 23, 2003
1) Thank you for reviewing the article I wrote in B’Ohr Ha’Torah (re the Big Bang and Genesis). Since I appreciate a good critique, I was disappointed that the review seemed to miss the point of the article, which I had hoped was clear: conclusions follow from assumptions: given the viewpoint of the Torah one can create an 'axiom' from which the creation/Eden accounts in some sense follow 'logically', and given the scientific viewpoint the scientific origin theory follows 'logically' .
Note that this article does not purport to be a scientific one, and I offer no proofs nor claim to do so. In any case I am not claiming the truth of a particular view, merely proposing that both in some sense follow from their assumptions.

I also don't quibble about the distinction between neo-Darwinian vs Darwinian, the origin of life vs its development etc, the question of how the universe could have originated other than in a big bang etc, all these matters are irrelevant to the article, what is relevant are the two approaches, that of science which assumes that the universe, life and humanity emerged without divine intervention and offers theories to explain how all this came about, and that of Torah; to be pedantic about each of these points would require several volumes, and this is only an article and as you point out, a rather brief one.

I would be very pleased if you would re read my article, without prior bias, and in the light of the above, and send me (or post) any critique - I really do appreciate such if it is based on careful reading of my work, and is reasoned.

 

Title Author Date
Error in review of Elishakoff Norowitz, Avi Nov 19, 2002
I have noticed an error in Amiel Rossow's review of Isaac Elishakoff's article concerning Torah Codes. The review states that WRR did not use a randomization of Genesis as a control text. However, I believe this is incorrect. In addition to randomizing the names and dates, WRR did test the correct names and dates against several control texts, including Genesis with randomized characters. According to WRR 1994, "The same calculations, using the same 999,999 random permutations, were performed for control texts. Our first control text, R, was obtained by permuting the letters of G randomly".

 

Title Author Date
Interpretation of quantum mechanics Rossow, Amiel Nov 18, 2002
First of all, I’d like to thank Dr. Peter Nave for his comments. I fully agree with his main thesis. Indeed, there are various interpretation of quantum mechanics and none is universally accepted by the scientific community. I would like though to point out one discrepancy in Dr. Nave’s letter. He reproaches me for not discussing in detail the quantum mechanical model (which he refers to as model O) that underlies Poltorak’s approach. In doing that, Dr. Nave, on the one hand, states that “It does not take a long treatise to mention the unresolved state of the validity of the various models and it would have taken only a sentence to explain that model C is not the only logical one, or at least that there exist different models that still compete for universal acceptance.” On the other hand, just a couple of lines further, Dr. Nave says, “I do not want to expand on this topic any further because that would take a lot of work to dig out the references and digest them all.” So, what is Dr. Nave’s actual view – does it “take just a sentence,” or it “would take a lot of work?” I believe the second alternative is closer to the actual situation. My task was not to discuss the complex and not yet universally resolved problem of a proper interpretation of quantum mechanics but only to critically review Dr. Poltorak’s attempt to reconcile the Genesis story with scientific data. I believe that Poltorak’s attempt was unsuccessful and his discourse is inconsistent from the standpoints both of science and of the Torah’s story. Dr. Nave does not seem to object to that conclusion. The main point of my critique was not so much in regard to the difference among various models, referred to by Nave as models C, O, etc, but mainly in regard to the specific inconsistencies in Poltorak’s interpretation of what Nave refers to as model O. Delving into the comprehensive discussion of the various interpretations of quantum mechanics would , in Dr. Nave’s own words, require “a lot of work to dig out the references and digest them all,” which would lead me far beyond the goal of my critique of Poltorak’s work, more so because my review was not limited to the article by Poltorak alone but covered a number of other articles as well.