tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post4417148145862493238..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Modern Psychology, Gedolim, and Ben Sorer Umorehjoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-79851593898904017652010-09-03T13:17:57.077-04:002010-09-03T13:17:57.077-04:00thanks.
to put it in perhaps clearer terms, with ...thanks.<br /><br />to put it in perhaps clearer terms, with an example, a human is not "better" than a polar bear. it depends on the environmental conditions. put each on the north pole, and clearly the polar bear is better. it has fur to protect it from the elements, can swim in the icy waters to get its food, and can store up food and hibernate. plunk a human in the time of the dinosaurs, and I think that arguably a T-rex is "better" than a human. across time, as environmental conditions change, yes, survival of the fittest will make it more likely that each species that survives will be the "best" fit for thriving in that environment. but there is no "ladder" of progression towards the optimal, as Lamarck believed. and Rav Shternbuch's critique (if you read his article carefully) was that the entire basis, and guiding principle, of Darwinian evolution is this progressionist belief.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-33155724957662966682010-09-03T12:58:23.853-04:002010-09-03T12:58:23.853-04:00Thanks! I was thinking along the same lines as Nat...Thanks! I was thinking along the same lines as Natan Slifkin- that similar ancestry does not obviate the fact that it was more primative than we are, which is an affront to the decline of generations. That said, I saw your response and I agree.Yeshivishnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-12405798854195168082010-09-03T12:17:38.832-04:002010-09-03T12:17:38.832-04:00please read my other (linked-to) post for a defini...please read my other (linked-to) post for a definition.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-30523454560985121512010-09-03T12:08:10.042-04:002010-09-03T12:08:10.042-04:00Josh waxman, What do you mean when yo say that Dar...Josh waxman, What do you mean when yo say that Darwinian evolution is decidedly non-progressionist? Is it not so that the mechanics of natural selection guarantee the survival of the more fit species?Yeshivishnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-47692474819338888742010-09-02T18:19:53.261-04:002010-09-02T18:19:53.261-04:00true, true.true, true.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-6759934327137398892010-09-02T16:35:52.086-04:002010-09-02T16:35:52.086-04:00Rabbi,
It's hardly fair to fault Rav Sternbuch...Rabbi,<br />It's hardly fair to fault Rav Sternbuch for failing to accurately represent the positions of psychology. To do so, he would first have to study the positions of psychology, which would be asur. And bitul toireh. <br /><br />Alternatively, as a godol, we must assume that he accurately represents what psychology believes, and the psychology textbook is wrong, and perhaps even a malicious attempt to tear precious Jews away from the emunas chachomim which have sustained us for lo these many millenia.<br /><br />KT,<br />HillelHillelnoreply@blogger.com