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:


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


Serious Notions with a Smile


Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site


[Write a Reply] [Letters Index]

Title Author Date
Naftali Zeligman and Yaron Yadan Zeligman, Naftali Jan 02, 2006
Dear Mr. Asper--

Although I am acquainted with Yaron Yadan and have accepted his arguments on some issues, I am not he, and my "Letter" reflects my own
point of view. In any event, I was pleased to find my essay featured on the Daat Emet website (a couple of years after its initial posting on
Now to the points you raised.
1. It is certainly wrong to say that "the conditions for the origin of a species requires life from nonlife," when it comes even to the simplest single-cell organisms, let alone multicellular ones like lice. Obviously, to
account for the origin of life in materialistic terms -- which science is all about -- one has to assume that some kind of entity able of reproduction did develop out of non-living matter. What the first entity of this kind
was and how it did develop, is not yet entirely clear (at least as far as I understand), but many advances in this field of research have already been made (see, on the TalkReason site, a discussion by Ephraim Rubin, chapter "Endeavor to Deceive"). In any event, creation is, in scientific terms, a bad hypothesis -- or actually, a non-hypothesis -- because it cannot be tested.
2. Of course, strictly speaking, arthenogenesis is not sexual reproduction. But neither is it the birth of a living organism from sweat,
dust, or other inanimate matter, as stipulated by the Rishonim (whom I mention in my "Letter").
3. It is certainly wrong to claim hat "Creation from nothing is nowadays believed in thanks to Einstein." Those who believe in "creation from
nothing" out of religious considerations obviously owe nothing to Einstein, and to those pursuing a scientific line of reasoning, "creation" is a non-category, because it involves an entity outside the natural world (a creator). If you meant the Big Bang theory (to which Einstein had no direct
relation), then I should note that this theory in no way requires postulating "creation from nothing." See Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (or, for that matter, a summary of Hawking's view by Ephraim Rubin, chapter "The Big Puff").


Related Articles: Letter to My Rabbi