Darwin is a Problem for Jews

Did the software in the cell, DNA, write itself? Is genetic information the only information that science has ever encountered that was not generated by an intelligent agent? These are some of the questions raised by the scientific and cultural war going on over Charles Darwin's theory and its modern challenger, intelligent design.

In an April 6 Jerusalem Post op-ed, the writer and editor Larry Yudelson took me to task for arguing in numerous venues that the debate about Darwin is a crucial one for Jews who care about Judaism. If it was simply Yudelson offering his personal opinion that "Darwin is no problem for Jews" (the title of his article), I wouldn't have sought the generous permission of the editor to respond.

But given that Yudelson also summons no less a figure than Maimonides to the defense of Darwin, along with another rabbinic luminary, Abraham Isaac Kook, a response is necessary. MAIMONIDES lived seven centuries before Darwin presented his argument that natural selection operating on random genetic variation produced you and me. Yet Judaism's greatest sage of the past millennium was engaged in a strikingly similar scientific argument in his own time.

That argument centered on the question of whether the universe is eternal and without a starting point (the position of Aristotle) or whether it had a beginning in time at the moment of creation (Maimonides's view).

Larry Yudelson recommends to us the path of Maimonides, "who opposed his contemporaries who preached the eternity of the world simply because 'the theory has not been proved' (Guide II:25), while allowing that were it to be proved, it would not contradict the core Jewish beliefs."

I wish Mr. Yudelson had read that important chapter in Guide for the Perplexed more carefully. In fact, the sage writes that he rejects the eternity of the world for two reasons not, as Yudelson says, just one.

First, Maimonides rejected Aristotle's thinking on this point because it "has not been demonstrated." But second because it makes nonsense of the Jewish religion: "If the philosophers would succeed in demonstrating eternity as Aristotle understands it, the Torah as a whole would become void, and a shift to other opinions would take place. I have thus explained to you that everything is bound up with this problem."

Maimonides was saying that though parts of the Bible's text may indeed be interpreted in other than a literal fashion, there are philosophical reasons that make an eternal universe incompatible with the God of the Torah. Simply put, Aristotle makes God's role in the world, as a creator and guide, superfluous and impossible. AND DARWINISM does the very same thing, ascribing all creation to blind material processes, as Darwin himself wrote: "I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of natural selection if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent."

Maimonides would ask if Darwinism nevertheless has been "demonstrated." Well, Darwin's followers reached a high point of self-confidence in 1959 with the Centennial Celebration held at the University of Chicago to mark the 100th-year anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species. The event was notable for the total conviction on the part of many speakers that any debate about Darwin was over and done.

But since then, the intellectual trend has changed directions. The Discovery Institute has compiled a list of Darwin-doubting scientists, a list currently standing at more than 500 doctoral researchers at places like Berkeley, Princeton and MIT.

It is now 71 years since Rav Kook died. So obviously in writing the beautiful and poetic words that Larry Yudelson quotes, Kook was not aware of the current state of knowledge about microbiology and the nanotechnology of the cell. Was Kook a close student of Darwin's writings or of the state of biology even in his own day? Is Yudelson?

In theory, it's very inspiring and idealistic to write, as Kook did, that: "In general this is an important principle in the conflict of ideas, that when an idea comes to negate some teaching in the Torah, we must not, to begin with, reject it, but build the edifice of the Torah above it, and thereby we ascend higher, and through this ascent, the ideas are clarified."

In practice, however, there is simply no way to reconcile an idea with its precise negation. The premise of Judaism is that God commands us on the basis of his having created us. The question before us, therefore, is not a simple-minded one of whether the universe was made in six calendar days, but rather of whether the universe has a need for a God, period.

In the philosophical system elaborated by Darwin and his disciples, there is no room for a creator in any sense. To explain the existence of life without reference to a deity was Darwin's entire purpose.

He developed a theory that answered his own purpose, certainly not ours as Jews. Given that his idea has neither been unambiguously demonstrated nor is it congenial to Jewish belief - the two-fold test of Maimonides - I am bewildered to find Jews who are committed to Judaism rushing recklessly to Darwin's defense.

"What isn't so clear for a lot of people who believe those accounts is HOW that deity did all that creating."

Oh, its clear.

Gen 1:3 - And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Gen 1:9 - And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so

Gen 1:11 - Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.

Gen 1:14-15 - And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so.

Gen 1:24 - And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

The Bible and evolution are incompatible. The order of events in the creation disagree with evolution (i.e. birds before land animals), the fact that all this happened in 24 hour days disagrees with evolution, and most of all, the fact that death is required for evolution to progress, make macro evolution incompatible with the Word of God.

JM

"And hundres of millions believe Genesis as written. What's your point?"

Well, I can't answer for the other poster, but the fact that there is considerable division amongst Jews and Christians about the Genesis account means that it's not entirely clear who is correct.

Either the Genesis account is an allegory, as many believe, or it is literally true, as many others believe.

I take my clue from the audience that was being addressed in Genesis at the time of its writing. A detailed explanation of the processes involved would not have been comprehensible to them. So, a simple account was preferable.

The similarity of the Genesis account to other creation stories, at least in its simplicity, tends to add credence to the allegorical nature of the account.

Do a search for "creation stories" (no quotes) on Google. You'll find several sites which contain creation stories from a number of cultures. All of them are allegorical.

Well, I can't answer for the other poster, but the fact that there is considerable division amongst Jews and Christians about the Genesis account means that it's not entirely clear who is correct.

The bible is correct. Any interpretation of it can be fallible.

Either the Genesis account is an allegory, as many believe, or it is literally true, as many others believe.

True, but it makes no claim or allusion to the possibility of it being an allegory. It does not follow the typical format of Hebrew prose.

I take my clue from the audience that was being addressed in Genesis at the time of its writing. A detailed explanation of the processes involved would not have been comprehensible to them. So, a simple account was preferable.

I certainly agree with that. Even the simple explanation of the processes that are given are not comprehensible to much of the present generation. However, it doesn't take a genius to see that a simple explanation of evolution in no way resembles the account given in Genesis. If evolution were true, God could have easily given a simple account that described the series of events. I believe that you are underestimating the intelligence of the audience that was being addressed, and you underestimate God's ability to reveal Himself to us.

The similarity of the Genesis account to other creation stories, at least in its simplicity, tends to add credence to the allegorical nature of the account.

It also adds credence to the possibility that the Genesis account is true since all cultures in the world would have descended from the family of Noah. A root family with the ability to communicate.

Do a search for "creation stories" (no quotes) on Google. You'll find several sites which contain creation stories from a number of cultures. All of them are allegorical.

However, none of these stories claim to be the inspired word of God.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
- 2 Timothy 3:16-17

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
- 1 Corinthians 2:14-16

I belive in God, Intelligent Design, Torah and the "development" of life, which may take in evolution.

Believe what you will. Darwinian evolution is based on the geological theories of Hutton and Lyell, which deny the Biblical chronologies and Noah's Flood. There are Orthodox Jews, including very traditional Yeshivish ones, who interpret the opening verses of the Torah according to Darwin, but aside from heretics they all switch to literalism once Adam arrives on the scene and accept everything from that point onward (including Methuselah, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, etc.) as literal history (how many times do I have to say this, people?). Of course, none of the pro-evolution statements issued by Orthodox bodies mentions this little fact, but they are trying to hide their own fundamentalism. I can't help but wonder, however, how subscribing to uniformitarian naturalism during the period when nature was in the process of being created and then switching to miracle mode can be squared with basic logic--especially qal vachomer.

I do understand that the Orthodox rabbinate is in a bit of a quandary. On the one hand, since the "enlightenment," Jewishness has acquired a reputation for skepticism, intellectualism, and free-thinking dissent (the prior 3100 years of Jewishness seems to have slipped into an Orwellian memory hole). Most non-observant Jews consider religiosity to be "un-Jewish," and the rabbis have to appeal to these people in order to bring them back home. On the other hand, now that Noachism is beginning to blossom here and there (mostly among fundamentalist "rednecks"), these same rabbis have to appeal to these people who define Jewishness by the Book of Joshua. Not a fun position to be in, is it? Of course, it wouldn't be a quandary for me, but then, I'm one of Eric Hoffer's "true believers."

In case you haven't noticed, the evolutionists on this board reject G-d and "intelligent design" outright, so I don't know who you think you're impressing with your compromise. "Intelligent design" is merely non-literalist "theistic evolution" which insists that at some point G-d breaks out of "fairyland" into reality. Anti-ID evolutionists are not merely non-literalists. They construct a gulf between "reality" and "speculative philosophy," with G-d confined to the latter, never intruding into mundane reality.

I am not one of those who sees an imminent collapse of Darwinism, but should such a thing occur I predict that all the Orthodox Jews, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, classical Protestants, etc., who have spent the past 150 years shooting barbs at "rednecks" and loudly claiming "we have never had a problem with evolution!" will suddenly appear and loudly claim credit for the victory of creationism, patting themselves on the back for "never giving in to modernity." The sad fact is that out of all the peoples of the world, only the "rednecks" have remained true to the vision all the ancient religions once held to but are now so ashamed of.

"If I knew God I'd be Him" ('Wish I kew who said that.)

I should say "Divine Design" rather than ID. And it is peculiar that evidence points to certain forms of evolution, yet consistently lacks the crucial "joining" points.

Though I love science so too that I sometimes argue with God as to His creation. Though as I said, "If I knew Him I'd be Him."

Two books lately have influenced my thinking and inspiration: Gerald Schroeder, The Science Of God and Guillermo Gonzaalez and Jay W Richards The Privileged Planet.

Thanks for your insights.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.