I never understood it. They were good, loving, calm rabbis. But you got any of them, any of them started on evolution, on that theory about people coming from apes, apes coming from some other furry thing, furry things coming from reptiles, reptiles from fish, fish from amoebas… and these rabbis weren’t so calm anymore.
Their faces would turn red, red like a strawberry which may or may not have evolved from a raspberry. They’d bounce back and forth and their voices would rise above the usual, “let’s just be calm about all this” cadence they usually had. Now they were possessed by some otherworldly anger.
Why? I simply couldn’t understand. What makes evolution so contradictory to religion? Why did the rabbis that I usually trusted to give a calm rational answer to the sort of logic that most scientists take so for granted suddenly become so emotional and seemingly illogical when it came to evolution.
Evolution, it seems, has reserved itself a special place in hell among almost all the world’s religions. Most rabbis can at least acknowledge the logic of existing scientific theories, avoiding the kneejerk rhetoric of the Christians at the pulpit that have managed to steal almost every meaningful discussion about science away into a world of reactionary zeal. But evolution ain’t like that. Evolution, even us calm Jews get pissy about. Why?
The truth is, it has a lot to do with that last word. Why.
Look at articles that in any way relate to how humans became the way the way they did. Look at how they explain why we live the way we do, eat the way we do, stand on two legs the way we do.
Almost all of them use one word to explain it: Why.
They take one of the most powerful words in the English language, the word that’s meant to give you the deepest understanding for the way things happen, the ultimate reason for their existence, and they use it to explain the world in a totally physical way.
Why are humans bipedal? Evolution. Why do humans use tools? Evolution. Why do humans talk, write, etc? Evolution.
This is what gives the poor little rabbis conniptions.
You’re telling me that the ultimate, deepest reason we exist, that such amazingly deep things are only explained through science?
This is the distinction. This is why evolution gets people so upset, not necessarily the science behind it (although plenty of religious people would probably disagree with me on that point).
I am not arguing for or against the science, but how people use it. Evolution has, for some bizarre reason, become a way to debunk religion. Is it any coincidence that our good friend Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist? Evolution has become the calling card of people with an irrational hate for religion.
They wield it, like some immutable weapon, against G-d, against thousands of years of religious tradition, against the people that represent those religions, and scream on the top of their lungs, “You’re idiots! Fools! Don’t you see we have all the answers with this theory?”
And so the rabbis get rankled.
The problem with evolution, just like any science, is that it only explains how not why. And that makes it ultimately less important to a religious person.
Fine, you say evolution explains why I walk upright, why I talk, why I have two eyes, why I have a face and why I have a bladder.
I say that the body is simply a manifestation of something deeper. It is simply a reflection of my spiritual self. And to find the why of my body, I have no interest in whether your theory is right, because it doesn’t concern me. What concerns me is connecting to my essential self, to understanding the why of the universe not the how of physicality.
Don’t get me wrong. If the theory of evolution helps our study of medicine, is useful in scientific endeavors, go for it, believe in it.
But don’t let it replace your why. Don’t let it make you forget that there are deeper reasons for the way the world works than what Charles Darwin and an army of scientists tell you. Despite what the rest of the world would have us think, science is not, and never will be, the deepest truth in the universe.
That will, and always will be G-d and his wisdom. And until the world comes to realize that, science will always exist on a more exulted altar than it deserves to be.
The Pop Chassid, also known as Elad Nehorai, is a writer and a student at the Mayanot Institute of Jewish Studies. When he is not writing, studying or reading, you can find him somewhere up in the clouds chatting to himself. You can check out his other blog, To Light a Spark, on Chabad.org
Shlomit on 
David C on 
hood on 
Dovid Gottlieb on 
To Light a Spark
I like the article.
I thought that the highest point in human spirituality is when we can combine science into our intellectuality without any conflicts with our essential selves, that science and G-dliness are different sides of the same leaf.
No raspberry-faced-Rabbis.
Thanks for the contribution, Anne.
Just wanna make one comment: Very often science inevitably comes into conflict with religion. This is because science is temporal, it changes and flows with time, while religion (read: Torah) is a higher knowledge that is beyond time. Back in the day, people had trouble believing there was anything more than the physical. Now, we know that matter is nothing more than energy. But no one has yet proven that even that energy isn’t real.
The point is, you’re right, ideally science and religion will never clash. But they do. And for that reason, I think it’s important to not try to compromise our beliefs just to make it fit with modern day science. That’s called apologetics.
Sorry for the long response!
Here is the problem. Even evolutionary scientists don’t know what there talking about. They make wild assumptions with little or not physical evidence to back up their claims. For 1 fact, we know that if the world started with only a handful of people, lets say 100, that is not enough genetic diversity to create a species of people. It would have stricken early man with huge genetic problems, becuase they all evolved from the same sources. Another problem is that this ‘evolution’ has seemed to stop. Why are not creatures evolving at all, not a single even small step in the last 1000 years? Additionally, as scientists discover new information, new theories come out, like the recent one that apes evolved from man. Evolution, on a very small scale, has occurred in the world, but not as advancement, but as diversity. If you look at an average male from Japan, he looks very different then an average male from Germany. In biology, we would actually categorize these two people as sub-species, even though their populations can breed with each other. This is done with primates, but is not politically correct to do with humans. Science has some very deep flaws, and evolutionary science is turning out to be more like desperate clawing at the walls of someone who is slowly slipping down, despite their best efforts. The reason SOME rabbis would get mad at torah Jews bringing up evolution is becuase it is a stupid waist of time. The debates happened already (see all the AISH stuff on evolution) and the evolutionary scientists suffered a huge rout and embarrassment. Even newer science textbooks are not presenting evolutionary science as the be all end all of what happened, becuase of the extreme lack of evidence.
Ladies and gentlemen, an angry Jew.
But in all seriousness, the point of the article is not so much about the actual facts that do or do not support evolution, but the emotional and spiritual reasons for the strong reaction to it. I don’t think we can just base it on the fact that it’s a “waste of time”. So was the Kardashian wedding, but you don’t hear Rabbis fuming about that.
David,
I would highly recommend that you make an effort to formally learn about evolutionary theory first hand before you bash it. As a shomer shabbos yid and a scientist I have to be very emphatic in saying that it is not some sort atheist conspiracy. I also have to be emphatic in suggesting that you are misinformed (AISH, unfortunately is not exactly the most honest source to consult on the subject).
Your claim that evolution has somehow stopped over the last 1000 years is a perplexing one. There are many cases of observed speciation and and adaptation. Insect evolution has been demonstrated, observed, and reproduced in laboratory experiments. Evolution is just the change in frequency of genetic in reaction selective pressures. It hasn’t remotely stopped. I find your discussion of Japanese versus German people as some counterexample to evolution particularly odd, given that I personally know people who are of half-Japanese, half European decent. Human alleles (genetic traits) are very much changing and morphing. True, technology and civilization have protected us against some of the more brutal forms of “survival of the fittest” (as they should). But, sexual selection (changes based on breeding patterns and preferred mates) in particular has very much changed the genetic fabric of humans, even on a century time scale.
The suggestion that evolutionary theory has suffered some sort of rout and embarrassment is a delusion only in the imaginations of those who either know nothing about it, or who’s minds were made up before they even considered the science.
Rambam would have a serious problem with this sort of intellectual closure to scientific evidence. Maimonedes was a strong believer in a Torah Judaism the considered scientific evidence rather than dismissing it off hand.
Elad,
I disagree with your suggestion that Rabbis as a whole, “turn red in the face” on the subject of evolution. I can name a large number of orthodox Rabbis and scientists who have no problem with evolution
Judaism, through a large part of modern history, has had no beef with accepting scientific progress along with G-d and Torah. Likewise, the majority of the scientific community (excluding a small number of firebrands like Dawkins) has no beef or interest in attacking religion. Evolution, like Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, or Orbital Mechanics is just a framework for explaining observations in nature.
I agree with your general message: that we cannot let the “how” overwhelm the “why”. But, the struggle to see G-d in nature is an eternal human struggle. Let’s not blame evolutionary theory, or any particular theory, for that matter.
In short, I am a proud Jew. I am a practicing Jew and I do NOT hate evolution.
First off, love your comment. Well written, well reasoned. I wish more comments on the internet were like that.
In response: I agree, on the whole lots of rabbis are really good at discussing evolution. I include my first shliach in that, which is part of why I started to realize Judaism isn’t just some dumb archaic religion. However, he was against it still, and I respected him even more for that, even while I disagreed with him (at the time).
I agree Judaism’s great strength is that it doesn’t fall prey to silly dualism, like many reactionaries would want it to. On the other hand, there are times when the line between rationality and apologetics is pretty gray. I think evolution is a perfect example. There are many orthodox Jews who believe in it, respected ones, but there are many, including the Rebbe, who also happened to be a trained scientist, who firmly denied it.
In the end, though, this post is not so much about the theory, but about the way it is viewed. My problem is with the word “Why” and how it is thrown around thoughtlessly and carelessly. The problem is more with popular culture and the way it has used evolution to supplant true, deep knowledge.
Jews/Rabbis don’t hate evolution as a theory. They hate what evolution has become in the eyes of the general public. How it replaced our “Why”. That’s why I titled my blog the way I did.
Getting into an argument about whether evolution is real or not, especially in this post, is, in my opinion, missing the point. The question this post attempts to address is what is our “Why”? Who is our G-d? And what takes primary importance in our lives?
Hey Elad,
Thanks for the response (that was fast)
.
“I agree Judaism’s great strength is that it doesn’t fall prey to silly dualism, like many reactionaries would want it to.”
Amen to that.
“On the other hand, there are times when the line between rationality and apologetics is pretty gray.”
I think the Rambam would disagree. It is not easy balancing between faith and reason, to be sure. But, G-d gave us a brain and expected us to use it bravely, not to shy from it. The scientific case for common decent, natural selection, and the evolution of life on the earth is really overwhelming…short of the notion G-d planting the dinosaur bones to deceive us (which I find rather distasteful), we have to confront this evidence.
I’d like to share an essay by one of my favorite biologists and authors, Ken Miller:
http://www.templeton.org/belief/essays/miller.pdf
“I think evolution is a perfect example”
Why evolution? Why not gravity or quantum mechanics?
“They hate what evolution has become in the eyes of the general public.”
I disagree with the claim that evolution has become or necessarily will become anything worse in the eyes of the public than cosmology or geology. I have met many nonscientists who’s imaginations, illuminated by the beauty of the science, find G-d in it. And, tragically, in this country, much of the general public very much rejects the science purely on a knee-jerk religious basis, suggesting that things are actually the opposite of what you claim them to be.
“Getting into an argument about whether evolution is real or not, especially in this post, is, in my opinion, missing the point.”
Agreed, which is why I would posit that the title of this essay unnecessarily picks on evolution…It is also why I take so much offense at some folks in Jewish world who misrepresent the science of evolution or slander the scientific community needlessly to make their point…I wish more folks had your tone, which I very much respect and appreciate.
One other minor point, and this is meant with no disrespect to the Rebbe. The Rebbe was not, as you suggest, a trained scientist. He was a light of our generation and he was scientifically literate. However, the extent of his eduction was a few graduate level engineering courses at the Sorbonne. He did not, to my knowledge finish a masters, let alone doctorate. The Rebbe was a great man who’s merits stand on their own, and do not need to be embellished.
Gotta run. But, I enjoyed talking to you. All The best and hope this finds you well!
Woah intense. Okay here we go.
I am not, to be honest, so interested in debating whether evolution is true or not. At the end of the day, you are entitled to believe what you believe. It honestly doesn’t bother me if you believe in evolution and I find it honorable that you think it important to use our brain “bravely”.
My point is simply that even if the whole world is showing you proof after proof that you are wrong, that your beliefs are unfounded, if you truly believe in something, you have a duty to bravely stand by it. I am not disagreeing with evolution because I think it is irrational or there aren’t convincing arguments for it. I simply don’t believe in it because the belief I hold by, the leaders I believe in, and the tradition I follow hold that the world was created in six 24 hour days, end of story.
I’m not asking you to agree with me. What I want to point out is that our BELIEFS, no matter how zany, should always be first and foremost our concern. Years ago, people believed the world was entirely physical, hard and coarse. There was plenty of evidence to support this theory, and the Jews would have been hard pressed to point out that the world wasn’t physical at all. Now we know everything is energy. Should we have changed our beliefs to suit the times?
As for your comment about neuroscientists, I also was helped on my journey through science. I was one of those dudes that loved watching documentaries about black holes because it made me think about G-d. I think you’re right, for the most part. However, the problem is, again with the word “why” and the way it is thrown around. You’re right, plenty of people have a knee-jerk religious reaction. I’m not talking about, nor concerned with those people. I’m talking about the people who use evolution as a why, and say what you will, not everyone is an enlightened, imaginative neuroscientist.
As for the title, I’m sorry if it bothered you, that really wasn’t the point, and I hope most people will read beyond the title. If not, what the heck are they doing on my blog, anyway?
As for the Rebbe, so sorry, guess I got it wrong. Anyway, he was one smart tzadik, either way. Speaking of which, if you are interested, there’s a collection of a bunch of his letters about scientific matters available on Chabad.org (as well as in book form). Here’s the link: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/111581/jewish/Mind-Over-Matter.htm
Anyway, always nice having a real convo on here, please stay in touch. We miss you Chitown folk out here in Israel!
“My point is simply that even if the whole world is showing you proof after proof that you are wrong, that your beliefs are unfounded, if you truly believe in something, you have a duty to bravely stand by it.”
This is where I think the meat of the discussion is. I do not believe that we should hold on to beliefs that are demonstrably wrong. Or, at least to the extent that nothing in science is *totally* absolute, we should be willing to allow for the possibility of new ideas when we are confronted with overwhelming evidence (even if we hold out hope that maybe that evidence will some day be explained away). In short, faith should not be blind. I feel that Emmunah should be balanced by Emmet. I believe with all my heart that G-d gave us the spark of curiosity and wonder so that we could use them to uncover the secrets of this amazing Universe, not ignore it. What I love about the Jewish approach is that when confronted with a machloket, we are quick to let go of our first assumptions. Instead, we come to discover that the apparent contradiction is not because the verse or the sage was wrong, but because *we misunderstood* what they were actually trying to tell us. This is also how scientific inquiry works. Our understanding evolves (no pun intended). It does not stay static.
“the belief I hold by, the leaders I believe in, and the tradition I follow hold that the world was created in six 24 hour days, end of story”
Fair enough. I would only point that there are valid traditions in Judaism, going back thousands of years and pre-dating modern science, that do not hold by the six literal days. Also, belief six 24 hour periods is arguably not an important principle of faith, even among those in Chazal who did articulate such an interpretation.
“Years ago, people believed the world was entirely physical, hard and coarse. There was plenty of evidence to support this theory, and the Jews would have been hard pressed to point out that the world wasn’t physical at all. Now we know everything is energy. Should we have changed our beliefs to suit the times?”
Yes! For one thing, it is not so much that we were wrong about the world being “solid”. The calculations for firing a cannonball are still exactly as true as they were in Newton’s times and hitting your head against a wall still hurts, even though the wall is actually a majority empty space. But, on a deeper level, we realize that there are underlying principles that create this perception of solidness. In other words it is not about *changing beliefs* so much as it is about revising and broadening our understanding when presented with new information.
All the best,
M
“This is where I think the meat of the discussion is.”
Right. Exactly. Chassidus, in fact, teaches that ALL faith is blind, no matter how much logic we end up using. Since, in the end, Hashem is completely beyond logic, ALL of our faith therefore must be accepted as blind, from the very beginning. Only after we accept this essential truth, argues Chassidus, can we move on to logic.
This is why, with certain things, it IS okay to be practically blind to the physical world in our faith of Hashem and what we believe in. For example, despite the fact that horrible things happen to good people, and much of it is completely unexplainable (eg the Holocaust) I still believe with all my heart that Hashem is real an good and will do only revealed good in my own life.
And you’re right, 24 hour days isn’t like the 14th principle of faith. But, to me that’s not the point. The point is that my particular tradition teaches so, and there are plenty of logical (but not necessarily in line with modern science’s view) ways of addressing evolution. In my mind, it’s better to bend the theory of evolution than my view on the way the world was created.
And yes, in effect, the world is solid. And, in fact, all of halacha treats the world only as solid. Anything microscopic is not in the realm of halacha. However, that does not change the fact that the world itself simply ISN’T physical. You’re right, in effect it is. But in REALITY it’s not. And I don’t just mean in the energy way, I mean in the everything is G-d way.
That is exactly why I said that if evolution helps us understand medicine, genetics, etc. then fine, let’s use it. It’s a good system in that sense. However, in terms of what I believe to REALLY be true, not just in EFFECT true, it’s that the world was created in 6 days, and evolution will just have to find a way to fit into that or move aside.
I do agree that ultimately, ain od milvado. There is a certain leap of logic necessary to get to the point where the world exists at all. And at times we absolutely must close our eyes and take a leap of faith.
However, there are degrees and there are degrees. We also have a moral imperative to use logic and observations about the world around us. And, the world must be so designed by Hashem that we can validate and falsify propositions using these tools.
I am extremely wary of a philosophy that requires me to look at a red stop-sign and insists that I believe the stop-sign to be blue. There has to be a balance between transmitted, spiritual, and faith-based knowledge (on the one hand) and knowledge that is objectively verifiable (on the other). So when someone tells me “not to look at the man behind the curtain”, I think I have a legitimate reason for asking why the heck should I ignore what’s right in front of me.
I believe there is a huge difference between a hidden G-d and a G-d who deceives. A G-d of truth would not falsify evidence (like planting bones of creatures that never existed). And a truthful G-d would want me to use the faculties he gave me to understand the world around me *even at the risk of being wrong*…so long as I do so L’shmayim.
We cannot know anything with absolute certainty, so any attempt we make at understanding risks being wrong. But, we *have* to try. This goes for science but it also goes for our knowledge of Torah. Our tradition is incomplete and imperfect. We cannot know with absolute certainty what G-d meant by a particular word or verse and there are often multiple interpretations. There are several instances in the Torah where “day” is meant non-literally (eg “a thousand years are as a day…”). It is not a trivial question to ask what is meant by the text of Bereishit, *regardless* of the science. And, where do we draw the line on literalism? Do we insist on believing that the world is flat (the Torah, after all, speaks of it having “four corners”)? Fortunately, G-d gave us many tools, including scientific inquiry and logic, to elucidate Torah matters. We should use them and we should value them, as G-d no doubt does. We have to do our best, even at the risk of being wrong (Lo B’Shamyim He).
Ultimately, the tendency to forget to ask “why” is a problem of human nature and a problem of G-d’s hiddenness in the world. It is not because of science or scientists. Sure, some people use science as a pretense to push misguided agendas like atheism or whatever. But, some people also use Judaism to push misguided agendas. One cannot attack something just because a few people misuse it… especially since that is unfair to the majority who do not.
” if evolution helps us understand medicine, genetics, etc. then fine, let’s use it.”
I do not believe that the *only* value to science is in its utility. Science has a value l’shma. Rambam considered science to be among the highest expressions of religious thought. And, I believe that G-d Himself sees an intrinsic value to science.
I’m sorry, I think I misspoke about a few things so let me address them.
#1: I don’t believe in evolution only in a totally utilitarian sense. I don’t even deny evolution itself. What I deny is that the process happened differently than it said in Torah. Namely, that G-d first created the world the way it was described in Bereishit, and then after that evolution could totally be real. I never completely disregarded evolution, and I believe it to be a plausible theory. I simply believe the world was created in 6 days, and then after that everything is fair game.
2. As for the 24 hour business. I hope you would agree with me that a red sign not being blue is different than saying the universe is billions of years old. For example, what’s wrong with saying (as I believe) that the world was created in a state AS IF it had existed for billions of years. It makes sense, I think. We’re talking about G-d here. He can do whatever he wants, and he’s beyond time. So why not create a world that is billions of years old in 6 24 hour days? I see no problem with this thought process, even on a scientific level. Why? Because a red sign is right in front of you, it is testable, it exists at the same time as you, it can be verified by other people. No one was around for the creation of the world except G-d. As the Rebbe put it in a letter, “Let us note at once, that all speculation regarding the origin and age of the world comes within the second and weaker method, that of extrapolation. The weakness becomes more apparent if we bear in mind that a generalization inferred from a known consequent to an unknown antecedent is more speculative than an inference from an antecedent to consequent” (http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/112083/jewish/Theories-of-Evolution.htm). I have no idea what that means, but I’m pretty sure it backs up my point.
3. Okay, fine. But honestly, I believe all this talk is beside the point. Why? You keep bringing up evolution as if it is “elucidating Torah”. I don’t necessarily think it is. Fine, it’s interesting, it’s helpful and definitely we should take it seriously as a theory, and for certain people it can deepen their appreciation of G-d and Torah. No question. But the argument you make that I must believe in evolution to become more enlightened religiously is hard for me to accept. Why? Because, at the end of the day, the whole discussion is relatively shallow compared to other discussions. It’s an important discussion, I guess, but only if it is somehow impeding your ability to accept Torah. Otherwise, let’s just move on with our lives and focus on becoming better Jews. On delving into our souls, growing and reaching higher points of revelation. This constant back-and-forth that exists between hard liners on both sides hurts rather than helps spiritual growth. Let’s just figure out where we stand and get on with our lives.
I understand that might sound a bit harsh especially as a scientist. I don’t mean to make it sound like that. What I mean to say is, if science deepens your appreciation and growth in religious matters, that’s great. If it doesn’t, that’s okay too. The important thing is connecting to Hashem, and however it’s done, as long as it’s done, we can call ourselves a success.
I’d much rather be an ignoramus about the physical world than be caught up in arguments about it to the point that I forget all I really care about is bringing spirituality into it.
“I hope you would agree with me that a red sign not being blue is different than saying the universe is billions of years old.”
Not much different. I think that the evidence for our Universe being orders-of-magnitude older than 5772 is as absolutely compelling as anything can possibly be, just short of directly seeing it.
“For example, what’s wrong with saying (as I believe) that the world was created in a state AS IF it had existed for billions of years. ”
I do concede that, if G-d made the Universe to look old (right down to hiding the fossilized remains of billions of years of life that never existed) then science can neither prove or disprove that claim.
“We’re talking about G-d here. He can do whatever he wants, and he’s beyond time. So why not create a world that is billions of years old in 6 24 hour days?”
As I said, I think that such a fabrication would skirt with outright trickery and dishonesty on G-d’s part. One could at least make a strong case that if G-d built a 14 billion year back-story into the world, then there is an importance to that story and we are obliged to understand it, regardless of whether or not it happened.
“Let us note at once, that all speculation regarding the origin and age of the world comes within the second and weaker method, that of extrapolation.”
This sort of argument is disingenuous and dishonest. Extrapolation is only a weak method if you make a single, uncorroborated extrapolation. In the case of the world being billions of years old, it is not one extrapolation but countless *independent* extrapolations. Each of these extrapolations has different underlying assumptions and would diverge from the others if those assumptions were to break down. In other words, the consistency of the chronology of countless observations in every major field of science constrain and validate age of the world. Consistency and multiplicity of evidence are the hallmarks of good science.
“You keep bringing up evolution as if it is “elucidating Torah”. I don’t necessarily think it is”
I have no problem if you decide not to seriously hit the books on evolution (there is too much to learn in the world). But, if you don’t study the subject matter with any depth, than how can you say what it means or what its significance is?
“Because, at the end of the day, the whole discussion is relatively shallow compared to other discussions.”
I thoroughly disagree. That is the heart of my argument. Science is not superficial. If nothing else, I hope you would reconsider that notion.
“But the argument you make that I must believe in evolution to become more enlightened religiously is hard for me to accept.”
I would never say that you must believe in evolution to become more religiously enlightened. On the other hand, I strongly disagree with the counter claim that you must (or even should)deny evolution to become more enlightened.
“I’d much rather be an ignoramus about the physical world than be caught up in arguments about it to the point that I forget all I really care about is bringing spirituality into it.”
You are presenting a false choice here. There is no reason why being an ignoramus is a necessary precondition to being spiritual. You don’t have to chose between science and spirituality. They should be unified the same way that Judaism unifies all human activities with spirituality.
I think we’re getting a little lost in the argument here, and I honestly don’t think we’re disagreeing that much. Here’s why.
1. We both agree science can’t disprove the world was created in 6 days, if it was created in such a way that it looked billions of years old. Okay. You don’t think that makes sense, though, because it borders on “trickery.” This, of course, is where we disagree, but it’s not so bad of a disagreement. We just disagree on what is trickery. I think it would be a much bigger trickery to have generations of Jewish authorities arguing that the world was created in 24 hour days and then have us suddenly shift because of this physical evidence. But there are plenty of orthodox Jews that hold the way you do, so I’m not trying to totally debunk your theory just say that there is plenty of logic, support and back up to mine as well.
2. You’re calling the Rebbe’s argument disingenuous and dishonest. I dunno, I have a problem with that, I guess. Not just because he’s the Rebbe and if you look deeply into his arguments and the letter I attached, he’s not just making an empty argument, but one with a lot of support, but also because I think you might be missing the point of what he’s saying. His point was, to put it simply, that we didn’t see the creation of the world, and so while there is all this evidence to support your point, there’s just as much evidence to say that the world was created in 6 days in a state that seemed to be that old. If you disagree with that, fine, but don’t call it disingenuous. It’s a sound argument, both scientifically and logically. Any difference of opinion has to be resolved through Torah, and the Rebbe provides plenty of proof to point out that he is correct, whether you choose to accept it or not.
3. I never claimed to be an expert on evolution, I simply claimed that we as Jews are making a mistake if we don’t go further than the science and use it to explain away the deepest secrets of the universe. At the end of the day, there’s always a deeper reason than science, no matter how amazingly deep that science is. If you think we’re discussing whether evolution is real or not, then we’re having two different discussions.
4. I also think you might misunderstand my point that it’s a shallow argument. I don’t mean that the whole theory of evolution is shallow or that any discussion about it is. I mean that the back and forth of whether it is real or not is essentially a shallow discussion. By all means, we can study it and study it deeply, but there needs to be a POINT to the discussion beyond whether evolution is real or not. I agree with you, though. If the science helps us connect with our spirituality, if it’s Torah-true science, then it’s totally meaningful and deep, just as you and the Rambam say.
5. I really, totally, did not mean to give the impression that one has to not believe in evolution to be more religiously enlightened. That’s the complete opposite of what I’m trying to say, actually. What I meant was that if evolution is ALL you believe in, then you are cutting yourself off from truth. I think you would agree with that.
6. I believe that also addresses your last point. I never meant to make it sound as if there was some sort of dichotomy, like one HAS to choose between those two options. I was simply saying that being a simple Jew is preferable to being a smart atheist. But, obviously the best, and most ideal choice is to be an enlightened, educated, well-read Jew. Again, we’re not disagreeing, I was simply trying to emphasize the point that science only for science’s sake is a waste.
We can both agree that there is more to the world than nature itself and there is much more to the world than reductionism. Amen.
“I was simply trying to emphasize the point that science only for science’s sake is a waste.”
At the end of the day you are only willing to say science is “OK but…”. I take strong issue with the “but”. I take even stronger issue with your calling it a “waste”. From my perspective as a scientist and an educator, science is valuable and precious for its own sake. Period. No caveats. But, we’re going in circles here. Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
“to have generations of Jewish authorities arguing that the world was created in 24 hour days and then have us suddenly shift because of this physical evidence.”
I repeat myself but this statement is simply not true. Chazal never agreed on the meaning of the word “day” in Bereishit aleph. Certainly many accepted it as a 24 hour period. But, others did not. It is not obvious that it should mean a literal 24 hour period. And there are plenty of cases in Tanach where the word “day” explicitly does not mean 24 hours.
“I really, totally, did not mean to give the impression that one has to not believe in evolution to be more religiously enlightened.”
I very much appreciate this about your article and I hope I was clear that I didn’t get that from your writing. Unfortunately, there are many folks in your category of “people who hate evolution” who *do* articulate that position.
“You’re calling the Rebbe’s argument disingenuous and dishonest….If you look deeply into his arguments and the letter I attached, he’s not just making an empty argument, but one with a lot of support, but also because I think you might be missing the point of what he’s saying.”
Let me be more specific. The arguments articulated in “Mind Over Matter” contain substantial factual inaccuracies. They contain fundamental misunderstandings of quantum theory, relativity, and radiochronology, among others. I may not be a Torah scholar, but I can speak on matters of physics and many of the statements are simply off base. The arguments fundamentally misrepresent the scientific theories they claim to critique. And, the general discussion on the limitations of scientific methodology is vague and sloppy. All these points are made with a tone of scientific authority that is simply not demonstrated. They are not up to the high standards of scientific scholarship of the theories they profess to critique.
In any case, I think this is treading into some hairy territory, far beyond the scope of your original article. And I doubt we’ll be able to convince each on the matter.
It was great chatting with you.
All the best,
M
Okee dokee, Matt
Time to move on. But let me just add one or two (nice) things.
1. I think I misspoke again (oy). By “science for science’s” sake I meant using science ONLY to explain the world. I said it wrong, and I feel silly.
2. I would really love to hear what you have to say, in detail, about the Rebbe’s letter and why you feel it is inaccurate. I would really like to know, since I’m not a scientist and it would really help me to hear a scientist talk about these letters. Do you think you could send me an email through the “contact” button in the menu?
3. I hope this was a good convo for you. I really enjoyed it and I hope you keep staying in touch here and Facebook. I promise I’ll write less articles about science so we can still be friends
Hey Elad,
Hope it didn’t get too intense. It is a hot-button issue for me
. And, I’d be glad to drop you a line.
“By “science for science’s” sake I meant using science ONLY to explain the world.”
Got you on that. And that puts us in agreement on that point. I don’t believe in scientism or reductionism.
I’ll drop you a line and I should mention that I’ve been in contact with some folks at Chabad about my concerns and they’ve been cool about dialoguing.
I did enjoy the convo and the article.
Kol Tuv yo,
M
No problem at all, Matt! Was seriously awesome speaking with you. It’s always nice to actually have a deep conversation on the internet that isn’t limited to 140 characters. You really made me think.
Anyway, got your email and looking forward to hearing more from you.
Very cool article Elad, I’m of the opinion that science and even evolution gives further evidence of the existence of God.
I also like how you don’t spell out “God” which I assume comes from a reverence and respect for using His name honorably, a trait which I think is largely lost in most of today’s culture.
Thanks, Adam! It’s great to hear from you. I’ve loved checking out the movies and stuff you’re doing. You’re living the dream!
And yeah, that’s exactly why we spell it that way. Fun fact, though, because a computer screen flickers to keep an image on the screen, we technically don’t have to do that (the law is made for printed words). However, because we are worried someone might print it, and because we still want to show reverence, we keep the spelling that way even on the computer.
How’s that for some random trivia you probably didn’t care about?
In certain movies I’ve seen about Old Testament stories like TNT’s “Joseph” they always followed the name of God with something else like “And what does God think? Blessed be His name.”
I imagine that that’s how they really said it back then, as I’m sure some still do today. I’d like to do it too, to an extent, but I feel that if I did (here in LA) then most people would just think I’m weird and that’s not very inviting socially.
whoops, meant to reply to your reply Elad.
Actually, since we don’t call G-d by his name, Jews do use terms similar to that, except in Hebrew. So we say stuff like HaKadish Baruch Hu, which means “The Holy One Blessed Be He.” I guess it sounds less weird if you say it in Hebrew.
On the other hand, I imagine in LA it would still be weird.
First of all, let me just say, that I love the tone of the comments on the blog, and the response from you! Particularly with such a heated issue as evolution it tends to get very contentious and nasty, and I amd very glad you avoided that. Let me add one thing to the conversation. As an orthodox jew, and someone whose entire education has been in the sciences, I find myself in the position of defending evolution among freinds and to my children. In the end i have one question that I cannot get a good answer to. Why would you want to limit hashem in any manner? When the observations of our eyes tell us something that seems to contradict the word of hashem, then why do we think we have perfect understanding of his words? We need to try harder to understand them, not hunker down deeper into entrenched ideas. Anyway, just my two cents.
I’m surprised no-one has mentioned, that evolution was and is a theory, with no scientific basis. In fact it goes contrary to well established scientific laws such as Thermodynamics (where everything disintegrates to it’s simplest form over time), and the fact that most animals can only breed within the species, and in rare circumstances, such as horse with donkey, where cross specie breeding is possible, the animal that is created, the mule, is unable to breed.