Is Evolution a Problem for Jews?
David Klinghoffer, writing in The Jerusalem Post, says that it is. Of course, he comes to ths conclusion only by completely distorting what evolution is all about:
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.”
All creation? Please. Darwin is explicit in The Origin of Species that he is not even interested in the origin of life, much less all creation. And the Darwin quote Klinghoffer provides is perfectly explicit that the issue is miraculous interventions in the course of descent. In other words, natural selection would not be a plausible mechanism of evolution if it required divine intervention to explain specific trajectories through the tree of life. It says nothing about divine intervention in other aspects of natural history (like, say, how the universe got itself created in the first place).
Later Klinghoffer writes:
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.
Since Klinghoffer has chosen to repeat himself, we conclude that his sole argument for the irreconcilability of Judaism with evolution is the latter's completely eliminaion of any reasonable possibility of God's existence. That point is ridiculous, as I have already shown. But we shouldn't let slide the casual reference to the “philosophical system elaborated by Darwin and his disciples.”
There was no philosophical system elaborated by Darwin in his scientific work. There is only a large collection of biological facts coupled with a theory for explaining them. That theory has passed countless furhter experimental tests undreamed of by Darwin, so that today it is accepted by all reasonable people. And Darwin does not have “disciples.” There are only scientists who find his ideas useful in their professional work.
Klinghoffer includes some of the usual blather about cellular complexity and the Discovery Institute's list, but rather than addressing those cliches let me close with a brief consideration of whether evolution and Judaism are compatible.
I see three potential points of conflict between the two:
- Evolution deals a severe, perhaps fatal, blow to the argument from design.
- Evolution contradicts the creation story in Genesis.
- The idea that God's chosen mechanism of creation is the violent, bloody, wasteful process of natural selection runs counter to our intuitions about how an all-loving, all-powerful God would behave.
If your faith in God is not based on natural theology, and if you do not believe that every word of the Bible should be taken literally, then I don't see why the first two items should trouble you. Both of these viewpoints (rejecting natural theology and biblical literalism) certainly have a long history in Jewish thought. Item three is just a variant on the problem of evil. If you had previously managed to resolve that problem to your satisfaction, then it should pose no difficulty either.
Therefore, I do not see how evolution poses any particular challenge to Judaism (or Christianity for that matter).
Klinghoffer can only defend his views by baldly distorting what evolution actually is. For some reason, evolution deniers find it almost impossible to be truthful about scientific issues.
21 Comments:
He wrote something similarly stupid for National Review online a while back. Alas, NRO would not post my response to that piece. On the whole, since Dover, NRO has been slavishly publishing pro-ID pieces (vs critical ones) at about the ratio of 4 to 1. Which is an embarrassment, frankly. And most of those pieces were by people, like Klinghoffer, who are on the Discovery Institute's payroll. Sheesh.
what does natural theology mean? What is it?
I know that theo in greek translates god, and the "o-g-y" at the end is the "study of..." (which indicates some branch of science).
So if theology is the study of some god or gods who are somehow in control of unnatural things, then isn't natural theology an oxymoron?
So how is the term natural theology justified?
The main problem I see evolution posing Judeo-Christian worldviews is challenging their quite basic premise that humans are special. Even the most naturalistic consistent interpretation requires that God bestowed a soul on the non-progressively-evolved human species at some time or times, which is kinda "hacky" if you ask me...
I believe you have this upside down. As I understand it, in the Judeo-Cristian world view, God is supreme and we are simply here as a result of his love for man, which he created. Progressivly evolving or not is besides the point. We and the whole universe are God's handiwork.
Science is therefore not in conflict with God but simply man's attempt to model the universe that God has provided.
The first thing we need to know, is how a universe so complex could be existing .I grant the Big Bang could had been created, as someones said, by intelligent beings; they also said WE could be creating universes in a far distant future (Bush permits).
But somebody creates the branas, and the civilizations highly advanced that could rise universes (well, in fact, simple branas) Mandrake - like.
Somebody must had started all of this.
Also, we live in a world that every scientific says we are in the brink of terrible cataclisms, the end of the sun, etc., and nothing happens. Yet. But all the while, we are in a peaceful world (except Bush and some other guys in the past) . Man is the terrible threat, in this kindergarten.
I think in Australopithecus, small creatures in the brink of extintion, living thousands and millions of years in a chain of hills, not dying not being killed , living and living.
There is some outer power, a great mind in the sky, that protects us feeble creatures.
Man wants to grab it and put a name unto him. They had create elaborated stories, to explain who he is. Followers had fight each others , because their ideas don't fit together.
And the world keeps going on, no matter how many names and stories man could device.
Science is therefore not in cloneflict with God but simply man's attempt to model the universe that God has provided.
Yeah.
I am troubled by your (apparent) eagerness to allow for divine intervention in the creation of the universe, or indeed in any other aspect of “creation” of the natural world. Is there a need to continue to pander to religious or other outwardly believes? Do we need to convert them into stages? Not scare them off?
Can really someone believe in natural selection and also seek solace in divine intervention for the world around him?
In answer to you last question, yes.
Frank, that was short and sweet. It was not sufficient for me though. I never managed to understand educated people, especially those trained in science, that exhibit a totally irrational inability to break the bonds with the supernatural. Why so many centuries after the enlightenment we still cling to evoking the paranormal and what is outside the bounds of science, it both fascinating and deeply frustrating. Anyway, I do hope that this is not the view expressed from the majority of the people here.
Think of it this way...
Science is man's attempt to model the universe that God has provided. Throughout the history of science, one paradigm has risen and replaced another. Each subsequent paradigm was/is, or at least should be, better at modeling the universe than the previous. The theory of phlogiston was replaced by the models for modern chemistry for example. At no point did the underlying truth change.
The underlying truth and universe was made by God. As we improve our models, our science, we improve our understanding of the universe that God made. This does not contradict science, nor does it prevent or discourage the exploration of the natural world.
So back to the point, "Is evolution a problem for Jews?" I cannot speak well to the Jewish faith but I can say this, I do not see how evolution contradicts a person's faith. Now if we want to debate the Teachings (not teachings) of Judaism, I cannot help you there.
As for "educated people, especially those trained in science, that exhibit a totally irrational inability to break the bonds with the supernatural." I suggest that these are different topics (i.e. science and religion). This is why creationism has no place in the science classroom.
Frank,
if in your view science is just an other tool to confirm what you already knew (on which scientific evidence?) that "god", "something", "nothing" is out there and the history of mankind is eventually to get to know it.... Well, this is beyond me to reason with. Your argument can be expanded to account for any type of quackery and unfounded beliefs. No rigorous proof for the existance of gosts? Why, give it a couple of years and science will come up with a solution! No evidence for tele/kinesis/pathy, substitude anything here, its only a matter of time before science comes up with an proof of our "gut feeling" and "everyday experience". And dont even get me started in the likes of Homeopathy, and related mambo-jambo.
Honestly, isnt there anyone else who gets upset at this travesty of what sciensce is? Anyone?
The funniest thing of all, in this discussion, is that people need to believe that a "God" that some wild nomads (the Jews) created a couple of thousand years ago, "exists"! Then the Jews went off to kill everybody around in order to conquer the “promised (?)” land.
Why does this “God” still appeal to us? Probably it is a good "father figure". Of course at the time "he" asked the male Jews to cut off a bit of their penises - just to show them who 's boss and has "it" bigger.
Now there are other Gods around with as much appeal (at least), counting the number of believers. Why did the Jewish God create the Universe? “God” knows…
OK! Some people need a father figure. Some people need a mother figure that is also a virgin (Mother Mary, etc.).
Why do we have to include science in this argument? It is irrelevant.
The only scientific question here is why do people need to believe in a "higher" creator? There may be some good psychological and sociological explanations, but space and time is limited, so let’s leave it at that.
It's impossible to defend evolution without being abusive.
I do not see why my comments are abusive. Let me explain this, in order to avoid answers like novlangue's who avoids the issue.
Please read the Bible (Old Testament) and the list of battles for the conquest of the "Promised Land". I assume these were not fought by these gentle people that we see in films... My only comment that could be considered abusive is my interpretation of circumcision. I agree, this is one of a number of psychoanalytic interpretations.
However, the point I was making is that major parts of the Old Testament relate to the politics of those times and have nothing to do with "relegion" as we understand it today. So is the Old Testament God, a very vengeful and terrible God (this is related to my comment on circumcition).
Again, please read the Old Testament.
Back to the subject at hand. Here is the problem: I suggest that the subject of evolution is political and not scientific or relegious.
The Bush administration and some of its major supporters, are spending inordinate amounts of money to promote the anti-scientific, creationist view.
Could someone please explain it to me? I mean, being European, this seems to me like trying to return to the Dark Ages.
It may be the whole point of the effort.
In reply to sfougarisb@gmail.com
I do not see science as just anther tool to confirm what I already knew. I see science as a tool to understand the universe. Religion is a different topic all together.
Where some ID proponents get it wrong is they mix science with religion. If ID is science, then a body of evidence needs to be developed/discovered that overwhelms the existing theory (i.e. evolution). When the evidence becomes verified and sufficient, then ID would replace the evolutionary theory. To date that has not happened. None of this has to do with religion.
Remember cold fusion. There was a model that fell apart. It could not be repeated, did not stand up to scrutiny and never made it into the class room beyond mild discussion because it had not been vetted. If and when ID is properly vetted, it will make it into the science classroom. The science community will put it there. Until that happens, ID should stay where it is. IMHO generally, it is bad news when politicians legislate curriculum.
Where some atheists/agnostics get it wrong is they try to replace religion with science. Science could model every back to the big bang or even earlier. That does not replace (or belief in) the existence of God.
If someone is looking to prove or disprove the existence of God using science, they are going to be disappointed. In my belief (we are talking faith here now) God is far beyond anything man can attain or even comprehend. Use science to better understand our universe. Use religion to better understand our purpose and improve ourselves as people who care for each other.
To anonymous:
When did the Bush administration spend inordinate amounts of money to promote the anti-scientific, creationist view?
We can also wait for evidence of the Hairy Yeti, visits by ET to ancient Egypt, etc, etc. You see, with science you only put your "faith" at what is proven and corroborated. You are happy to know that at one point in time something (not even science) will prove that god is there ID'ing everything. At least the poor scientist that talked about cold fusion had some semblance of a theory behind them to justify their experimentation. They extrapolated possible outcomes of experimental setups that could be put to the test. There was SOMETHING to get them started, some sound theoretical base to get them started and pique their interest. What do you have to make you want to invoke the presence of the almighty? What is it that drives you towards this most unrewarding and graceless propositions? In the words of Carl Sagan, “science is a cantle in the dark”. Don’t try to put it out with evocations to “believes”, this is taking us back to the middle ages, only with some polite veneer top as we know better than to burn us to the stake.
@ Anonymous
I have read the Old Testament.
It's a story. It's not true.
As an orthodox Jew, I completely agree with Mr Klinghoffer. The neo-darwinian fairytale may permit the existence of some form of god, however that doesn't seem to be his point. He appears to be saying that if neo-darwinism were proven true, it would disprove the existence of HaShem, something I completely agree with.
It is absolutely impermissable for a Jew to dismiss the story of the creation and the fall. If Adam and Eve didn't exist, neither did Cain and Abel, and the geneologies in the Tanach wouldn't make any sense. You can believe in evolutionism all you like, but don't go around claiming to be a Jew. No real Jew believes in evolutionism, and it certainly shouldn't be taught in the classroom.
As an Orthodox Jew, I totally agree with Mr Klinghoffer. I think his point was that darwinism, if proven true, would disprove the existance of HaSham, and he's right. Neo-Darwinism might allow for some form of god, but certainly not the Jewish G-d. Genesis says that God created the world in six days/ages, and the first two humans were Adam and Eve, that cannot be accomodated with evolutionism.
Much less can Genesis be dismissed as allegorical. To dismiss the the story of the creation and the fall is impermissable. If Adam and Eve didn't exist, neither did Cain and Abel, and the geneologies in the Tanach wouldn't make any sense. Evolutionism certainly is a problem for Jews, as it completely contrary to our religion, and no real Jews believe in it. It certainly shouldn't be taught in the classroom.
If its implausable, just distort it, hey it works for the government :)
Matt
I do not see how closing your eyes to the world about you will make you a more religious person. I am a completely spiritual and natural being. I have gained insight through my thirst of knowledge for the natural world. If you think biology is crazy study physics. I have gained more insight and enlightenment and just plain awe inspiring cosmic experiences through the fascinating discoveries of science.
We have already eaten of the tree of knowledge. That is the original sin. Jesus died for you so that sin would be forgiven. He died for uttering the sacred name. The blood has been shed so that you can learn. The Rabbis were secretive. They stoned him to death for teaching. Conservative 'Christians' serve their own agenda. They, like those who through stones at Jesus, try to retain power through isolation. They are afraid that those who eat from the tree of knowledge will not need them to tell them about God. They are right, I can talk to him myself.
Post a Comment
<< Home