evolution

שו”ת › Category: Torah and Science › evolution

asked 9 years ago

To Rabbi Dr. Avraham Shalom,

I was exposed to the summary of your book “God Plays Dice.”

Due to my biological education, which does not exceed a high school level, I do not have the tools to assess the weight of arguments raised on the subject of evolution. Smart people who claim that the development of man from a single-celled creature is an absolute scientific fact, and smart people who claim that this is in no way possible. Since, as mentioned, I do not have the knowledge and tools to assess. Then I can only give weight to the words of a person like you who knows the material and discusses it objectively.

My impression has always been that evolution is a proven mechanism, but the attempt to explain complex processes by it is an illogical extrapolation, and certainly not empirical. Beyond the zero probability, there is, for example, the claim that complex systems such as the reproductive system require very complex developments simultaneously and in different animals, with no evolutionary value for intermediate stages.

Is it scientifically proven that man evolved from creatures inferior to him?

thanks,

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 9 years ago

Hello. I am also far from being an expert on the scientific subject. My book aims to show that scientific expertise is not required to formulate a position on the theological level. My main argument is that there is no connection between the question of whether evolution is true or not, partially or fully, and theological questions (is there or is not a God, who created the world, etc.). As far as I know, it is clear that there is evolution and evolutionary processes. That is difficult to argue with. On the other hand, the neo-Darwinian view of the origin of species is more of a fairly well-founded hypothesis than solid facts. There is still much debate even among professionals about details and about the arguments of the worthless leaps you mentioned. I must say that I have the impression that it is difficult to accept the assertions, even those presented as established facts, from both sides, both creationists and neo-Darwinists, since due to emotions and ideological charges many of them lie and skew the data (and again, in both directions). Therefore, as a rule of thumb, do not believe anyone even if they declare that something is a solid scientific fact. But as mentioned, everyone, on both sides, is also wrong, because there is no reason to lie in any direction. Evolution makes no difference to theological questions. I showed in my book that you can be a staunch atheist (=i.e. an irrational person) and reject evolution, or a staunch believer (=i.e. a rational person) and accept it. So if you have no scientific interest in the subject, don’t waste your time on it. All the best, Michi —————————————————————————————— Asks: Hello Dr. Abraham, Like cold water on a tired soul. Like many issues in the apparent conflict between religion and science, here too you take the religious sting out of the discussion and claim that scientific conclusions are irrelevant to belief in the Creator. thanks! Regarding the scientific validity of evolution itself, do you share my feeling that the mechanism is indeed proven on a small scale (such as color change in a butterfly population), but that it is taken to extremes? Has anyone, for example, built a model based on the evolutionary mechanism and tried to describe the development of complex systems? Even without empirical evidence – just a theoretical model. The almost complete lack of archaeological evidence of millions of intermediate stages of millions of different species, apart from isolated finds here and there, is also disturbing. Thanks again for taking the time, —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: In my understanding, there is no fundamental difference between sex change and evolution within a species. It is only a quantitative difference (=evolutionary distance) that is of course expressed in the probability of it happening. But I see no fundamental obstacle to this. It is just the result of a change (random or not) in the genome. Therefore, it is clear that such a theoretical model is very easy to build.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

משה replied 9 years ago

Thank you for the wonderful site!

I read in a newsletter by Rabbi Mazuz that said evolution is nonsense.

And the evidence is simple: for thousands of years, Jews have been performing circumcision, and the statistics of a child born circumcised are equal between Jews and Gentiles. You can see that there is no physical development in this matter.

What do you think?

מיכי Staff replied 9 years ago

Rabbi Mazuz is an extraordinary scholar and a brave and original man, but this time he clearly demonstrated why those who dwell in the tent of Torah, and especially those considered "great", suffer from two main shortcomings: 1. They have no idea what they are talking about in areas outside of the Gemara and "Ketzot" (he mixes Marxism with Darwinism). 2. This does not prevent them from expressing themselves in a decisive and completely confident manner in these areas as well (this is contributed by their own lack of awareness, but also by the ignorance of their students who cannot criticize their nonsense).

משה replied 9 years ago

Can you briefly explain why he was wrong?

מיכי Staff replied 9 years ago

Lamarckism is a view that claims that creatures develop traits that are suitable for them and their environment. This has no logical and/or empirical basis. Darwinism is a view that says that all types of traits arise randomly (there is no directional development), but only the fittest survive the process of natural selection (in fact, only those who carry the fittest traits survive).