Orot Channel – Faith and Science: The Theory of Evolution – TOV Jewish Current Affairs
This transcription was produced automatically using artificial intelligence. There may be inaccuracies in the transcribed content and in speaker identification.
🔗 Link to the original lecture
🔗 Link to the transcript on Sofer.AI
Table of Contents
- [0:06] Opening a series of programs on faith and science
- [1:16] Evolution does not affect the question of faith
- [2:27] A quote from the physicist Yakhin Shoshani
- [4:49] Leibowitz’s approach – separating Torah and science
- [7:01] Learning how the Holy One, blessed be He, operates through science
Summary
General overview
The program opens a series on faith and science and devotes the first episode to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, in a conversation with Zvi Yanai and Rabbi Michael Abraham, a physicist, on the question of whether evolution undermines belief in the existence of God. Zvi Yanai argues that evolution is basically correct, and that even if it is completely correct or completely wrong, it does not change the question of God’s existence. But he explains that atheist neo-Darwinians see it as a mechanism that undermines the physico-theological proof from design. Yanai rejects the claim that neo-Darwinism necessarily strengthens the hypothesis of an intelligent entity, and presents a tension between a separation in the style of Yeshayahu Leibowitz and bringing God in as an explanation for phenomena in the world that cannot be tested empirically. Rabbi Michael Abraham adopts a Leibowitz-style separation, arguing that we learn how the Holy One, blessed be He, acts in the world through scientific research and not from the Torah, and that the Torah should not be mixed in as a source of information for biology or physics.
Opening the series and the basic question
The program opens a series on faith and science, and the first episode is devoted to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. The host introduces the writer Zvi Yanai and Rabbi Michael Abraham, a physicist, and asks whether the theory of evolution undermines belief in the existence of God.
Zvi Yanai: basic assumptions, the physico-theological proof, and the status of evolution
Zvi Yanai says that the God he believes in is not subjective, and that he does not intend to defend faith by throwing out the baby with the bathwater, by turning it into some kind of subjective experience that has nothing to do with science. Yanai states that the proof relevant to the discussion of evolution is the physico-theological proof in Kant’s language, that is, the proof from design, from the complexity of the world and the assumption that such a thing was not created by chance, and in his view that is a good proof. Yanai assumes that evolution is basically correct, that it has some fairly significant holes that are sometimes even kept quiet, and that dealing with those holes is a scientific problem that has to be solved with scientific tools.
Yanai argues that evolution does not touch the discussion about God in the slightest, neither for better nor for worse, and that whether it is completely correct or completely wrong, the question of God’s existence is unaffected. Yanai formulates the claim of atheist neo-Darwinians, according to which evolution undermines the physico-theological proof, because that proof assumes that a complex thing cannot come into being without a guiding hand in a blind, random process, whereas evolution offers such a mechanism and therefore pulls the ground out from under the proof. Yanai says that belief in God or disbelief in God has nothing to do with the way research is conducted or with its results, and that if there are gaps in the theory they must be closed with scientific tools, and that this is the best theory we currently have for the findings until it is shown to be correct, revised, or rejected as a scientific question.
Yakhin Shoshani, the possibility of taking God out of the picture, and intelligent planning
The host quotes Yakhin Shoshani, who says that neo-Darwinism actually strengthens for him the hypothesis that there is an intelligent entity beyond man. Zvi Yanai says that he does not accept Yakhin Shoshani’s claim that it strengthens that hypothesis, but he agrees that one cannot argue that there is proof in evolution in nature that can remove God from the picture, because even in a laboratory experiment creating life one could still argue that this is a controlled process that proves that such processes are carried out according to a pre-set plan, and that one can always claim that God was somehow involved there too.
Yanai presents a position according to which one accepts the evolutionary process but is not convinced that it is run by random mutations and natural selection alone; rather, there is an intelligent plan that supervises, directs, and determines in advance the goals of the structures and the species, and that the designer of the plan and manager of the game is God. Yanai describes the image that God plays dice, but secular people think the outcomes of the throw are random when in fact they are predetermined because they were fixed in advance by God, and he says this raises a great many questions.
Leibowitz, the flagellum, and the dilemma of God inside the world or outside the world
Yanai lays out two possibilities. One is the position of the late Yeshayahu Leibowitz, who makes a dichotomous, sharp, and absolute separation between what the Torah says—which is that it commands you to serve God—and the fact that it does not provide information about the world or about nature, so that faith is a matter of deep inner belief from which the need to fulfill commandments and serve God follows, and then there is no conflict. Yanai presents another possibility in which God is brought into the world as an explanation, and he gives the example of a bacterium that has a flagellum with a very complex motor, for which at the moment Darwinists have no answer as to how it could have developed in stages, and so this is attributed to the designer of the intelligent plan.
Yanai argues that once you bring God into the world, you can no longer also say that He cannot be examined in any way in the laboratory or by an empirical test of predictions and refutations, and he asks how one can say on the one hand that no test can be conducted for the divine presence and on the other hand that He is the one who created the flagellum. Yanai says that a principled decision has to be made as to whether God is in the world or outside the world.
Rabbi Michael Abraham: a Leibowitz-style separation and learning about the action of the Holy One, blessed be He, through science
The host asks Rabbi Michael Abraham whether, in Leibowitz’s view, faith is faith and science is science, and the two must not be mixed. Rabbi Michael Abraham says that he will allow himself to disagree with what Zvi said earlier, because he does not see those two views as contradictory, and he says that on this issue he is Leibowitzian. Abraham says that when he studies how the Holy One, blessed be He, acts in the world, he studies it through microscopes, laboratories, scientific analysis, statistical regressions, and the like, and after the scientific research is finished and the findings have been reached, from his perspective he has learned how He works.
Abraham emphasizes that he did not derive this from the Torah, not from equidistant letter sequences and not from this or that verse, and therefore he fully accepts that sharp Leibowitzian distinction or separation. Abraham states that the Torah does not teach biology or physics, and the program ends with the statement that we have heard two views of the theory of evolution, one scientific and the other philosophical, and that the debate will continue in the next program.
Full Transcript
[Speaker A] Hello, today we are opening a series of programs on faith and science. We will devote the first program to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Hello to the writer Zvi Yanai. Hello to Rabbi Michael Abraham, the physicist. Doesn’t the theory of evolution undermine belief in the existence of God?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] One preliminary remark—and I’m really going to do this telegraphically. One preliminary remark: the God I believe in is not subjective. Meaning, I do not intend to defend faith by throwing out the baby with the bathwater, by saying that it’s some sort of subjective experience of one kind or another that has nothing to do with science. A second claim: the proof relevant to the discussion of evolution is the physico-theological proof in Kant’s language, that is, the proof from design, from the complexity of the world, and the assumption is that such a thing was not created by chance. In my opinion, that is a good proof. My third assumption is that evolution is basically correct. There are some not-insignificant holes in it, sometimes they are even kept quiet, but that is a scientific problem. As far as I’m concerned, it has to be dealt with using scientific tools; evolution is correct. The fourth claim is that evolution does not touch the discussion about God in the slightest, neither for better nor for worse. Meaning, whether it is completely correct or not correct at all, the question of God’s existence is not affected by that. The claim of the atheist neo-Darwinians, as I understand it at least, is that evolution undermines the physico-theological proof. The physico-theological proof assumes that there is no such thing as the formation of a complex thing without a guiding hand in a blind process, a random process. And evolution offers such a mechanism, and in that sense it pulls the ground out from under the proof. That is the logical standing of evolution. I do not think that belief in God or disbelief in God has anything whatsoever to do with the way research is conducted or with its results. If there are gaps in the theory—and there are such gaps—they have to be closed with scientific tools. This is the best theory we currently have for the findings. Either in the end it will be found to be correct, or it will be revised, or it will turn out not to be correct—that’s a scientific question. Belief in God is not supposed to guide scientific research, is not supposed to replace it, is not supposed to oppose it, and is not supposed to be affected in any way by its findings, neither for better nor for worse. That’s my claim.
[Speaker A] I actually want to quote to you another physicist, Yakhin Shoshani, who says that neo-Darwinism actually strengthens for him the hypothesis that there exists an intelligent entity beyond man. What do you think of that statement?
[Speaker B] First of all, I do not accept Yakhin Shoshani’s claim that it strengthens it. The problem here is that nowhere can you say—and on this I definitely agree with him—you cannot claim anywhere that there is some proof in evolution in nature that can take God out of the picture. Because anywhere, even if you perform a laboratory experiment creating life, even then you can claim that, fine, first of all this is a controlled process, which proves that such processes of creating complex things are always carried out according to some pre-set plan. And secondly, you can always make the claim that God was somehow involved there too. Therefore I do not think it is possible, or correct, to derive from Darwinian evolution some proof that God does not exist. If you come and say, look, I really do accept the evolutionary process, as he says, I’m just not convinced that this course or this process is conducted by random mutations and natural selection; rather, there is some intelligent plan that supervises, directs, and determines in advance the goals of all the structures, and of the species themselves, where they are supposed to arrive, and the author of that plan and the manager of that game is God. So it’s like the title of Rabbi Michael Abraham’s book says: God plays dice, but we—that is, we secular people, to our sorrow—think that the outcomes of the throw are random, when in fact they are predetermined because they were fixed in advance by God. And that raises a great many questions. There are two questions here. Either you adopt the position of the late Yeshayahu Leibowitz, who makes a dichotomous, sharp, and absolute separation between what the Torah says it is. It commands you to serve God, and it does not provide you with information either about the world or about nature, and because of that—this is a matter of faith, it belongs to faith. Right, it is a matter of that deep inner faith, from which one thing follows: that you have to fulfill the commandments and serve God. And then there is no conflict in this matter. Different from that is if you say yes, if we take one example from the book: there is a bacterium that has a flagellum, that has—
[Speaker A] A tail.
[Speaker B] A little thing like that, and it has a truly extraordinary motor that spins around itself at amazing revolutions, and it’s a very complex structure. So at the moment the Darwinists do not have an answer as to how such a motor could develop in stages, and therefore—so who did? The designer of the intelligent plan. Meaning, you are indeed bringing God into the world, and the moment you have brought God into the world, you can no longer say on the one hand that He is not subject to any kind of examination, not in the laboratory and not by a visual test—that is, an empirical one—where you generate certain predictions, and if those predictions are confirmed then it’s true, and if they are refuted then it’s not true, and so on. You cannot conduct such a test for the divine presence. If you cannot conduct such a test, then how can you also say on the other hand that He is the one who created the flagellum? Either He is in the world or He is outside the world; this principled decision has to be made.
[Speaker A] Michael, what do you say? In Leibowitz’s conception, basically, faith is faith and science is science, and the two must not be mixed?
[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I’ll allow myself to disagree with what Zvi said earlier. I do not see these two views as being in disagreement. Meaning, I am Leibowitzian on this issue. In spite of this whole book, or because of this whole book, in my opinion, I am Leibowitzian. When I study how the Holy One, blessed be He, in my view acts in the world, I study that by means of microscopes, laboratories, scientific analysis, statistical regressions, and the like. After I have finished the scientific research and arrived at my findings, from my perspective I have learned how He works. I did not derive it from the Torah, not from equidistant letter sequences and not from verses of this sort or that sort. Therefore this sharp Leibowitzian distinction or separation is completely acceptable to me. The Torah does not teach me biology or physics.
[Speaker A] Gentlemen, we’ll stop here. We’ve heard two views of the theory of evolution, one scientific and the other philosophical. The debate will continue in the next program. Goodbye and all the best.