Q&A: Evolution
Evolution
Question
Dear Rabbi Dr. Abraham, hello,
I came across a summary of your book God Plays Dice.
Because my biological education does not go beyond a high-school level, I do not have the tools to assess the weight of the arguments raised on the subject of evolution. Intelligent people claim that the development of man from a single-celled creature is an absolute scientific fact, while other intelligent people claim that such a thing is utterly impossible. Since, as stated, I do not have the knowledge and tools to evaluate this, all I can do is give weight to the words of someone 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 use it to explain complex processes is an illogical extrapolation, and certainly not an empirical one. Beyond the tiny probability involved, there is, for example, the claim that complex systems such as the reproductive system require very complex developments to occur simultaneously and in different animals, when the intermediate stages have no evolutionary value whatsoever.
Has it actually been scientifically proven that man developed from creatures inferior to him?
Thank you,
Answer
Hello,
I too am far from being an expert on the scientific side of this topic. My book was meant to show that scientific expertise is not required in order to formulate a position on the theological level. My main claim is that there is no connection whatsoever between the question of whether evolution is correct or not, partially or fully, and the theological questions (whether or not there is God, who created the world, and so on).
To the best of my knowledge, it is clear that there is evolution and evolutionary processes. That is hard to argue with. On the other hand, the neo-Darwinian conception of the origin of species is more a fairly well-based hypothesis than solid facts. There are still many disputes even among professionals regarding details and regarding the arguments about valueless leaps that you mentioned.
I have to say that my impression is that it is hard to accept the assertions, even those presented as established facts, from either side—both the creationists and the neo-Darwinians—because due to the emotions and ideological baggage, many of them lie and skew the data (again, in both directions). So as a rule of thumb, don’t believe anyone, even if he declares that something is a solid scientific fact.
But as stated, everyone on both sides is also mistaken, because there is no reason to lie in either direction. Evolution changes nothing at all regarding the theological questions. I showed in my book that you can be a devout atheist (= that is, an irrational person) and reject evolution, or a devout believer (= that is, a rational person) and accept it. Therefore, if you have no scientific interest in the subject, don’t waste your time on it.
All the best,
Michi
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Hello Dr. Abraham,
Like cold water for a weary soul. As with many issues in the supposed conflict between religion and science, here too you take the theological sting out of the discussion and argue that the scientific conclusions are irrelevant to belief in the Creator of the world. Thank you!
As for the scientific validity of evolution itself, do you share my sense that the mechanism is indeed proven on a small scale (such as a change of color in a butterfly population), but that people take it 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 proof—just a theoretical model. The almost complete lack of archaeological evidence for millions of intermediate stages among millions of different species, aside from a few isolated finds here and there, is also troubling.
Thanks again for taking the time,
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
As I understand it, there is no fundamental difference between a change of species and development within a species. It is only a quantitative difference (= evolutionary distance), which of course is reflected in the probability that it will happen. But I see no principled obstacle to it. This and that are both just the result of a change (random or otherwise) in the genome. Therefore it is obvious that such a theoretical model would be very easy to build.
Discussion on Answer
Rabbi Mazuz is an outstanding Torah scholar and a brave and original man, but this time he nicely demonstrated why those who dwell in the tent of Torah, especially those considered “greats,” suffer from two main shortcomings: 1. They have no idea what they are talking about in areas outside the Talmud and the Ketzot (he is confusing Lamarckism with Darwinism). 2. That does not stop them from speaking in an utterly decisive and completely confident way in those areas as well (their ignorant lack of self-awareness contributes to this, but so does the ignorance of their students, who are unable to criticize the nonsense they say).
Could you briefly explain why he was mistaken?
Lamarckism is a view that claims that creatures develop traits suited to themselves and their environment. There is no logical and/or empirical basis for this at all. Darwinism is a view that says all kinds of traits arise randomly (there is no directional development), but only the suitable ones among them survive through the process of natural selection (really, only those carrying the suitable traits survive).
Thank you for the wonderful website!
I read in a pamphlet by Rabbi Mazuz that evolution is nonsense.
And the proof is simple: for thousands of years Jews have been performing circumcision, and even so, the statistics of boys being born circumcised are the same among Jews and non-Jews. So you see that there is no physical development in this matter.
Your opinion?