I saw that the Rabbi is mentioned in a question in one of the articles, and I also join the question. Here is the quotation…

Following the publication of the book "God Doesn't Play Dice" by Dr. Michael Abraham, several response articles by the journalist Zvi Yanai were published, in which he attacks Abraham's ideas.

I tried to take the main passages from the first article and address them.

In the first passage, Yanai tries to point out the internal contradiction in Michael Abraham's words, who opens his book from some kind of moderate "Yeshayahu Leibowitz-style" approach, but later in the book becomes increasingly extreme when he completely rejects the idea of a random creation without an intelligent creator.

To sum up this passage he writes as follows –

The question, therefore, is where exactly Dr. Abraham stands. Does he believe that God's involvement in the universe begins and ends with establishing the laws of nature in the beginning of days, and since then He has let the world run according to the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, and Darwinian evolution, or does Rabbi Abraham believe in God's ongoing involvement at every given moment of time, as implied by his understanding of the factor of randomness in evolution: "The laws of nature are nothing but the way God directs this 'random' process and makes sure that it reaches its destination."

Indeed, a difficult question.

But the answer, in my opinion, is this –

The internal contradiction in Dr. Abraham's approach exists in all publications of this kind that come from religious scientists. These people are caught between a rock and a hard place, and they are forced to cover up their fully religious views under the guise of one moderate expression or another.

The flagellum

Yanai –

"A bacterium without a flagellum would not survive," he claims in his book (p. 200), because it would not reach the food particle.

A somewhat puzzling claim, since countless bacteria exist very successfully without tails.

Even if there are bacteria without a flagellum, they certainly possess alternative mechanisms of movement, presumably very complex ones, like all biological mechanisms. The principle is that a bacterium without some kind of highly sophisticated movement mechanism cannot survive.

It is also reasonable to assume that a random mutation producing an initial protrusion on the bacterium's body could give it a slight movement advantage over bacteria without such a protrusion, all the more so when, in one of the tens of billions of descendants of this bacterium's descendants, a second mutation occurs that lengthens the original protrusion.

A protrusion?

A bacterium that lacks any significant movement mechanism will die of starvation very quickly. No ugly bump on its lower back will help it. In order to survive, the bacterium has to reach its food.

The eye

Yanai –

A similar debate is being conducted around the eye, a controversy that began in the 19th century, in the days of the clergyman William Paley. The central claim of the creationists and intelligent-design advocates is that a complex organ like the eye could not have developed through a long and slow process of accumulating tiny, random changes, for two main reasons: the location and function of each of these changes depends on knowledge of the eye's final structure; each change by itself brings no benefit and is therefore destined to be eliminated by natural selection. In other words: "Half an eye enables no vision at all, and therefore it is not reasonable that there was an intermediate stage that survived long enough."

This claim is valid for watches and telescopes, but entirely baseless when it comes to the biological-evolutionary process. In a telescope, lens cloudiness or incorrect optical focus turns it into a useless instrument. That is not the case with the eye.

In the Cambrian era, an eye structure developed that serves insects, crustaceans, and spiders to this day. This is an eye built from hundreds of lenses, each of which focuses light onto one sensor. This structure is good for seeing a complete image but at low resolution, and therefore poor at identifying details.

Such a lens serves small creatures well, but is not suitable for larger animals that need focused and sharp vision. Therefore, as larger creatures developed, evolutionary pressure arose to change the structure of the eye, in which all the light receptors share a light-focusing lens.

These mutations in visual organs, spread over tens of millions of years, created in parallel tens of thousands of different eye structures—according to environmental conditions and in line with the pressures of natural selection—which served their owners at one level or another and therefore survived.

The point is this –

Of course there are more sophisticated eyes and less sophisticated eyes, and every eye as such gives its owner a survival advantage.

But –

At the bottom of the list, the list of eyes in the animal world, stands the simplest eye, the most minimal one, below which there is simply no vision at all. And that eye is very, very complex. We are talking about a very, very high level of complexity, far beyond what any sane and mentally healthy person can attribute to the blind hand of chance. Here natural selection will not help. Natural selection can begin to operate only after the minimal functioning of the organ that is on the way has already been formed.

The source

Yanai –

In many cases evolution makes use of shortcuts. For example, small mutations in the embryo, in the gene-switching region, can bring about dramatic structural changes (such as the transition from an alligator's snout to a bird's beak), and thus lead to major evolutionary transformation.

The expression "very small mutations" is a very misleading expression. Even a change of a thousand base pairs is considered a truly tiny change, while the probability of its random occurrence is twenty to the power of one thousand!!! Something that would not happen even if the entire universe were composed of living creatures, and remained that way for billions upon billions upon billions of years. The question is how many base pairs in the DNA need to change in order to go from an alligator's snout to a bird's beak. Anyone who imagines that we are talking about just a few base pairs needs urgent hospitalization.

Hemoglobin

Yanai –

Studies have shown that the original role of this hemoglobin was to break down and remove nitric oxide molecules from the bodies of bacteria and other anaerobic organisms. Following the transition from the ancient atmosphere, which contained 98 percent carbon dioxide and 2 percent nitrogen, to today's atmosphere (78 percent nitrogen, 0.03 percent carbon dioxide, and 21 percent oxygen), hemoglobin's "purpose" was reversed. In its current role it carries oxygen and nitric oxide to the body's tissues.

What difference does that make?

That's roughly like saying that the car came into being by itself with no guiding hand, except that a million years ago the car was used to collect dinosaur eggs, and with the development of man it became a means of transportation for man. What difference does that make? A car is a very, very complex device, no matter what you do with it.

Whatever you do with hemoglobin, it is a very, very complex mechanism, whose chances of coming into being even in its simplest form are completely impossible, even in a primordial soup that has existed for billions upon billions of years. And whoever doesn't understand should study a little mathematics.

Why there is suffering

Here Yanai already moves on to a completely different subject. He leaves the test tube for a moment and turns to deep philosophical questions, questions about good and evil, suffering, and the purpose of creation.

Yanai –

But if God's hand is in everything, then He is also responsible for the development of the AIDS virus and smallpox—as well as malaria parasites—three diseases that have killed hundreds of millions of human beings throughout history. Which raises the question: for what purpose were these lethal organisms created?

Tell me, Yanai, what does this have to do with evolution? This question was discussed by King David, the Book of Job, the Sages, the Ari, the Ramchal, and others. You are welcome to devote a few years to studying the subject.

Is the Rabbi covering up fully religious views under the guise of one moderate expression or another, as he puts it?

I don't have the time or energy to get into all these "difficulties," which I've long since grown sick of. I met with Zvi Yanai (and that also produced a few debate videos), and there it became clear to me that the man is indeed an impressive autodidact in various scientific fields, but it is plainly evident that he doesn't really understand logic and philosophy (it was hard for me to explain to him even really basic things. I'm not talking about arguing, but even just making clear what I was saying). His objections are nonsense, and I already answered them on the website that once existed and is now gone.
Here's what remains of it:

תשובות לתגובת צבי ינאי לסדרת אמונה ומדע בynet

Regarding the flagellum, the Rabbi explicitly writes that other bacteria survived as well. On page 142, note 92.
Regarding the first "contradiction," it's nonsense, and the answer is indeed found in the response to which Rabbi Michi referred.