Thank you.
A. Can you recommend a non-biased book that clarifies the facts on evolution?
It’s hard to read Wikipedia without prior knowledge of biology; there are lots of terms there that, at least for me, are hard to understand.
For example, proteins, amino acids (and the entries they link to also make it hard for me to get into the topic), and other sites are amateurish and present half-things with a certain agenda.
B. The impression I got from Inbal is that macro-evolution hasn’t been empirically proven, only through circumstantial evidence. Is that correct?
C. So in your opinion, all these scientists like Zvi Inbal {and others he quotes} don’t manage to undermine evolution even a little? It still remains a finished fact with no room to challenge it? (Of course I mean that there’s no room to challenge it because it’s proven with very high probability; after all, anything can be challenged.)

Someone who “opposes evolution” usually does so out of ignorance and fear.

But sometimes there are those who do it for financial reasons. There’s a lot of money for a scientist who supports religious positions (especially from the church).

There is no one who denies evolution on rational grounds.
Common sense accepts it and is even happy about it: finally, an explanation that brings order to this enormous mess of the diversity of life.

Pinchas,
A. Unfortunately not. Not because there isn’t one, but because I don’t know of one. I’m not that knowledgeable about evolution. In the book I tried to show that the question of whether evolution is correct or not has no theological significance whatsoever. It’s a scientific question, and as such it should be referred to experts.
B. I don’t think so. But as I said, I’m not an expert.
C. First, Inbal is not a scientist. Beyond that, there are various objections and debates. As I said, I’m not knowledgeable about it, and in my view it isn’t important. I think the very distinction between micro and macro has no real substance. It’s an arbitrary distinction. But again, I’m not an expert.

Rabbi Kook wrote in Shemonah Kevatzim (I, 594):

“To compare the account of Creation with the latest investigations is a worthy matter. There is no barrier to interpreting the section ‘These are the generations of the heavens and the earth’ as containing within it worlds of millions of years, until man came to some recognition that he was already distinct from all the animals, and through some vision it appeared to him that he ought to establish family life with permanence and nobility of spirit, by being joined to a woman who would be bound to him more than his father and mother, the natural family members.”

It seems to me that it isn’t arbitrary, but a matter of probability, as you mentioned in the book—that the probability is negligible for evolution; for micro-evolution the probability is much higher than for macro.

And therefore there are those who would prefer to argue that macro-evolution did not happen, since the probability is negligible, and they would explain the evidence for macro differently, because it is circumstantial and not empirical—so you definitely can argue with them.
For example, the fact that they find several stages of human development at different times in history, and as time advances they find more developed forms that were not found earlier.
One can argue that they developed from one another, but as you wrote in your book that is clearly not plausible (so one can argue that there was design), and one can argue that the fact that they did not find developed life forms at earlier stages does not necessarily indicate that they did not exist.
(I also read that one can say that the reason they found more primitive creatures earlier in history is that they reproduce in much greater quantities than developed creatures, and therefore those are what they found.)
From your perspective, is this an argument that has no basis at all?

Inbal has a master’s degree in chemistry from the Technion (Wikipedia).

And that makes him a scientist?

Sorry for the bother…
But the argument I raised—is it not acceptable?

I don’t see any point in dealing with this. You don’t know the evidence and arguments, and neither do I.

Pinchas, there’s a series of broadcasts and also a booklet from the Broadcast University on evolution—clear and lucid. It’s only the basics, but it’s enough to move on afterward to other sites.

Thank you.
Rabbi, in any case, do you not see any obligation to investigate the topic in depth? Or do you simply rely on the scientific community?
In my opinion it greatly affects all kinds of areas (even if one doesn’t need to leave Judaism).

?

No