Contra Rabbi Slifkin,Jonathan Ostroff

The owner of the bookstore took one look at the book I was purchasing and said, "Rabbi Slifkin has made quite the splash in our city."

He then asked, "What do you say about the dinosaurs?" - referring to Rabbi Slifkin's Challenge of Creation (2006), which has a stunning photo of a dinosaur skeleton on the front cover of the book.

"Well," I said, "my question is, were dinosaurs were created on day five, or day six?"

"You believe they existed?"

"Sure," I said. "They may have been created with the mammals on day six, or perhaps with birds and fish on day five." I explained that according to the Malbim, most species of birds and fish reproduce by laying eggs - the characteristic feature of day-five creatures - and dinosaurs lay eggs.

"Oh, you mean the 'great creatures' (tanninim hagedolim) of day five are dinosaurs?"

"Well, perhaps. Most commentaries understand that expression to refer to huge sea creatures, but Chazal indicate that it may refer to massive sea and land creatures as in the book of Job."

I did not mention to my interlocutor some other surprising things about dinosaurs.

How old are dinosaurs? Everybody "knows" the answer to this question. As Rabbi Slifkin writes: "A live Tyrannosaurus Rex might be scary, but 65-million-year-old fossils need not be. The entire discussion concerning the age of the universe need not frighten the religious person. After all, God wrote the book of nature, so whatever it tells us about its origins must surely be His words."

O.K. The universe can be as old as God wants. But what Rabbi Slifkin does not reveal to his readers is that under the right conditions, an animal the size of a dinosaur can become a fossil in a mere three weeks!

He also does not tell his readers that when Mary Schweitzer, of Montana State University's Museum of the Rockies, was examining a thin section of Tyrannosaurus Rex bone under her light microscope, she noticed a series of peculiar structures. Round and tiny and nucleated, they were threaded through the bone like red blood cells in blood vessels. But blood cells in a dinosaur bone should have disappeared eons ago.

"I got goose bumps," recalls Schweitzer. "It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn't believe it. I said to the lab technician: 'The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?'"

A "good kashya," but it drives Schweitzer crazy when creationists suggest that this may be evidence for a recent creation. This is because she believes that geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where the dinosaur bones were found, is 68 million years old, and that therefore so are the bones buried in it.

But the discovery of soft elastic tissue and the appearance of fresh blood cells in dinosaurs is something else altogether, for such unusual preservation relies on "yet undetermined geochemical and environmental factors."

As for all those dating methods, what about "anomalous" uranium-lead radiometric measurements showing that Jurassic and Triassic formations in the Colorado Plateau are several thousands of years old - rather short of the 60 to 200-million year age required by the evolutionary time scale? You will not see the many little (and not so little) anomalies mentioned, let alone discussed, in any of Rabbi Slifkin's books.

Rabbi Slifkin and I have been debating such issues for many years. Rabbi Slifkin, who is undoubtedly well intentioned, considers the scientific evidence for naturalistic evolution to be incontrovertible fact. His belief is that Torah must be reconciled to the scientific consensus no matter what, and he has consistently refused to discuss the validity of the scientific evidence.

There is a reason that Rabbi Slifkin's book, mentioned earlier, has no approbation from any rosh yeshiva or posek. It concerns a central issue that logically precedes any conflict about gaps in the fossil record or dinosaur bones. This issue is not about the duration of time during the six-day creation week, or whether it is permissible to allegorize a verse in the Torah, or Chazal's knowledge of science. These are interesting topics, but they do not address the central issue in question, which frames a fundamental dispute about diametrically opposing worldviews.

While Rabbi Slifkin's work does not carry the approbation of noted Torah authorities, it does carry an enthusiastic approbation from Darwinist Michael Ruse, who believes that "we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God."

Ruse, like Rabbi Slifkin, believes in Darwin's "blind watchmaker" thesis - the thesis that the marvels of life (the human brain, for example) originate via naturalistic mechanisms such as accidental random mutation and natural selection.

Rabbi Slifkin believes that currently operating natural processes (albeit guided by God) produced vestigial organs having little or no utility and "poorly designed" organs such as the panda's thumb. When he wrote about the panda's thumb in 2006, Rabbi Slifkin was unaware of an in-depth study of the matter by Japanese scientists. The scientists described the panda's thumb as an engineering marvel, calling it an "extraordinary manipulation system."

The Torah, in contrast to Rabbi Slifkin's chance naturalistic approach, describes a purposeful meta-natural creation process that is entirely removed from the currently operating laws of nature. It is Rabbi Slifkin's insistence on evolutionary naturalism that is fundamentally at odds with core principles of Torah, and this is the central issue that Rabbi Slifkin has consistently failed to address in our discussions.

Charles Darwin wrote: "If I were convinced that I required such [miraculous] additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish I would give nothing for the theory of natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent."

Richard Dawkins writes (in The Blind Watchmaker) that in Darwin's view the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations.

For Darwin, any evolution that required God's help was not evolution at all. Rabbi Slifkin in essence concedes to the atheists that if anyone could have witnessed the origin of the cosmos and of life itself, he would not have detected any role played by God - thus allowing leading intellectuals to teach our unwitting students that "Darwin made it possible to be a fulfilled atheist" (in the words of Richard Dawkins).

Can the meta-natural account of creation in the Torah be reconciled with Darwin's blind watchmaker thesis? When one puts it like that, the answer is clearly no. After all, Darwin said we may never appeal to miracles. But the concept of a miraculous meta-natural Creation Week permeates the first few chapters of the Torah and has always been understood to be at the heart of all the fundamental beliefs of Torah, and of our very awareness of the Creator.

Indeed, Rabbi Slifkin freely admits that his Darwinian interpretation flies in the face of every classical Talmudic and Rishonic source discussing the topic.

When we make Kiddush on Shabbos we recite the words of the fourth commandment stating that God rested (vayonach) on the seventh day. Chazal say that this means that creation came to halt on that day. The Rambam, in Moreh Nevuchim, explains this as follows: "On each day of the six day creation week, novel entities were formed outside of the system of nature currently in operation and, on the seventh day (Shabbos), the state of the world became lasting and established just as it is at present."

The Maharal writes (Be'er Hagolah): "Know that He, Himself, may His name be blessed, in all His Glory (b'chvodo u'veatzmo) caused all of reality to materialize into existence during the six days of creation. He did not cause it through the agency of nature, as opposed to the period which ensues after the six days of creation, in which Hashem, may His name be blessed, governs his creation via the intermediary of nature."

This is the concept of Creation we have as our mesorah. And this means, as Rav Shlomo Miller shlita explains, that Hashem is not just the Guide (manhig) of the universe but also its Creator (boreh).

The very laws of nature, the imperatives that govern the cosmos, space, time, mass, energy, and life were only able to come into existence via God exercising his role as the Creator over the entire six-day creation period of asarah ma'maros, ten declarations.

Shabbos teaches that the natural processes we see at work today were not the ones responsible for bringing the world and its inhabitants into existence. Our cessation of work on Shabbos testifies to the fact that God meta-naturally created his universe in six days and ceased this process on the seventh day.

As Chazal say, Hashem said to His world "dai" - stop! - at which point the laws of nature became fixed and stable. Those who attempt to explain creation as an ongoing natural process empty our cessation from work on Shabbos of all meaning. They cannot help but stumble in the fundamentals of Torah. They thereby undermine the very essence of Shabbos which is fundamental to our awareness of the Creator (see Rashi to Chulin 5a, as quoted by Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in Mevakshei Torah).

It is the post-creation stable order that scientists legitimately study today. Contra Rabbi Slifkin, the pseudo-scientific naturalistic account of origins is at loggerheads with the principle God presented to us in the Torah - the principle of a purposeful meta-natural creation by a transcendent Creator.

There is no way to reconcile or eliminate this conflict in worldview. Nor is it a question for concern because, on this issue, evolutionary naturalists have overstepped the legitimate bounds of science. We refer the reader to toriah.com/wiki for further details.

Jonathan Ostroff is an associate professor in the Department of Computer Science & Engineering at York University, Toronto.

Read Comments (9)

Contra Rabbi Slifkin
Date 01:12, 12-3, 07

To the Editor,

I find it quite amusing that Jonathan Ostroff accuses Rabbi Slifkin of unwillingness to discuss the validity of the scientific evidence. I was a witness to the email debate between Rabbi Slifkin and Dr. Ostroff. I witnessed extreme patience on Rabbi Slifkin's part in dealing with the repeated attacks from Dr. Ostroff and one of his colleagues. I also witnessed an aversion on Dr. Ostroff's part in debating the position of the Rambam (and others) in regard to the acceptance of the science of the day. Dr. Ostroff refused to discuss the issue. His lack of knowledge, or willful ignorance, in this area is the main cause for his inability to appreciate the approach of Rabbi Slifkin. The willingness of the Rambam and many other Rishonim to adopt Greek science is quite clear to any beginner student. Dr Ostroff seems to be living in a medieval scientific time warp. People who deny our ability to rely on modern science and the scientific method are not living a Torah Pure approach to science. Rather, they are living in the scientific world of Aristotle and Plato. The Rambam, Ramban, and a host of other Rishonim took the science of the day as a starting point for all discussions. They interpreted Maaseh Berishis in accordance with that science. To quote Plato and Aristotle was not uncommon in the medieval period. The reliance on the Rambam, who in turn relied on Aristotle, is almost universal in the medieval period.

Further, it is quite unbelievable that Rabbi Slifkin is accused of accepting a "pseudo-scientific naturalistic account of origins". I wonder whether the scientific community would consider Dr. Ostroff's claim that dinosaurs lived a few thousand years ago science or pseudo-science. Is Dr. Ostroff the only true scientist?

Yonasan Rosenbloom, in a recent article, relates how the guiding force in many bans and prohibitions are the askanim behind the scenes rather than the signatories. The Slifkin Affair is a sad example of this phenomenon. It is the askanim, such as Dr. Ostroff, who stir the pot and help create the environment of Machlokes that is so prevalent in our society. Debate concerning these issues is necessary and welcome. The personal attacks and disrespect shown towards the Slifkins of our world and the pressure put on otherwise silent Roshei HaYeshivas and Posekim to constantly condemn opponents is a sign of insecurity rather than ideological superiority.

The reason that "Rabbi Slifkin has made quite the splash in our city", or for that matter, in any city, is mostly due to the publicity created by Jonathan Ostroff and company. Most people, chareidi and non-chareidi alike, are not that interested in the Torah Science Dilemma. Rather, they are upset that an intellectually honest and sincere person, such as Rabbi Slifkin, is not allowed to pursue Torah study with an open mind.

Jack Solomon

R. Slifkin's refusal to discuss the validity of his science claims
Date 04:12, 12-3, 07

Jack Solomon writes: "I find it quite amusing that Jonathan Ostroff accuses Rabbi Slifkin of unwillingness to discuss the validity of the scientific evidence. I was a witness to the email debate between Rabbi Slifkin and Dr. Ostroff. I witnessed extreme patience on Rabbi Slifkin's part in dealing with the repeated attacks from Dr. Ostroff and one of his colleagues."

Rabbi Slifkin actually did refuse to debate the validity of his claims. Here are some examples:

Dear Dr. Ostroff ... I am aware that you consider the various lines of evidence for common ancestry that I bring to be entirely inadequate. Obviously, I disagree. However, for the umpteenth time, let me reiterate that I am not interested in arguing about the science with you. ... Natan Slifkin" (21 November 2006, emphasis added).

"I have no idea why you think it necessary for ME to prove to YOU that evolution works in order for ME to accept that it is compatible with Torah and for ME to point out that it has mainstream acceptance in the scientific community." (Rabbi Slifkin, November 20, 2006, emphasis in the original.)

Mr. Solomon also writes: "Further, it is quite unbelievable that Rabbi Slifkin is accused of accepting a "pseudo-scientific naturalistic account of origins".

Perhaps Mr. Solomon could examine some of the sources referenced at the end of the Jewish Press article. Here is one of them.

"Today, 150 years later and despite many efforts, there are still no detailed testable Darwinian pathways, only wishful speculations. We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations." (Franklin M. Harold, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms, and the Order of Life, Oxford University Press, 2001)

Rabbi Slifkin states that the main elements of creation recorded in the first few chapters of Genesis never happened, there was no Adam Harishon or Gan Eden or a global flood, and that the first man developed from an ape-like precursor instead. Our whole mesorah of creation is rejected in favour of a theory that is, in the words of molecular biologist Franklin Harold, "only a variety of wishful speculations".

It is quotes like that of Franklin Harold (above) and the dating anomalies I mention in my article (see the toriah site for many more) from the published scientific literature that do not appear at all in Rabbi Slifkin's books and that I would like to see discussed in greater detail. Should the reader not be made aware of these problems?

For example, I would like to ask Mr. Solomon if he has detailed testable Darwinian pathways for eyes, wings or brains?

See toriah.com/wiki for the full details.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Ostroff

The Rishonim and Medieval Science
Date 06:12, 12-3, 07

Jack Solomon writes:
"...the approach of Rabbi Slifkin. The willingness of the Rambam and many other Rishonim to adopt Greek science is quite clear to any beginner student. Dr Ostroff seems to be living in a medieval scientific time warp. People who deny our ability to rely on modern science and the scientific method are not living a Torah Pure approach to science. Rather, they are living in the scientific world of Aristotle and Plato. The Rambam, Ramban, and a host of other Rishonim took the science of the day as a starting point for all discussions. They interpreted Maaseh Berishis in accordance with that science. To quote Plato and Aristotle was not uncommon in the medieval period. The reliance on the Rambam, who in turn relied on Aristotle, is almost universal in the medieval period."

First we have a straw man being set up against Dr. Ostroff:

"Dr Ostroff seems to be living in a medieval scientific time warp. People who deny our ability to rely on modern science and the scientific method are not living a Torah Pure approach to science."

The most basic trenchant distinction that Dr. Ostroff makes in all his writings in this area, is between operational science and origin science. Operational science is the only type of modern science which demostrates the success of careful application of the scientific method that we all rely on (including Dr. Ostroff).

Origin science, as Dr. Ostroff aptly documents, is the branch of science that only uncritical consumers of popular books on modern cosmology and evolution believe is subject to all the rigors of the scientific method. The truth is that origin science is nothing of the sort. Mr. Solomon has shown that he does not comprehend this distinction in the slightest.

Next Mr. Solomon writes:

"The Rambam, Ramban, and a host of other Rishonim took the science of the day as a starting point for all discussions. They interpreted Maaseh Berishis in accordance with that science."

This is quite amusing since the main thrust of the 2nd part of Rambam''s Moreh Nevuchim was to deny the Aristotelian scientific view of the universe as an eternal static existence. Although the static model of the universe had much empirical evidence in favor, the Rambam''s Torah Pure approach to Bereishis was to disqualify the evidence about the universe''s origins that based itself on unproven extrapolations.

As Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik said in a lecture on Bereishis
to the Rabbinic Alumni of Yeshiva University Oct 20th 1971

"...It is Ex-nihilo, Yesh Me''ayin. You see and here we are at logger-heads...from antiquity, with the Greek philosophy, Greek science.

We are still at logger-heads with modern science. There is no way how to somehow, to try to eliminate that conflict, or try to reconcile it. There is no reconciliation, and I''ll quite frankly [say] that I''m not worried, and not concerned that there is no reconciliation.

Because science absolutely has no right to make a certain statement about "briyah."

?We had a lot of trouble with Greek philosophy ...

We were confronted many times with those who tried to deny briyah yesh meayin. We are in the same situation and are in the same condition nowadays too. No matter, whatever, its completely irrelevant, what theory of evolution science accepts. Whether it is the big bang theory, or the instantaneous birth of the universe. Or if it is the slow piece-meal emergence of the universe. Whether it is the emergence evolution or the instantaneous so-called birth of the universe.

But science will always say: as far as matter is concerned, particles, of course science has no right to say anything because it is not a scientific problem. It is a metaphysical problem.

But again we are still at logger-heads. We are actually still, we have something which the goyishe world has not understood."

But seems that the approach of Rabbi Slifkin according to Mr. Solomon is to remake the rishonim in his own image: If Rabbi Slifkin feels he is justified in fitting Bereishis into the (faulty) origin science of his day, then certainly this was what the rishonim were doing too!

Please consider this message for the print edition.
Sincerely,
Dovid Kornreich

Rambam's Real Position
Date 08:12, 12-3, 07

The Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 2:17) makes it clear that the only reliable source for how the world came into being is our mesorah of the historical fact:

"For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and Avraham Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being in such-and-such a form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya kach mi-kach), and such was created after such."

The Rambam also makes clear that he considered the scientific method, which interprets evidence by the way things naturally behave and produce what they do, to be irrelevant in determining the world's origins, especially when pitted against our possession of historical fact:

"Aristotle brings proofs against us from the set nature of the regular behavior of things as they are in their full development. But we insist that nature as presently established is not one iota similar to what it was at the time of its being generated, and that it was brought into existence after being absolutely absent. What argument in all he says holds up against us? These arguments are compelling only against one who claims that the fact that the world's being created out of nothing can be proven by the way
the world is now, in its permanent nature. But I already made it clear that I do not claim this to be so."

Zvi Lampel

Contra Slifkin
Date 03:12, 12-6, 07

To Jonathan Ostroff:

(1) I must concede that Rabbi Slifkin continuously insisted that he would not discuss the validity of the scientific evidence. However, someone who has the patience to read the long debate will notice that he did discuss the evidence from time to time.

When I evaluate a scientific theory and I am not an expert in that field, my conclusions are based on opinions given by the experts in that field or the overwhelming majority of them. Rabbi Slifkin's or Dr. Ostroff's opinion will not hold much weight for the simple reason that they are only educated laymen. Additionally, they might have certain biases.

When it comes to evolutionary theory, an overwhelming majority in that field believe evolution to be as good as fact. Even if they turn out to be mistaken, we must be ready to deal with the possibility that they are correct. This is exactly the position of Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch. He made this argument about evolutionary theory even when the theory was relatively young.

When faced with a tough medical decision concerning chemotherapy, I do not consult with anyone except an oncologist respected by his peers. If he proposes a procedure not accepted by the vast majority of his peers, I will not proceed. If a substantial number of experts agree with him but they remain in the minority, then I will consult with a general practitioner, medical journals and even relatives or friends. I might just stick to the traditional approach. Unless I am desperate!!! Then, I would probably be willing to try unproven methods and even alternative medicine.

When it comes to evolution, I am not desperate. There are many ways for me to live with the Torah and evolutionary theory. I am not desperate enough to rely on Jonathan Ostroff, other well-meaning laymen, or a couple of very lonely experts. I believe I share this belief with Rabbi Slifkin.

(2) My definition of pseudo science is dependent on the argument above. Rabbi Slifkin is within the scientific mainstream and you are not.

(3)I am not even an educated layman in this area. Therefore, I surely will not attempt to provide testable Darwinian pathways.

(4) I am not giving up Adam HaRishon or Gan Eden. I understand them metaphorically, as the Rambam and many other Rishonim. It is not for "a variety of wishful speculations".

It is so that it does not contradict the accepted science of our day.

It does not disturb me that I came from an "ape-like precursor" any more than it bothers me to come from a putrid drop of semen.

Anyway, I am happy to tell you that I, and many of my friends, have outgrown the ape-like stage of life and am leading a very meaningful human existence.

To Dovid Kornreich:

(1) You are right. I don't understand the distinction between operational and origin science. I believe the same scientific method is used in both. In cosmology, there is a link between theories of the origin of the universe and so-called operational science. Micro-evolution, which I believe is proven, shares the same principles as macro-evolution. If not for ideological reasons, you would not find any reason to draw the line of evolution to exclude the development of species. I am curious if any reputable scientists have made this distinction.

(2) If you had the respect for Einstein that Rambam had for Aristotle, we would not be having this discussion. Besides Moshe Rabenu, Aristotle is the greatest thinker ever in the opinion of the Rambam. Creation ex Nihilo is the one major point that Rambam differs with Aristotle. All other disagreements flow from this one point. The Rambam does this with trepidation and pages of arguments. The Rambam was a philosopher. He was arguing as one expert to another. In medieval science, it was thought that everything should be proven or demonstrated fully. His claim is that Aristotle did not demonstrate an eternal universe. He also claims that there are strong arguments in favor of creation ex nihilo. Only then, does he argue with Aristotle based on two reasons. (1) The support of a literal Biblical tradition and (2) the fact that accepting Aristotle "destroys the Law in its principle, necessarily gives the lie to every miracle, and reduces to inanity all the hopes and threats that the Law has held out,". Otherwise, the Rambam is quite a strict Aristotelian. This belief is based on the fact that Aristotle has "proven" all that he claims. Some might claim that we have to "prove" evolution in order to follow the Rambam's strict demand for "demonstration". Remember that the scientific approach in the Rambam?s day was "demonstrable fact". Today, we work with theories. If it concerns you that we are settling for a lower standard, don't fret too much. The Rambam's "demonstrated facts" gave us an Earth centered Universe, a sun, moon and stars that have intelligence and in much science and medicine that would be laughable if accepted today. I quote the Rambam's "acceptance of the science of his day", not the science itself.

(3) I do not fully understand the context of the quote from Rav Soloveitchik. It seems that his main point was Creation ex Nihilo. I cannot be sure.

(4) Rabbi Slifkin is not claiming that the Rishonim held the theory of evolution. Many Rishonim accept the science of their day. This is the model followed by Rabbi Slifkin.

To Zvi Lampel:

(1) You claim, "The Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 2:17) makes it clear that the only reliable source for how the world came into being is our mesorah of the historical fact:"

The Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 2:25) says, "Know that our shunning the affirmation of the eternity of the world is not due to a text figuring in the Torah according to which the world has been produced in time. For the texts indicating that the world has been produced in time are not more numerous than those indicating that the deity is a body. Nor are the gates of figurative interpretation shut in our faces or impossible of access to us regarding the subject of the creation of the world in time. For we could interpret them as figurative, as we have done when denying His corporeality."

He then provides the two reasons that I have outlined previously in my reply to Dovid Kornreich. If the "proof" was there, the Rambam would not be swayed by our Mesorah?. It is not the only reliable source?.

(2) You completely misunderstand the Rambam's position in regard to nature if you are using it in regard to evolution. If the Rambam had a motto, it would be "Olem KeMinhago Noheg", the world follows its nature. He believes in a universe that follows the rules of nature immediately after the moment of creation. His claim against Aristotle is only that the world is not eternal. Once the world was created, the Rambam limits miracles almost to extinction. The six days of creation are metaphorical. Once the world came into being, it resembles Aristotle's natural world except for a limited amount of miracles.

Jack Solomon

Pro Rabbi Slifkin
Date 10:12, 12-6, 07

Professor Ostroff inaccurately and unfairly criticizes Rabbi Slifkin. Ostroff's attempts to prove that the universe is 5,768 years old fly in the face of our holy Mesorah.

There are numerous Torah sources indicating the significant antiquity of the cosmos.

Furthermore, there is no dogma in classicial Juduaism concerning evolution. In fact, Torah sources point to its plausibility. As regards the former, it is written: "For a thousand years in Your eyes are like one day that passed by just yesterday, and one watch in the night, Psalms 90:4. (This shows that the noun YOM in classical Hebrew does not necessarily mean a period of 24 hours.) With respect to the latter: "Rabbi Yehuda taught: ''Man was first created with a tail like an animal, but G-d subsequently removed his tail for the sake of his dignity in order not to embarrass him, Beraishis Rabba 23:7.

One of the commentaries, ibid loc. states that Rabbi Yehuda's assertion is to be taken literally. Elsewhere, ibid. 23.7, the Midrash states that there were people who looked like monkeys. (See Ecclesiastes
3:19: "For the superiority/preeminence of man over beast is nil."

Thus, it is plain that, in accordance with our sacred literature, the issues of the universe's age and the validity of evolutionary theory should not be considered articles of faith.

In fact, such theories are not inconsistent with our Torah. The whole concept of Divine creation is esoteric which is beyond the ken of mortal man. Should scientists prove the validity of evolution, such knowledge would only corroborate the Torah sources which mention such a phenomenon. Judaism does not oppose science.
Of course creationists and Intelligent Design theorists are also entitled to express their opinions.

With respect to the issue of Divine Providence, Ostroff erroneously states: "The Torah, in contrast to Rabbi Slifkin's chance naturalistic approach, describes a purposeful creation process that is entirely removed from the currently operating laws of nature."

There are serious problems with that formulation, although the Torah does describe a purposeful creation process. (Ostroff got that right. However, he is wrong about Slifkin and he is wrong about his alleged assertion that the creation process "is entirely removed from the currently operating laws of nature.")

First, Rabbi Slifkin does state his belief in Divine Providence and miracles: "Jewish philosophy regards it as fundamental that G-d utilizes Divine Providence to alter the events that happen in a person's daily life, in accordance with his good deeds and sins." (The Challenge Of Creation pg. 68. He also states his beliefs in those basic tenets of faith in his reply to me---although he did not address the question I raised about the issue in a previous letter.)

For Dr. Ostroff's edification, Rambam in his famous theological treatise Shomeh Prakim Ch. 8 does assert that the world is run according to the laws of nature--by Divine Decree. In addition, the great Italian Rabbi Ovadia Sforno expresses the same view in his inspirational commentary on Numbers 3:47.

Sforno unequivocally states that only yeh-khee-day segula---a select few--are granted special divine supervision. (It is thus a privilege that must be earned by virtuous deeds in keeping with our sacred Torah. This is a profound subject which cannot be discussed adequately within the confines of newspapers and e-mail discourses. Nonetheless, one should not condemn Rabbi Slifkin for trying to do so by writing a book.)

Finally, Dr. Ostroff is unfair when he says that Rabbi Slifkin..."has no approbation from any rosh yeshiva or posek."
That is not true. Rabbi Slifkin has received several rabbinical endorsements for his books, e.g.: Rabbi Yisroel Belsky for
The Camel, the Hare and the Hyrax. For Dr. Ostroff's edification, Rabbi Yisroel Belsky is a well-known Posek in Brooklyn. For a previous book, The Science Of Torah, endorsements were issued by Rabbi Aryeh Carmell z'tl and for The Challenge of Creation, there is a laudatory introduction written by Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb.

Another problem: Dr. Ostroff, a professor of computer science, inaccurately states that Rabbi Slifkin only "has an enthusiatic approbation from Darwinist Michael Ruse..." But the truth is that Rabbi Slifkin actually has enthusiastic approbations from orthodox Jewish scientists, for example: Professor Tim M. Kusky, Paul C. Reinert Professor of Natural Sciences, Saint Louis University.

I recommend Rabbi Slifkin's book to people who know English, science and philosophy. It is good reading for intellectuals who understand that Torah and science are not adversaries. It is also good for those who seek plausible reconciliations between apparent conflicts pertaining to the subjects under discussion. But this should be done for the sake of TALMUD TORAH. May HASHEM usher in the Geulah vos gicher!

Ah fraylikhen Chanukah far alle Yeedin!

Chaim Silver

Rambam's Real Position II
Date 07:12, 12-10, 07

The Rambam, as all the Rishonim, held that the reasoning through evidence and logic cannot prove either Eternity or Creation. The most that could be claimed is that evidence and logic leaned more towards Creation, than towards eternity. He therefore opposed two groups of people: (a) the Kalaam sect of Muslims, who claimed to have logically proven that there was a Creation ex nihilo and (b) those who claimed that Aristotle proved the world always existed.

Each attempted proofs through examining the observable state of the world and through theological reasoning (the philosophers, for example, reasoned that an unchanging G-d whose existence they considered proven--would not change His mind from not generating a world to generating a world.

The Rambam devotes significant space to expose to the reader the weaknesses of the Kalaam?s and Aristotle?s reasoning on their own terms. Nevertheless, he prefaces his analysis with the principle that we know the universe was created ex nihilo through the mesorah of Avraham Avinu, Moshe Rabbeynu, and the prophets. It is not merely my ?claim,? as Mr. Solomon labels it, that the Rambam considered the mesorah the only reliable source for how the world came into being. The Rambam repeats this conviction several times, and repeatedly emphasizes that it is totally impossible to disprove the mesorah?s account of the meta-natural Creation process:

?[T]he principal proofs of Aristotle?prove nothing whatever against us, since we hold that God brought the entire Universe into existence from absolute non-existence, and that He then caused it to develop into the present state. ? In short, the properties of things when fully developed contain no clue as to what have been the properties of the things before their perfection?This ? is a high rampart erected round the Torah, and able to resist all missiles directed against it. ? In attempting to prove the inadmissibility of Creatio ex nihilo, the Aristotelians can therefore not derive any support from the nature of the Universe.?

Mr. Solomon goes on to insist that the Rambam ?believes in a universe that follows the rules of nature immediately after the moment of creation.? This, despite the passage I cited where the Rambam clearly affirms the Jewish People''s possession not only of the fact of creation ex nihilo, but of the ensuing meta-natural formation of Creation?s components as described in the Torah. Again:

"For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and Avraham Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being in such-and-such a form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya kach mi-kach), and such was created after such."

In this passage, the Rambam is consistent with all his other writings. (For example, Rambam?s description of the creation process in his commentary on Avos 5:1 and in the Shemoneh Perakim.) Instead of dealing with the passage that totally contradicts his assertion, Mr. Solomon focuses on a debatable interpretation of another passage. He takes the Rambam as proclaiming that there is a possibility that there could be sufficient reason to be kofer in Moshe Rabbeynu?s and the prophets? teachings on the world?s origin. (At least Mr. Solomon could have acknowledged that his understanding has Rambam contradicting himself.) Mr. Solomon then proceeds to add more terribly false assertions about the Rambam''s views regarding nature, miracles, the historicity of Maaseh Breishis and the veracity of our mesorah.

The audacious claim that the Rambam thought Maaseh Breishis to be metaphor also flies in the face of the Rambam''s writings. (Just one example from the Moreh Nevuchim [2:30] itself: the Rambam deals in a quite un-metaphorical way with the issue of how the first three days of creation were measured, when apparently there was as yet no sun.) Mr. Solomon''s presentation indicates an unfortunate influence by those who like to present the Rambam as a closet apikoris by his own definition.

Note that every Shabbos we repeat the Torah''s emphasis not on the moment of creation, but on Maaseh Breishis, the meta-natural process of the world''s formation after the creation ex-nihilo, that ceased the first Shabbos ("ki sheyshess yamim assah Hashem ess HaShamayim v''ess ha-arets, u''vayom ha-sh''vi''i shavas vayinafash"). As Dr. Ostroff in his original Op-Ed wrote, this cessation of the meta-natural?not natural--process through which the world?s forms came about is what Shabbos commemorates. The principle Mr. Solomon invokes, that "Olam ke''minhago noheg," the world follows nature, is the Rambam''s description of the way things behaved after the first Shabbos. It is precisely this quite unmetaphorical distinction of how things were before the seventh day and how they were after the seventh day that the Rambam emphasizes. And he uses this distinction to dismiss not just the conclusions of Aristotle, but the methodology Aristotle used in arriving at the conclusion, contra our mesorah, that the world is more likely past-eternal. Mr. Solomon''s application of "Olam ke''minhago noheg" to the period of Maaseh Breishis before the first Shabbos demonstrates a woeful misunderstanding of the Rambam''s point.

The refusal to acknowledge clear statements by the Rambam, the insistence on utilizing the Aristotelian reasoning the Rambam dismisses, and the implicit circular reasoning (i.e., despite the mesorah that the world developed in a meta-natural way, the world must have developed in a totally natural way, because, why, otherwise it would be unnatural!) based on a loyalty to the current consensus of academia (whose conclusions are based on an axiom to accept only naturalistic explanations of things) contra our mesorah, indicates that attempts to reason with Mr. Solomon will be futile.

Zvi Lampel

Contra Ostroff
Date 02:12, 12-13, 07

Mr. Ostroff should stick to what he knows best, computer science. His attempt to deal with other areas of science for which he clearly has no expertise does not merit a response from those who believe that science and Yiddishkeit can be reconciled.

Rav Slifkin, on the other hand, deserves our full fledged support in his holy endeavors.

Hillel Jacobs

Dr. Ostroff repeats his distortions
Date 11:12, 12-13, 07

Rabbi Slifkin states that the main elements of creation recorded in the first few chapters of Genesis never happened, there was no Adam Harishon or Gan Eden or a global flood, and that the first man developed from an ape-like precursor instead. Our whole mesorah of creation is rejected in favour of a theory that is, in the words of molecular biologist Franklin Harold, "only a variety of wishful speculations".

Dr. Ostroff, why do you repeatedly level charges that I have already shown countless times to be based upon distortions of my writings or have otherwise refuted?

"the main elements of creation recorded in the first few chapters of Genesis never happened" - Actually, I maintain that the main elements ALL happened. God created the Heavens and the earth and the stars and the plants and the animals. Just not in the way that you understand Him to have done so.

"there was no Adam Harishon" - We had a long email debate in which I pointed out to you repeatedly that my book makes no such claim.

"or Gan Eden" - Come now, even you must acknowledge that I am hardly the first to interpret Gan Eden allegorically. Rambam, Ralbag and others are universally acknowledged to have done so.

"or a global flood" - In my book, as you surely know, I cite three prominent Acharonim who state that the flood was not global.

"Our whole mesorah of creation is rejected in favour of a theory that is, in the words of molecular biologist Franklin Harold, "only a variety of wishful speculations" - As I have pointed out countless times, you are mixing up contemporary neo-Darwinian explanations of evolutionary mechanisms with common ancestry and other fields of science beyond biology. In my book I make it clear that the mechanisms of evolution are still an unclear and contested field. But the evidence for the universe having developed via natural laws over billions of years, and of life having evolved (somehow), is an entirely separate matter.

Dr. Ostroff, I apologize if I am being curt, but I have made all the above points already on numerous occasions in our email discussions, yet it's as though you've never noticed. I doubt that you will acknowledge these points on this occasion either, but hopefully others, especially those who followed the original email discussions, will notice.

Natan Slifkin