web analytics
August 22, 2014 / 26 Av, 5774
Israel at War: Operation Protective Edge
 
 
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post
Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat (L) visits the JewishPress.com booth at The Event. And the Winners of the JewishPress.com Raffle Are…

Congratulations to all the winners of the JewishPress.com raffle at The Event



Home » InDepth » Op-Eds »

A Query About One of Rabbi Natan Slifkin’s Ten Questions


Evolution: fact or theory?

Evolution: fact or theory?

In the June 2, 2014 issue of The Jewish Press online, Rabbi Natan Slifkin wrote an article entitled Ten Questions on Evolution and Judaism.



His questions, and their answers, appeared to be aimed at two types of people.  Those who say, “Evolution!  Ptui!” and those who say “Evolution, duh.”  Since those two positions are extremes, I’d like to raise a problem with his second question/answer from a position which lies between those extremes.  I hope R’ Slifkin will do me the honor of replying to this question.

2) Why should schools accommodate evolution? Isn’t it just a theory, not a fact?



Here’s my problem.  He refers to “common ancestry” as “the fact of evolution,” as opposed to “the theory of evolution,” which refers to the way in which evolution happens.  In other words, gradual mutations.

He states:

One is common ancestry, the concept that all animal life arose from a common ancestor – simple organisms gave rise to fish, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds and mammals (without getting into how that could have happened). This is supported by a wealth of converging evidence along with testable predictions. Common ancestry is considered by all scientists (except certain deeply religious ones) to be as well-established as many other historical facts, and is thus often referred to as “the fact of evolution.” It is of immense benefit in understanding the natural world – for example, it tells us why whales and bats share anatomical similarities with mammals, despite their superficial resemblance to fish and birds.

This troubles me.  I’m aware that there are similarities between species, and that it can be useful to draw conclusions from those similarities.  But I don’t understand how it is a “fact” that bats and whales and chimpanzees have a common ancestor.  I understand how that has explanatory power, but not how it is necessary.  In other words, it’s similar to the difference between correlation and causation.  The idea of common ancestry correlates with what we see, but it isn’t the only possible idea that correlates with it.

By way of analogy, let’s consider the musical concept of “variations on a theme.”  In variations on a theme, a composer may create numerous compositions which are all… well, variations on a single theme.  If one were to discover these variations at different times, one might conclude that they started with one version, and that each successive version was a modification, one further step away from the original each time.  Kabbalists as well were known to write variant forms of a given text for different purposes.  The most famous case is probably the hymn Yedid Nefesh, which is sung in many congregations on Erev Shabbat.  For centuries, the words of this hymn were known, though there were minor variants.  In the mid-20th century, what has been determined to be a manuscript of the hymn in the author’s own hand was discovered, and since then, a small number of congregations have switched to the substantially different version.  It has been theorized, however, that the author deliberately created a version of the hymn with fewer explicit Kabbalistic images for general consumption.

Creating similar but different versions of a single thing, to serve different purposes, is a hallmark of creative action.  Why do the anatomical similarities between different mammals require a common ancestor?  Even assuming that one species can evolve into another (something which has been demonstrated in the lab), how can it be established as “fact” that this is indeed the process by which all species came to be?  The idea of extrapolating such a process back to a point source seems like an extraordinary claim.

About the Author: Lisa Liel lives in Chicago and works in California thanks to the magic of the Internet. She spends her off time with her family and researching biblical archaeology and chronology.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

5 Responses to “A Query About One of Rabbi Natan Slifkin’s Ten Questions”

  1. Theory doesn't means Fact. Also, there are two things that will help you to understand the subject: the concept of 'Evolution' and 'Variation of a Kind'. E.g. We have horses, donkeys, cebras and mules, they look different but are the same Kind, all of them are different kind of horses, they didn't evolved. You have to understand that Darwin wasn't a scientist, he was a naturalist.
    To me a god that needs the process of 'evolution' to get the job done is a fake. Don't put G-d in a human box!

  2. Got a lot of chutzpah , don’t believe for a minute!

  3. Dan Bialod says:

    Evolution is no more a theory (it was in the 18th century and maybe even with Aristote). Today it is a phenomenon, based on so many proofs that it has become a fact. We even see the apparition of new species today. The proofs are from seven convergent scientific disciplines. Maybe you could question some points of the oldest of these disciplines on an individual basis. But you cannot contest the present total coherence of all seven and specificaaly the main ones : paleontology and the findings of so many fossiles ; compared anatomy ; genetics ; embryology ; compared physiology. All lead to the same knowledge. Who are you to challenge this work of thousands of searchers in the 20th century and up to know. You are measleading you readers and your tentative is pathetic. And so is also the writing of the rabbi. His apparent openess of mind and the message he tries to transmit (“maybe it is true, maybe it is not”) cannot be accepted either.Religion is not pertinent to teach about evolution. Religious people have the right to think whatever they want and even teach it in their schools. But proselytism toward the civil society and interfering with the education of young people, to deprive them of scientific-based common knowledge should be consistenly fighted by states institutions and intelligent and educated people.

  4. Roy Neal Grissom says:

    @Dan Bialok: Intelligent and educated people know there's no such word as "fighted."

  5. Lisa Liel says:

    To me, a person who passes judgment on how God must have done things is riding perilously close to blasphemy.

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Current Top Story
Photo: Rotter.net / Tikonist
Live Updates: Ashdod Shul Hit by Rocket (Latest Update: 5:28 pm)
Latest Indepth Stories
Charles Krauthammer

Wye would be seen to have set the groundwork for the creation of a Palestinian state

David_Grossman

Blaming Israel for the violence in Gaza, he ends up justifying Hamas’s terrorism.

488px-WielkaSynagoga3_Lodz

In the Thirties it was common for anti-Semites to call on Jews to “go to Palestine!”

Netanyahu-Obama-030212

Obama never hid his contempt for the Israeli government or the majority of Israel’s voters.

“This arbitrary ban is an ugly stain on our democracy, and it also undermines the rule of law.”

We take US “aid” for psychological reasons-if we have an allowance, that means we have a father.

ZIM Piraeus isn’t Israeli-owned or flagged, incidentally, it is Greek operated.

Foolish me, thinking the goals were the destruction of Hamas thereby giving peace a real chance.

The free-spirted lifestyle didn’t hold your interest; the needs of your people did.

And why would the U.S. align itself on these issues with Turkey and Qatar, longtime advocates of Hamas’s interests?

Several years ago the city concluded that the metzitzah b’peh procedure created unacceptable risks for newborns in terms of the transmission of neo-natal herpes through contact with a mohel carrying the herpes virus.

The world wars caused unimaginable anguish for the Jews but God also scripted a great glory for our people.

We were quite disappointed with many of the points the secretary-general offered in response.

Judging by history, every time Hamas rebuilds their infrastructure, they are stronger than before.

His father asked him to read Psalms from the Book of Tehilim every day.

More Articles from Lisa Liel
Evolution: fact or theory?

Creating similar but different versions of a single thing, to serve different purposes, is a hallmark of creative action.

    Latest Poll

    Do you think the FAA ban on US flights to Israel is political?






    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/a-query-about-one-of-rabbi-natan-slifkins-ten-questions/2014/06/13/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: