web analytics
February 28, 2015 / 9 Adar , 5775
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post


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.

Current Top Story
Israeli Arabs in Nazerth protest against Israel's response to terror last July.
Israel Arabs Greet Herzog and Livni with PA Flags and Fist Fights
Latest Indepth Stories
Netanyahu in a previous address to Congress-

Bibi’s speech to Congress will bring respect and honor to the Jewish Nation from the US & the world

Korenblit-022715

Obama & Putin have handwriting/signature clues indicating differences between public & private life

Councilman David Greenfield

It’s time for a new Jewish policy regarding Ramallah, NOT just because of the yarmulke incident

Levmore-022715

“GETT’s” being screened for Israeli Rabbinical Court judges at their annual convention.

If Jackson were alive he’d denounce Democratic party’s silence towards virulent anti-Semitism

Victim of Palestinian Arab terrorism, a victor in NY federal court, after years of being ignored by Justice Dept.

March 2013: Arabs hurled stones hitting the Biton’s car; Adele’s mother swerved the car-into a truck

The real issue is that in many respects the president has sought to recalibrate American values and our system of government.

Former Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman, writing in the Washington Post on Sunday, provided one of the clearest and most compelling analyses we’ve seen of the importance of the prime minister’s speech.

A central concept in any discussion about happiness is achieving clarity. “Ain simcha ela k’hataras hasefeikos” – there is no joy as that experienced with the removal of doubt.

“Je Suis..,” like its famous origin 400 years ago, implies the ability & freedom to think & question

Many anti-Israel demonstrations at universities have a not-so-latent anti-Semitic agenda as well

Believing a few “extremists” hijacked Islam is myopic in history and geography, numbers and scope

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.

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: