Foreword

I have separated this topic from my response to “A letter to my Rabbi,” although this subject is mentioned there as well, for two main reasons: Firstly, this topic is large enough to be addressed in its own right, and secondly, because I feel that the answers mentioned in the second half of this essay may seem to some to be weak, for reasons explained in Part 7, and I did not want any perceived weaknesses in these answers to perversely affect the quality of the answers I provided in my response to Naftali.

The following is the conclusions and ideas that I have reached during my personal search to figure out this subject, as well as some ideas that I discussed with friends. My main purpose in putting this up online, is as this has been a “burning” issue online for quite some time, and I have not yet seen others discussing this specific approach in this much detail.

I prefer to research things very thoroughly, and in that sense, this essay is still incomplete. I would prefer, and am planning, to spend many more months studying this subject in even more depth. In that sense, if the reader finds the ideas suggested to be unconvincing, I would suggest that they revisit these pages in 12 months or so, to see if the arguments that were problematic are replaced by stronger ones.

Regardless, I trust that even if one finds my arguments unconvincing, the following pages will still make for an interesting read.

I must reiterate here the notice I provided at the beginning of my response to Naftali's letter, namely, that the following is intended only for those who are already familiar with the subject of evolution, and the challenges it poses to the Torah. For those readers who already have sufficient belief in the veracity of the Torah and don’t have such questions, or those who have already found satisfactory answers to reconcile the two subjects, I would prefer that you do not read any further, as even if one finds satisfactory answers to the types of questions which will be discussed in this essay, it often still comes with a certain undesirable “cost” to one's faith and observance. Therefore, I cannot encourage in good conscience, anyone who is not familiar with these questions, to read any further.

That having been said, all comments and critiques are very welcome.

1 One Problem, Six Answers

In the attempt to resolve the conflict between Torah and evolution, there are a number of answers that are usually suggested.

1. The first approach is to say that the Torah’s account in the first chapters of Genesis is true, and that all evidence otherwise was put there in order to allow for free choice, and to allow people to reject the Torah.

I should point out that this answer is not as bad as it seems at first glance. The main problem that people have with this answer is that it paints G-d as being very dishonest –  but the truth is that one can derive from a number of Midrashim, that for G-d to be honest, He doesn’t have to prevent people from coming to a mistaken conclusion, but rather, that it would suffice for Him to also provide the correct account if there is other evidence that may confuse people.

2 The Seventh Answer

The only answer that I have found to date, that I find satisfactory, is based on the seventh approach, detailed by the Lubavitcher Rebbe in his letters.

Although the Rebbe discusses this approach in a number of letters, both in Hebrew and in English, I will reprint here the two most famous ones.

But before I do so, I will point out that most times that I’ve seen people present the Rebbe’s view, they completely misunderstand the Rebbe’s point. I must confess that even I had to reread these letters a number of times before I realized what the Rebbe’s point was.

3 Limits of Logic

As the Rebbe does not explain here why the Torah, and Yiddeshkeit, are true in the first place, I will lay out here the two proofs that, in my opinion, prove that Yiddishkeit is true.

But before I get there, I will preface with some thoughts on the correct methodology to be used when trying to figure out the veracity of any claim, as there are significant flaws present in any intellectual enquiry.

One of the fundamental flaws of logical reasoning is that with almost every idea or ideal, there are at least two ways of viewing it, if one is lucky. Most often, in addition to the two extremes in how to address the subject, there is often a whole range of conclusions in between that can be reached. Furthermore, our minds can be clever enough that they can convincingly explain the correctness of each conclusion.

4 Proof from Miracles

The saying goes: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I think I have that extraordinary evidence.

For this proof, I could have theoretically chosen any of the number of Tzaddikim who lived in our generation, who were able to perform miracles. However, as being a Lubavitcher, I chose to bring the Lubavitcher Rebbe as my example, simply because I know the relevant information very well.

5 Various Counter-arguments

Probably the most common counter-argument that people respond with, is that maybe the people who retell such stories are not reliable. The problem with that argument is that it isn’t true.

History, in the sense of what actually happened in previous times, is very black and transparent – either something happened or it did not. It is not as if we can come to a gentlemen’s agreement, where one of us will decide that something did happen, while the other will decide that it didn’t, and both of us would be correct. So whatever conclusion you reach, if it is true, has to be valid for me as well, and vice versa.

6 The Kuzari Proof

The flaw in the proof from Tzaddikim is that it is not strictly logical. Although somewhat based on logic, it is not a proof that will survive over time (i.e. it will not be relevant in 200 years time, unless at that time there will be other Tzaddikim performing miracles), and it has an emotional element to it. The problem with emotional arguments is that they are inherently not strong arguments – what is one to do when faced with an opposing emotional argument?

Therefore, because of this flaw, there is the next proof, commonly known as the Kuzari proof, which is strictly logical.

7 Reaching a Conclusion & Taking things Further

All of the above simply sharpens our original question, and makes the problem even worse: How does one resolve this contradiction, where on one hand there is strong evidence that the Torah is true, while on the other hand, there is strong evidence that evolution is true, and the “extremist” realizes that this is an impossibility, as these are contradictory claims?

8 On History

I really believe that the most important question that should bother us when we study history, is ascertaining the truth: did something truly happen, or did it not. I am mentioning this because, too often, I find that people lose sight of  this goal, and use methodologies which, while they may be perfectly suited to other areas of enquiry, such as scientific observation, can provide rather awful results when applied to history.

9 An Alternative Hypothesis

In the beginning, G-d created the heavens and the earth. In six days.

However, the world at that time, was different in many aspects to the way it is now, although at the same time, many other aspects were similar to today’s reality. As a complete list of the differences would be quite long, and since not all of them are directly related to evolution, I will try to incorporate most of the relevant differences into the general framework.

To create a general framework, I started by looking at the evidence for events present in the historical record that could be understood as mirroring the events recorded by the Torah. At this stage, I will disregard the dates usually attributed to these events, and I will come back and address them at a later stage.

10 List of Questions on the Alternative Hypothesis

For the sake of completion, I am including a list of questions that arise from my alternative approach. I am planning to update this list periodically with other questions that occur to me, as well as with the questions that others suggest to me.

An underlined question connotes that either an answer has been found to the question, or that I do not expect to be able to answer it, as the Midrashim do not discuss any ideas related to it. A non-underlined question connotes that I still need to find an answer, or that I am still planning to research further to see if I can find a better one.

Most of the questions regarding Noach’s Flood are addressed in Appendix A.

11 Questions Answered - Part 1

1. How can it be denied that evolution occurs, and that organisms are affected by, and adapt to, their surroundings, especially as it is provable reality?

As the question suggests, evolutionary change is part of reality, which I therefore cannot deny, just like I cannot deny the existence of any piece of evidence. At most, I can only attempt to reinterpret it.

But I differentiate between the relatively small changes that occur when an organism adapts to its surroundings, which I will refer to as ‘adaption’, which is readily observed and I accept to be true, and the idea that over enough time, an organism can change to the extent that it results in a completely different organism, or evolution in the sense of common descent, which I reject.

13

14

15