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?
The only answer that seems to be possible, to me at least,
is to reject evolution in favor of the Torah, because:
I cannot violate the principle that ‘one must always base
his conclusions on reality, and not base reality on his conclusions’, and
therefore with regard to the evidence of the Rebbe being able to perform
miracles, I must accept it, as there is no way that I can conceive of which
would let me explain the evidence away. Therefore, I feel that if I were to
reject it, I would be intellectually dishonest.
The evidence in support of evolution, on the other hand,
concerns what happened in the distant past, so although I cannot, and do not,
deny any of it, I can at least reinterpret the meaning given to that evidence
in other ways. And in that respect, although I may have some better
interpretations, or some worse ones, at least I can do something.
As the Rebbe points out in his letters: bari v’shema, bari
adif.
***
Theoretically, I could stop at this point, and suffice with
this answer and the general belief that it is possible to reinterpret the
evidence that supports evolution, so that it should support the Torah’s account
of creation.
But I was challenged by a friend to take things further, and
to see if that actually could be done. The following is what I came up with.
But before I get there, I need to preface with six
disclaimers, as well as some general thoughts on history.
1. The alternative hypothesis that I am about to suggest will
likely seem to many as being downright foolish when compared to the elegant and
well-reasoned edifice that is the current evolutionary theory – and there is
good reason for that.
To illustrate by way of example: there is a proof that some
people bring to support the veracity of Judaism, from the Talmud – that the way
how it all fits so well, despite its great complexity, is only possible if it
were actually true. A skeptic would likely dismiss that argument by pointing
out that although it does fit together admirably well, there have been many
great minds for over 1500 years which have been trying to make it fit very
well, and that with human ingenuity being as it is, one can fully expect for
them to reach such impressive results.
I accept the validity of such a counter-argument, but by the
same token, it must apply to evolutionary theory as well: I agree that it fits
very nicely together, but rather than being an indicator of it being true, I
will argue that it is a result of so many fine minds working together to make
it fit well. In which case, it is no wonder that an alternative theory posited
by one person, based on a few years of on-and-off research, may not necessarily
compare very well when contrasted with evolution.
2. I strongly prefer finding answers to the various
theological questions about Judaism, in the books written by the rabbis and
scholars of previous generations, rather than coming up with my own novel
ideas. Not that I believe that I am overly dull, but when I come across the
different answers explained in such books, I feel reassured that it is most
likely that they are true, as in addition to them being written by people who
were even smarter than I am, I am also comforted by the knowledge that these
ideas have withstood the critiques of coming generations as well. And for
this reason, I have kept my own solutions in my response to Naftali’s letter,
at a minimum.
But in this instance, I don’t have that luxury – this subject
isn’t really discussed in the seforim written by rabbis of previous
generations, and the few seforim that do suggest solutions, have significant
problems with their answers, as mentioned in Part 1.
3. As mentioned in the foreword, I am still far from finished
researching this subject. I have posted this, despite its incompletion, as I
believe that others may find some interest in this approach, even in its
current state. But I wish to reiterate what I wrote earlier: that for those who
believe that there are significant problems with what I will write, that they
should revisit this site in the coming months (probably years) in case I have
found a solution to those problems.
4. I am in no way denigrating scientists or historians, nor
suggesting that they are dishonest and the like. On the contrary, I believe
that most scientists are honest, sincere and objective in their studies.
Nevertheless, I believe that it is still possible for them to come to the wrong
conclusions in this area for three reasons.
A. Firstly, many of them view the Torah as being as
trustworthy as a fairy tale – and I do not blame them for having that view. For
that reason, it is unrealistic for me to expect them to accept the Torah’s
account of creation even if one would theoretically argue that there are holes
in the current evolutionary theory, as from their point of view, evolution
still remains way better than the alternative. And some scientists have been
very open about this.
B. Secondly, most scientists simply do not have access to the
Jewish sources (i.e. Talmud, Midrashim, Meforshei HaTorah), that I have access
to, and on which I am basing most of the ideas that I will be writing about.
Many of those ideas are rather strange and out-of the-box, so I cannot
reasonably expect someone that does not have access to such information, to
even consider such solutions.
C. Thirdly, it is sometimes the case that the evidence in
question does exist, but is not viewed as such, only because it is
conventionally dated much too early.
I have found this to be the case when studying the
historicity behind the Torah’s account of the Exodus. It turned out that there was evidence
for Yetzias Mitzrayim, for the burning of Yericho, the Jews conquering the
land, and the campaigns of King David, but they are generally not acknowledged
as such, as they are dated much earlier than they should be, as I discuss
here: http://altmr.blogspot.com/2014/08/07-exodus-and-history.html
But what ends up happening, is that rather than presenting
the problem as being that there is evidence for the Biblical account,
but it is just found way too early, the claim is made that there is no evidence
for the Biblical account at all.
This is related to the current subject as well, as although
one often hears that there is no evidence at all to support a global flood,
that isn’t really accurate: there is evidence, the K-PG boundary, but
is dated way too early. There are other examples as well, but I’m getting ahead
of myself.
5. There is no reason why I feel that I must conclude
that Chazal addressed every relevant topic regarding evolution in their
Midrashim. Therefore, as I am basing these ideas on the Midrashim, there may
remain some questions that I will not have any answer to, and they may remain
unsolvable. My intent here is, putting that aside, to attempt to see how much
it is possible to explain and reinterpret based on the ideas that are
mentioned by Chazal.
6. With my alternative hypothesis, my intent is not to
suggest that this is what definitely happened in those times – after all, I
wasn’t there, so I simply do not know. Rather, I am attempting to highlight
possible ways to reinterpret the evidence, and the possibilities that we have
to consider, as well as to note that many of these solutions are quite original
and unique – which then gives me the hope that there exists other original
answers to those questions that I still do not have an answer to, despite the
fact that I cannot currently think of any plausible solutions to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment