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.



I feel that it is possible to do so as I have not yet seen any evidence that this has ever been observed, as the Rebbe points out in his letters. This is in addition to noting as well, that there are some Biblical commentators, such as the Radak, who write that from a religious perspective, that such a thing cannot occur.

I should point out that the idea of adaption is also accepted by the Midrash and Talmud. For example, in Tractate Shabbos 31a, Hillel is asked why the Tarmodians have round eyes and the Africans have wide feet, and his reply is that these features are a result of the environment that these people live in. Another example, is from the Midrash Bamidbar Rabbah (16:9), that comments on Moses’ instruction to the Spies (Numbers 13:18): “You shall see what (kind of) land it is.” The Midrash explains that Moses told them to, “observe the Land of Israel, for some lands rear strong people, and some lands rear weak people, some produce large populations, while others produce small populations.” It is also possible that this is the intent of the Mishnah in Tractate Negoim 2:1, which mentions the different skin tones of people living in different locations (see Tiferes Yisrael there). I also note that the Rebbe accepted the idea of adaption as well, as can be seen here.

This also ties into the question of how to classify the different species. As I discuss here, it is clear that the Torah classifies species in a very different way than science does. Accordingly, even though one can find some evidence of one species changing into another according to the scientific classification of species, it should be noted that according to the Torah’s classification, in all of these cases the new organism is still considered as belonging to the same species as the first. What hasn’t been observed yet, is the evolution of one species into another, i.e. into a kind that even the Torah would classify as different species, which is what the theory of common descent claims to have happened. 

(As for the challenge of why one shouldn’t infer from the small changes that have been observed, that possibly such changes can continue into more major changes as well, even though such changes haven’t yet been observed – it is possible that - besides for it not being much of a challenge, as reality exists whether or not I understand how it works – when the genome of an organism changes too much, it either results in producing unviable offspring, which cannot continue into the next generation, or it may cause a “reset” where the genes revert to the original setup of the previous generations.)

2. How is it possible to suggest such a fast rate of decay, if the heat generated by that decay would boil the world into oblivion?

This question is not as strong as it would seem, as although I haven’t gone through the math myself, and am simply accepting that the calculation is correct, one can answer that it is certainty that G-d would have created some element(s), that may or may not exist today, that would have countered any detrimental effects caused by the radioactive decay.

The verse says (Isaiah 45:18): “For so said the Lord, the Creator of heaven, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, He established it; He did not create it for a waste, He formed it to be inhabited.” This can be understood to mean that since G-d wishes His world to be a livable place, He also makes sure that it will not become destroyed, or unlivable.

This understanding is mirrored by the significant evidence known today that supports this, where there are many different elements which are crucial to the world’s survival, which are observed to be extremely fine-tuned to support our existence.

3. What about the dating inferred from other methods, such as carbon-dating, which dates the dispersion of the world's human population to 40,000 years ago?

A possible answer – which is another great example of how some of the possible solutions are so “out there,” that many people wouldn’t even think of suggesting them on their own – can be proposed by pointing out that according to Rashi’s opinion, the Mabul was possibly of truly epic proportions, reaching up to the lower levels of the stratosphere. (The Pilpul behind that is long enough to deserve a blog post of its own.)

The reason why this is relevant, is because the levels of Carbon 14 present in the climate, comes from a reaction between thermal neutrons and the nitrogen present in the stratosphere, as well as in the upper layers of the lower troposphere. Accordingly, it is possible that when the waters of the flood filled up the Earth to such great heights, the regular air was pushed into higher levels of the atmosphere, likely destabilized the troposphere and lower stratosphere. If, in addition to that, it took some time for the atmosphere to re-stabilize to current-day conditions, it would explain why such events occurring so long ago, are dated to much earlier than they should be: since this dating method, like many others, depends on the idea of a half-life, it follows that if the starting levels of C14 in those times were somewhat lower than today’s, it would be wrongly misinterpreted to indicate a much older date, as it would be assumed that the lower amounts of the remaining C14 are solely the result of decay, and not because of the lower levels of C14 that were present in the environment, in the period after the Mabul.

The truth is that I consider carbon-dating to be one of the most reliable dating methods, especially as it gives good results for events that occurred within the past 2,000 years. One of the main reasons why I feel somewhat comfortable in challenging it, is as a result of my research in to the historicity of the Exodus, which I discuss here.

It is well known among historians, that when one tries using C14-dating, to date the events that occurred over 3,000 years ago, during the beginning of ancient Egyptian civilization, the dates are most often incorrect: they are usually off by a century or two.

However, one of the conclusions reached from my research into the subject, which I didn’t highlight there as I find it quite disturbing, is that in reality the discrepancy is even worse – in that era, the discrepancy is closer to 1,000 years. 

To give one example, in contradiction to the claim that Jericho was never destroyed by Joshua as described in the Scriptures (and the Talmud), there is evidence that it destroyed in that fashion – however, that layer of destruction is dated to around 2300 BCE, instead of the year 1272 BCE according to Jewish tradition.

I strongly feel that when comparing the two methods of (reliable) written records vs. radiometric dating to establish a date of when an event occurred, that the former method should be given a stronger weight than the latter, as there are less (possibly mistaken) assumptions used when relying on reliable documents. And my position is that the Torah’s account of the Exodus constitutes a reliable document, for reasons that can be understood from what I explained at the very beginning of this essay.

I think that what will be ultimately needed to conclusively prove if the method of C14-dating needs to be looked into more deeply or not, is to take the conclusions that I reached from my research into the Exodus, and see if it can be applied to the more general history of ancient Mesopotamia. As the two histories are linked together, and as one often finds that the dating assigned to certain events in one history, is dependent on linking it with the established date of an event in the other, it needs to be seen if revising the dates according to the conclusions I reached from my research of Egyptian history would solve more historical puzzles than it would create in Mesopotamian history. I think that if it would turn out to resolve many unexplained questions, then we would have to certainly challenge some of the assumptions made in the usage of the C14-dating method.

4. How can one be so flippant in dismissing the dates given by the different radiometric dating methods, especially as the various methods agree with each other?

I wish to stress that I am not flippant about it.

The truth is that these different methods don’t actually agree precisely with each other. (In fact, there are some methods that significantly disagree, such as the Optically-Simulated-Luminescence (OSL) method, although one rarely hears about them.) If I wouldn’t have come from the background that I have, in the sense that I did not know the information elaborated on earlier, that proves the veracity of the Torah, then I would most probably be willing to accept the dates determined by these methods, despite their imperfect agreement.

To illustrate by way of example, if I were to use two thermometers to determine the temperature, and each displayed a different result, that could only mean one of two things: either one of them is faulty, or both of them are. I would be loath to decide that the true temperature lies in the center between the two readings.

However, that is only because I have the option of using another, reliable, thermometer to determine the correct temperature if I wish to. If, like in our case, I was stuck and did not have the option of relying on a dating method that was completely non-dependent on any possibly mistaken assumptions, I would be willing to accept the discrepancies and look the other way, as that those methods would still provide the best possible answer, given the circumstances.
  

So although I appreciate the arguments that explain why a big deal should not be made from the fact that the different dating methodologies do not return the same precise date, now that I have sufficient reason why to rely on something that I do consider precise, the Torah, the discrepancies present in the different dating methods become more noticeable and demand more attention.

As to what might be the precise reason behind the different rates of decay before, and after, Noach's flood, there are a number of possibilities. I realize that the following just deepens the disconcerting realization that we should probably have no business in trying to determine what actually happened in the ancient past, as it is almost certain that we are missing certain information that would be crucial for us to figure out things correctly, but the point remains true: there are a number of possibilities, for example, it could be that there existed a single, or multiple, element(s), which may, or may not, have survived until our times (i.e. that an element essential to the reactions involved survived until our times, but was only activated when another element, which was decimated by the Mabul, was also present as well) which was the cause of the quickened decay rate, or/and the additional possibility that some of the inorganic material that is being dated was already created with those levels of decay present, not because G-d wanted to trick us, but as He wished to create it that way for other reasons.

5. What about the dates derived from tree rings, dendrochronology?

This is a hard one.

Firstly, I think that it is worthwhile to point out that there is no single tree that we know of that actually has more than 5,775 rings in it. The specimen with the most rings that has been discovered, to date, is , with 5,064 rings in it. Therefore, the dendrochronological history that stretches back for many thousands of years, the oldest reaching about 13,000 years, rely on cross-dating different specimens, and it may be possible, that there are some wrong underlying assumptions being used that result in wrong matches being made.

Additionally,   

6. How about the dates derived from starlight?

It is possible that when G-d created the stars in the first days of creation, He created them together with their rays reaching the Earth.

One could arguably derive this interpretation from the verses themselves: It is explained in Judaic sources that for G-d, it is sufficient for Him to simply “think” or “say” what He wishes to create, and it immediately comes into being. Therefore, one can learn from the verse that says (Genesis 1:15): “And they shall be for luminaries … to shed light upon the earth. And it was so,” that the stars were immediately created that way, with their light already shining on the Earth.

7. How does one explain the formation of stalagmites and stalactites?

It could be either be that they were created that way, or that they were created through catastrophism, or a mixture of both – that although G-d created them for a reason, there were certain periods of time in which they were deposited at much faster rates than they are currently.

8. How does one explain the thickness of the polar caps?

In this case, I will have to resort to catastrophism – that at some point in time, some very unusual weather caused that all that snow was deposited in the polar extremities. I am forced to resort to catastrophism, and cannot suggest that they were created that way, for two reasons: firstly, since according to the Midrash, the waters of the Mabul were quite hot, they should have melted down the polar ice, and secondly, the fossil record clearly shows that there was a time when regular animals and plant life populated Antarctica.

9. How does one explain the dating of the layers before the Ediacaran and Cambrian, if, at the earliest, they connote the fifth and sixth days?

I still have to look into this, as I have barely researched this topic, but a possible approach to resolve this, would be to suggest that since life was not yet created in the first day (or days) of creation, the fine-tuned conditions that are needed to support life that are in place today, may not have existed then – the conditions in the first days may have been completely off the charts, which would have resulted in very abnormal rates of decay, which would then end up being misunderstood as signifying very old ages.

10. How does one explain the bacterial mats dated to over 2 billion years ago?

I also have to research this point as well, but I have a hunch that this has to do with the different material in which they are found.

Since it is not possible to date directly the remains of ancient organisms themselves, they are usually assigned dates by dating the layers of sediment (usually volcanic ash) in which they are found. These bacterial mats happen to be found on rocks, not volcanic ash, and are therefore dated according to the remaining levels of radioactive material detected in those rocks. It is possible that the rates of radiometric decay in rocks may have occurred at a different rate than in volcanic ash, resulting in older dates. This is in addition to the complicating factor, that perhaps these rocks were originally created with these levels of decay already present in them.

But this question also leads into other interesting questions, which I currently am not sure of their answers, such as: according to the Torah, are bacteria considered a species, and if yes, are they all considered one species, or a number of different kinds? On which day were they created: on the sixth day, with the other animals, or on the fifth day, with the other water creatures? Maybe they were created on the third day, together with the plant life? Or maybe, different kinds of bacteria were created on different days? Is it possible that they were even created as early as on the second day?