Nature and Evolution (1)

 

            Rabbi Yehuda Halevi guided us through the complexities of the usage of one magic word: nature. However history has continued to gallop forward, and the battle of the believer against the dissident shows no sign of waning. Thus we see that Rabbi Yehuda Halevi analyzed the situation accurately. The greatest proof of this lies in the fact that his opponent was forced to respond to the questions implied by his own words with more sophisticated techniques than the mere reciting of the word, "nature."  Today, the man in the street who wishes to present a non-religious option will use the word evolution in place of nature.  Although we must undoubtedly contend with this question in detail, it may be stated at the outset that Rihal's response is appropriate to these new versions as well.

 

            Let us first briefly relate to the new stance of the opponent, to the change in the answer itself.  Let us construct a contemporary version of the classic Kuzari, between the two characters who never conversed directly in the original Kuzari:

 

            The Chaver: Let us look at the watch that I wear on my wrist.  It is actually a tiny computer.  Imagine its tremendous sophistication, the sophistication of simplicity, which arouses us to amazement and awe; we might indeed call this a digital miracle.

 

            The Philosopher: Indeed, the watch that is before us   arouses much wonder, but only because we have forgotten the history of the development of watches.  If we were to      study its history from the earliest times, we would understand how the watch developed.  Once upon a time  there was a hourglass, or perhaps a sundial, which transformed over time into a water clock, until the appearance of the first spring watches.  A particularly interesting development took place during the lifetime of  the spring watch.  You must realize that these minute, quietly accumulating changes, are in fact responsible for  the appearance of this sophisticated watch that you are wearing at this moment.  The passage of time and the  powers of the market determined which of these changes would survive.  The unsuccessful watches have disappeared.  Only those that suit our needs have  remained.  I am astonished by your  amazement.  Why do you marvel at this "digital miracle"?  You have merely forgotten to take the nature of evolution into account. 

 

            The magic word that miraculously solves problems has changed.  It is no longer nature, but evolution.  We will return to this parable, for in my opinion it has much to teach us.  However  now we will move on to the interpretation of the parable.  Our opponent the philosopher claims that all of life, be it the life of the ant or of man, develops in the same way.  I will not enter here into the heart of the religious question that this issue arouses, namely, whether the coexistence of religion and evolution is possible.  At present we must give our attention to the fact that the theory of evolution, just like the use of the term nature, constitutes an attempt to escape from dealing with the divine fingerprints that appear in our world.

 

            How does this escape come to pass?  True, the creation of the ant is a wondrous thing, the creation of man even more so.  However if enough time is given to natural processes and the principle of natural selection, these small chance changes can bring about the creation of a complex and complicated creature, even one that appears as wondrous as man.  Natural selection in effect describes the powers of the market that function in the world.  In accordance with their activity, the creatures that are not fitting for the environment will die out, and thus the more suitable ones will remain.

 

            I will not enter here into a description of the details of the Darwinian theory, which in one guise or another dominates science up to our very day.

 

            Darwin belongs to the nineteenth-century world of thought.  And undoubtedly there is a significant difference between the nineteenth century and the twentieth.  To a certain degree, the nineteenth century can be compared to one of those classic realistic paintings, which contain a clear depiction of a portion of reality.  This is a transparent picture, through which we can seemingly view reality as it is.  We "understand" the picture.  The twentieth century is more  easily likened to a modern picture, by Picasso or Dali, which demands that we exert much effort, not in order to bring the picture closer to our minds, but to bring our own intuitions to the picture.  The last century was a materialistic century, which believed that it had discovered matter as the foundation of the world, and through it had "almost" found the solution to all of the world's riddles.  The key to the riddles of the world were to be discovered in matter, not spirituality.

 

            The crumbling of this naive belief stemmed from a series of revolutions which took place in almost every area, and utterly altered the classical theories.  The most well-known revolutions belong to the world of physics: the theory of relativity, and particularly quantum physics.  However  significant revolutions took place in the field of biology as well.  In those days, the Darwinists could assume that if by chance I had found a live cell, I could extract the entire tree of life from it, including man.  This idea is based on the naive belief in the existence of simple life forms.  Today this belief has come into question.  The electron microscope has begun to show us that the cell is actually a whole city, no less complex and wondrous than man.  The idea that primitive animals are simpler and therefore can be explained more easily as a result of a chance occurrence, had already evoked the resounding reaction of the Chaver [5:20]: "The wisdom of God in giving a form to a fly or a mosquito, is no less [spectacular] than his wisdom in arranging the celestial system."

 

            The first element that changed is related to the starting point.  The second element is the process of change itself.  A new field has been discovered, which Darwin had never heard of, and therefore never dreamed of the significance of its implications.  Heredity is determined by a very clear map which is inside the cell.  This discovery in essence brought about the end of classic Darwinism.  It had to be replaced by "neo-Darwinism" or by other theories.  The result of this change is that a new word appeared, which Rav Kook combatted and zealously fought against in his work, Ikvei Hatzon.  The key must lie in the term mutation, a jump or "dilug," to use the language of Rav Kook.  The conflict between the believer and the atheist does not and will not end with this transition.  Neo-Darwinism will claim that every occurrence can be compared to a throw of the dice.  The throw is random, and yet the results persuade me that some cheating has been going on.  Some changes have taken place in the atoms of the DNA.  These changes are chance occurrences, yet suddenly because of them a new pattern emerges.  Actually, every positive and successful mutation is in fact a mini-creation that occurs before our very eyes.  It is too coincidental to be a coincidence.

 

            Evolution and natural selection have a place.  But in light of what we know today, we can understand their role differently.  I will explain this through a theory which I regard with respect and hesitation, with doubt and deference.  Recently scientists have reexamined some of the fossils that were used to draw up the tree of evolution.  And behold they discovered that the earlier work that was done was erroneous.  Those fossils demonstrate that in very ancient times strange life forms existed, which were very far from what we know today, as though a mysterious element, "nature" - with Rihal's reservations - conducted different experiments, and history, or natural selection, did what it does best: disqualifying possibilities and destroying species.  Natural selection is significant specifically because of its destructive power, while the constructive power must be explained by another element, an element whose source lies beyond the natural plane.

 

            It is clear today that evolution seems to function in what may be termed "explosions."  For long periods of time evolution seems quiet, and then suddenly it erupts.  On the other hand, scientists are having second thought regarding one of the fundamental bases of Darwinism, the existence of useless remnants which seemingly prove that they originated from a different species.  Today this theory is doubted as well.  Let us look, for example, at the wing feathers of birds.  Birds who do not fly have wings too.  The remnants of the past show that all birds share a common origin.  And it is true that birds that do not fly have wings, and these wings have feathers.  However the feathers differ from bird to bird.  The feathers of flying birds have an aerodynamic and hollow build.  Not so the other birds, such as the ostrich.  The structure of the feathers apparently takes the different functions of different birds into account.  It seems that in the development of living species a single plan prevails, which continually divides and makes use of different materials.  An interesting example of this is the eye.  The eye develops in the fetus.  However its origin differs from species to species.  Sometimes it develops from skin cells, sometimes from nerve cells, and sometimes from another source.  And  yet in these three species, the eye itself appears exactly the same. 

 

            In the scientist's lexicon there is no term that expresses more than coincidence.  However, this is the place where the advocate of religion must step in and say his piece.  I don't think that the evolutionists have proved these things to be chance occurrences.  They  disregard the significance of the facts.  Let us imagine that I see fingerprints in the sand.  How did these marks appear?  The world has rocks that were carved by the wind, or stones that water has smoothed.  Who formed the fingerprints?  The hand that touched the sand, or the wind?  Our argument with evolution is about this phenomenon.  The thesis that what took place occurred by chance is founded in error.  For me, the powers that function in the world are the angels of God.  There are chemical, physical and biological angels, and perhaps there are evolutionary angels.  Science is appointed to the post of investigating the angels.  But behind these angels stands their sender, the Lord of the universe.  The angels act blindly, therefore their activity seems arbitrary, but it is not arbitrary.  Some single cell organisms have eyes that have the same properties as the human eye.

 

            This is true regarding technology as well.  Let us assume that a synthesized cell could be constructed.  What will this teach us?  Will such an action disprove creation?  Absolutely not!  It will teach us that wise men have used information and techniques that thousands of investigators gathered and created with great sophistication, and with their help, created a cell. 

 

            Precise, non-arbitrary technology united with science and a cell was synthetically formed.  Let's assume that that is the way the cell was generated in nature as well.  It did not occur as an accident from our perspective, nor was it accidental as far as nature is concerned.  The chemical synthesis is not a chance occurrence, despite the fact that all kinds of molecules of different organic materials may be formed accidentally.  The cell itself is not a chance occurrence.  Why not judge nature exactly as we judge scientists?  The angels of evolution also made use of science and technology, with God's help. 

 

            Regarding the specific issue of the synthetic generation of life, I would like to bring here the Kuzari's opinion on the possibility of genetic engineering, which is in essence the possibility of utilizing the laws which determine the appearance and influence of life.

 

            For the fact that a plant differs from its fellow or an   animal from its fellow, is not one of the fundamental  elements, but rather the form, which is one of God's   actions that the philosophers term nature.  It is true  that the elements prepare the types of material to receive that action according to the proportion of heat and cold, moisture and dryness which is in them. And according to this, one of them will become a date and the other a grape, one a horse and the other a lion.  However  we cannot determine these proportions, for if we could  determine them, we could create animals who would have life in them, or we could generate from things that are  not at all foodstuffs ... something that could replace   bread.

 

            At the base of these words lies the claim that we could succeed in generating life if we could discover the exact formulas.  Man does not create; he finds his way into an existing system.  It is essentially no different than the process of bringing children into the world.  The essential difference between the birth of a child and genetic engineering is a difference on the level of knowledge alone.  Rihal does not believe in the possibility of human engineering of life.  This remains a mystery.  However, despite this, the question is not one of religious significance for us.  Perhaps those people who claimed to possess hidden wisdom and believed they could create a Golem, and whose abilities were denied by Rihal, were right after all.

 

(This lecture was translated by Gila Weinberg.)

 

Copyright (c)1997 Prof. Shalom Rosenberg, Yeshivat Har Etzion.  All rights reserved.