Skip to main content

Nature and Evolution (2)

Text file

Activity and Intelligence

 

            Let us return to the example of the blind forces which we spoke of earlier.  The common denominator between the various Darwinist formulas is the attempt to explain the creation or appearance of intelligent beings by means of blind forces.  This approach attempts to account for the existence of the universe with the concept of activity and to bypass intelligence, to use Rihal's terms.  This is the source of our disagreement with the proponents of the theory of evolution.  Can these blind forces in fact create a world, particularly the miraculous world of living creatures that we witness daily?  If we apply Rihal's conclusion to our modern problem, we can rephrase his words and let Rihal speak through an contemporary Chaver, the modern descendent of the Chaver in the Kuzari:

 

            The Chaver:  Let us assume that what you say is true -            evolution does influence nature.  It is impossible to   explain the appearance of man, or the appearance of any       animal, according to evolutionary principles alone,          without some involvement of intelligence, which grants          each being its particular needs without excess or lack.  He who labels all the processes which refine the material       world as "evolution" has lost nothing, on the condition        that he has not attributed them intelligence, just as a    man and woman should not be attributed the creation of           the fetus by their copulation, since the truth is that      they only facilitate the receipt of the human form to       material which is primed for that purpose, whereas the           form itself emanates from an intelligent creator.

 

            Blind forces cannot create a man unless another, seeing force lies behind them.  In other words, even were we to accept the existence of developmental processes, these processes cannot, on their own, explain the appearance of life in general and of man in particular.  It is possible (and this is a scientific and not a religious problem) that evolution accurately describes the course of events, however, in that case, an intelligent force must be moving these forces.  The essence of the belief in creation is a religious proposition, whose defenders are willing to wager with absolute confidence that any other theory is simply mistaken or misleading.  Other theories may explain the procedures of certain changes that have taken place in the world; this is perfectly legitimate.  However, the religious view rejects the additional claim that the appearance of the world and the wonderful order that it contains is to be attributed to evolutionary changes occurring completely at random.  This would be too coincidental, if it were a coincidence.  It is simply too unlikely to be reasonable!

 

            Imagine that you are in a desert, and you discover a handprint in the sand.  You could assume that the wind randomly arranged the sand granules into this form.  On the other hand, you could assume that someone passed by, put his hand in the sand, and the indentations in the sand are simply the result of that action.  Intention is the handprint of intelligence.

 

            If we reentered a room that we had left in disarray, we could probably tell if someone else had been there in our absence.  How would we know?  If the room had been reorganized, we would know that someone else had been there.  If creation can be defined as the appearance of something out of nothing, then generation is the passage from chaos to order.  The essence of the generation of something from something is the creation of order.  Indeed, the whole cosmos is replete with order.  And the most wonderful order exists in the world of living creatures.  Each living being is an immense system, in which each part serves the whole.  Primitive biology did not understand this sufficiently.  Each new discovery brings us closer to an improved understanding of the functions of the various components.

 

             I will bring one example to illustrate the issue of intention, or purposefulness.  Examples of intelligence in the world of insects abound.  The classic examples are, of course, the bee hive, the ant hill, etc.  However I will use one of the examples chosen by the great French-Jewish philosopher, Henri Bergson, in his criticism of the Darwinist approach.  He brings the example of one particular insect, who, like all insects, lays eggs and must care for them.  In order to develop, the eggs need nourishment.  The insect lays the eggs and leaves them alone, however he first takes care of them: he stalks a cricket and lays the eggs on its back.  At this point the insect faces a dilemma: should he kill his victim?  If he does, the cricket will rot and not last long enough to serve as food for the insects that will emerge from the eggs.  If he doesn't kill the victim, it will escape.  What is the insect's solution?  He stings his victim, poisoning only his motor nerve centers.  Thus that the cricket remains alive, yet paralyzed, and he cannot escape before the insects consume him.

 

            These facts teach us two things: we learn of nature's intelligence, and also of its cruelty.  This cruelty caused the prophets to proclaim that the final redemption of the world necessarily entails the rectification of nature.  The Torah does not deify nature.  It does not claim that nature is perfect; in fact, the Torah teaches us that the opposite is true.  The legend of the Garden of Eden informs us, in contrast to idolatrous approaches and to the Greek ideal, that nature is not perfect, and cannot serve as a yardstick of moral behavior.  Nature includes cruel elements; the lion devours the lamb.  Thus in the final redemption nature itself will be redeemed: the lion shall lie down with the lamb.

 

            Contemporary development of tools for scientific research, particularly the development of the microscope, have only recently introduced us to the world around us.  The insect functions mechanically; it is programmed to act in an ignorant manner, without awareness.  Were we to alter its surroundings slightly, it would not know how to proceed.  However this apparent imbecility once again highlights the vast powers of its programmer.  The world of insects cannot be explained by evolution; however the attempts at explanation are irrelevant in any case.  Throughout the world of insects we find striking signs of intelligence, and yet these insects lack a learning mechanism comparable to that of a human.  Let me give you an example.  We know of insects that build their homes by cutting a leaf according to a particular mathematical equation, which allows for the leaf to be folded and thus become a satisfactory nest.  The great skill of the bee is not its ability to make honey.  It is the fact that the angles of the cells of a honeycomb are very closely suited to the mathematical demands for creating a maximum of space with a minimum of wax.

 

            Had I witnessed a person doing these things, I would conclude that this person had intelligence, and was employing it.  In the behavior of insects, we have a word for it: instinct.  However this word does not, of course, solve the puzzles; it merely covers them up.  Insects act on instinct.  The argument is not whether a plan exists; it is about the identity of the master planner.  Reality teaches us that the intelligence is not in the insect, but in nature, and its origin stems from a source beyond nature.  We face the fingerprints of something or someone outside the realm of nature who is influencing our world.

 

            Physical and chemical explanations will not suffice if we wish to understand life, just as it is not enough to understand mechanics in order to understand a car.  We must assume that there was an engineer who planned the car and brought it from theoretical potential to practical application, in accordance with a particular intention and purpose.  The Darwinian version of the theory of evolution constituted a heroic philosophical attempt to deny this verdict, and to avoid assuming the existence of intention and purposefulness in the world.  It presented an alternative: everything developed as a result of evolutionary processes; in the final analysis, the world evolved by chance.

 

            Since its inception, modern science has perceived the world as a mechanistic system, while studiously avoiding the obvious approach, namely understanding the world based on the concept of intention. 

 

            Scientific advancement in all fields meant discovery and investigation of the mechanical causes.  The prime example is classical physics, which completely abandoned any goal-based approach since Newton developed the theory of gravity.  Modern science learned to beware of falling into the trap of intention, yet intention does exists.  However, we must keep to the boundaries of each branch of science.  Physics is not to be interpreted in terms of intentions, whereas in psychology an intention-based approach is essential.  Anyone who attempts to explain human behavior without involving intentions - and such psychologists existed - is a liar, whom we can only excuse if we assume that he also lied to himself.  Man is motivated by goals and intentions.  The principle that characterizes man is that of thought before action.  If causality changes the future, then in human activity the opposite process takes place: the future alters the present.  The final stage of action was planted with the first seed of thought.  In the realm of physics, mechanical forces function.  People function according to goals. 

 

            Between physics and psychology lies that admirable field, the study of life.  Biology is in a valuable and problematic place in the middle.  It must be approached in two stages.  Let me give you an example.  The fact that the body regulates the amount of sugar in the blood demonstrates a certain teleological characteristic of the body.  If I were to be satisfied with investigation of intentions, I would sin towards my scientific quest, which is to investigate how the mechanism of regulation of sugar functions.  In contrast, I would not understand what I had before me, even if I understood all the mechanisms and materials, if I didn't know that we were dealing with a mechanism with a goal and a function.  I must approach biology on both levels.

 

            Newtonian physics can be compared to a game of pool.  Forces hit balls and they move.  Although physics has altered to the extent that it is no longer recognizable as the same science, the principle of activity of blind forces is still valid.  Yet in biology, we find a miraculous state of order.  The student of biology sees that he must fit intentions and goals into his interpretations. 

 

            Suppose that tomorrow we will discover a new substance in the human body.  We can be certain that we may ask what purpose it serves.  The thesis that claims that the human body contains nothing that does not have a purpose, and all its parts contribute towards the effective functioning of the whole, will assist us in successfully understanding the role of the new substance.  We can also ask a different question.  If we discover a substance or an organ in the body, we may assume that it fills some function or goal.  Admittedly, this assumption also has a limit, but before we reach this limit we will discover so many functions that even scientists feel compelled to describe the wonders of life.  True, we cannot understand why the fly exists, but we can easily see that an incredible amount of intelligence has been invested in the fly. 

 

            Let us return to the example of the watch.  The watch has a certain function, it has a purpose.  How does it fulfill this goal?  Through the employment of a large number of mechanisms and techniques.  The oldest and most ingenious of these mechanisms is clearly the wheel.  However beyond it there exist many mechanisms, which we can use to direct it and adjust it, to light it up in the dark, even to turn it into an alarm clock.  These mechanisms function mechanically, since this is the only way that a mechanism can function.  These mechanisms fulfill their actions for a purpose of which they are unaware, and yet the watch is a remarkable expression of intention (teleology) that hitches a ride on a mechanical system. 

 

            Immanuel Kant, the great philosopher, contemplated this question.  Like many others he also bent over backwards to find a compromise with teleology.  His conclusion was that there is no such thing as teleology, yet we are allowed to act as though it exists.  In his philosophical system, intention is a "regulative idea."  This concept is based on the assumption that study of mechanics is true science, while intention only helps us along in our scientific inquiry.  In other words, Kant chose a code word, similar to the slang phrase, "like."  Everything happens like, or as though intention were a motivating force.  But why?

 

            It is thus that we must understand the common use of the term evolution.  The tendency towards the natural sciences and the current intellectual fashion do not permit the life sciences and the human sciences to speak the language of intention.  And yet, there is no other way.  Here the concept of evolution comes to their aid.  The theory of evolution give scientists an excuse to continue to investigate all the purposeful functions in life, within each species and also in the relationships between species, without actually pronouncing the "holy name."  This concept allows them to involve themselves in teleological explanations without admitting it by the explanation or fiction (choose your term) that the amazing teleology that exists in nature stems from a blind process of trial and error.  In this sense evolution is a great blessing.  It is similar to certain children's games that can be stopped at any given moment by saying some key word, at which point you can do whatever you want, even something that goes against the rules.  Thus evolution becomes an "alibi," a sort of code word which allows the scientist to move to a different level of explanation, and give a perfect intention-based explanation for every aspect of our world, without deriving the obvious conclusions from the existence of intention and purpose in nature. 

 

            In any case, we must admit that the concept of evolution gives scientists the option to continue investigating the wonderful phenomena of nature, without needing to negate them.  People have often wished to deny the existence of an intelligent force behind the mechanical function of our world.  However, the existence of the theory of evolution actually proves that man cannot negate intelligence, and we must invent "something" in order to explain it.  The dispute is about the essence of the explanation.  One of the fronts of the religious argument today is located here, while the facts themselves are undisputed.  We are faced with a dilemma: how must we judge the facts before us, how must we judge the reality that we see?  Faith cannot be forced upon people; we can only place the alternatives before them.  The Kotzker Rebbe used to relate that the Torah says: "Let these words that I am telling you today be upon your heart;" ideas can be put on the heart, but not in the heart.  If man opens his heart, the words will go in.  If he doesn't, the words will not enter.  We can only point out the facts.  The decision is a personal one, which each individual must make on his own.

 

(This lecture was translated by Gila Weinberg.)

 

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

 

This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!