Evolution: Coincidence or Design?

 

The Positions of Classical Thought:

 

            Let us briefly review the three classical and conflicting positions.  The first position is the Aristotelian approach, which maintains that goals and intentions are a moving force in the physical world.  In other words, the Aristotelian position claims that goal-oriented behavior characterizes not only man, but nature as a whole.  This is in fact an outgrowth of what was known as the Vitalist approach, which actually claimed that organic chemistry was essentially different from inorganic chemistry.  This position was effectively overthrown by the modern scientific revolution, which is mechanistic at its core.  Various scientists have attempted to resurrect this position, in a theory they called Neo-vitalism; however, it remains a difficult approach, as it disregards an essential layer of explanation. 

 

            The second position is the theory of evolution, which endeavors to explain nature's goal-oriented behavior as resulting from random causes, since mechanisms clearly are not goal-oriented.  Allow me to illustrate the difference between the two approaches with a simple example.  According to the first approach, nature causes rain to fall in order to make life on earth possible.  On the other hand, the theory of evolution would claim that rain is the outcome of a particular random mechanism; however, since rain does happen to fall in our world, the appearance of life became possible.  Rain does not fall in order to make life possible; rather, the evolutionists maintain that because of certain random phenomena, such as falling rain, life appeared on earth.  The entire theory of evolution is an attempt to escape from the discovery of purpose and intention in nature, since purposeful behavior implies planning, and bears witness to an intelligent designer.

 

            The believer chooses a third position.  He claims that intelligence is a force involved in our world.  This is the teleological argument for the existence of God; just as a watch or a car bears witness to its creators, and an article of clothing bears witness to its tailor, so too the world bears witness to the existence of its Creator.  The teleological approach proclaims that an intelligent force subsists at the world's core.  This position is similar to the Aristotelian approach, but is not identical to it.  It is not a scientific claim, implying that within the world itself there is an independent purposeful system.  According to the Aristotelian approach, which the Rambam espoused, purpose and intent are inherent in the world.  This is an almost mystical position, because it brings the existence of intentions into nature, which finally leads us, link after link, to the existence of a first cause: God.  They were mistaken; we must search out the entire mechanical basis of the world.  However, others are equally mistaken when they deny that purposefulness exists as well.  Purposefulness points to its source; and its source is God. 

 

            Can a watch appear by coincidence?  It is not a question of the materials of which it is composed but rather of the process of assembling it.  The miraculous quality of the watch and the car, all the more so of the living cell or the eye, is found in their design.

 

            However, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that traces of purposefulness are apparent not only in human  endeavor, but also in less likely places.  The eye is comparable to the watch, yet much more complex.  The eye sees according to optical, physical, chemical and other principles.  But the arrangement of the eye points to a goal.  Is this is the result of intention or chance?

 

            The existence of purposefulness bears undeniable witness to a planner and engineer.  No one intelligent could believe that the watch came into being on its own.  Here once again the magic word, evolution, appears, graciously allowing us to deal with the amazing reality without amazement, in other  words: without searching for mystical explanations; or to put it more simply: without admitting that my scientific method impels me to believe in God. 

 

            Evolution teaches us to look into the history of the watch.  And this is significant.  There are car experts who deal, without announcing it, in a sort of science of paleontology.  From pieces of a shattered headlight, these experts can discover almost everything about the car it was taken from.  Such is the case with watches as well.  From studying the watch that is before us it would definitely be possible to discover its specific make, the particular machine that manufactured it, the methods of marketing and the war between the various models.  Yet we will not have touched upon the most significant question.  What hides behind the construction of watches?  A plan or a coincidence?

 

            Let me give you an example.  Imagine that a fire broke out and the insurance company sends its promising young investigator on his first mission.  The investigator examines the traces of the fire and prepares his report.  The insurance company, of course, wished to know the answer to the crucial question: why did the fire break out?  The investigator prepares a report, and answers the critical question using the best of his chemical knowledge.  He writes out the chemical formula describing the original emergence of the fire.  Of course, this response will not satisfy the insurance company.  The insurance company is not interested in chemistry; they need to know if the fire broke out by chance, or by design.  Chemistry is useful, but it doesn't hold the real answer.  Such is the case with all of science, including biology.  Science can teach us about the mechanism of life.  But we, as the insurance company, are interested in a different question: how did reality emerge?  How did life emerge?  By chance or by design?

 

            We can approach the world of nature in a similar manner.  We can ask the questions that the theory of evolution asks; we can even believe that evolution exists, that species change, that new species appear.  All these questions are scientific.  Important, interesting, but secondary.  From this point onward, we are faced with the crucial question, the religious question.  Did life appear like a chance fire, or was there a hidden hand that guided the entire evolutionary process, that lit the fire?  The belief in the hidden force is the thesis of the believers in creation.

 

            Our great battle in the modern world is not with evolution, but with those who believe that everything happened by chance.  This is the focal point of the battle.  The most important lesson that we learn from the theory of evolution is perhaps the idea that was expressed by Rabbi Nachman Krochmal, known by his acronym, Ranak, when he explained the meaning of the blessing ,"Blessed are You ... who alters creatures."  It means that God changes his creatures so that they may adapt to the different surroundings and conditions under which they live.  Rabbi Akiva expressed a similar thought, when he stated that he expected God to create creatures out of fire, meaning that in all possible surroundings, in different temperatures and different climates, God altered his creatures to adapt them to their changing conditions.  How did God do this?  That is a scientific question.  We can imagine that God implanted the possibility of change in the genetic makeup so that the various species, and man among them, would adapt themselves to different climates.  We do not believe in mere coincidental, passive adaptation, but in the employment of the elements and the possibilities that God placed in nature, in order to change and adapt. 

 

            Rav Kook teaches that the evolutionary principle is valid in the entire cosmos; however it is not random evolution, but guided evolution.  Rav Kook's idea is important and we will try to explain it with a parable that originated with his student, Rabbi David Hacohen, commonly known as the Nazir.  The religious perception of evolution can be compared to a group of vessels whose bases are interconnected.  Let us assume that these containers are connected to a large reservoir of water.  Let us also assume that we are inside one of the vessels.  We don't see the whole picture.  We see that the water in our vessel is rising, and we are amazed.  For our experience teaches us to expect the water to descend, and yet we see it rising before our very eyes.  This would be a riddle to someone who doesn't know about the connection between the water in the vessels and the larger body of water in the reservoir.  Only someone who knows that he is actually part of an interconnected system could figure out the riddle.

 

            Rav Kook teaches that evolution is a similar process, in which the water rises.  This is contrary to all the laws of nature.  The whole world, it seems, is improving, developing, passing from a less perfect state to a more perfect state.  We agree with the scientists who recognize the reality of evolution.  Perhaps we can even agree with them about the actual process of evolution.  We do not agree with their conclusion.  The interconnected vessels connect us with God.  God is perfection, and therefore a process of perfection is destined to appear in the world.

 

            Thus, we must differentiate between evolution and Darwinism.  Evolution explains the processes.  It is a theory which deserves to be debated and have its methods and conclusions scrupulously examined.  However, Darwinism tried to do something beyond this.  It tried to explain this theory based upon chance, struggle, death, and survival of the fittest.  It is possible that this process occurred in certain segments of nature, but we cannot generalize and explain the appearance of all of life through it.  In particular, we cannot agree that this process is a random process.  How do these processes occur?  The riddle remains unexplained.  We believe that these processes are not random, but rather they are directed by a guiding hand.  This is the claim that the proponents of religion affirm with certainty and conviction. 

 

 

(This lecture was translated by Gila Weinberg.)

 

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