Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: Evolution Vs Torah Creation Boils Down to: Does the Creator Care About His Creation?

Newton's Laws of Motion begin with:  Unless acted upon by an outside force, an object in motion at rest will remain at rest and an object in motion will remain in motion.  Newton's second law states that the change in motion of an object is directly proportional to the net applied force.  Please note that the first law seems to be nothing more than the special case where there is no externally applied force.  We are not the first to notice that (sorry to burst your bubble); Newton knew that very well when he codified his laws of motion.  So why did he include a special case of the 2nd law as the 1st law?  He was making a point.  He was asserting a major break with the then reigning Aristotelian view of the world, which stated: an object at rest will remain at rest, while an object in motion will tend to come to rest.  The Aristotelian world view was that everything in the universe has a preferred place; motion is the response or an object to being displaced from its preferred place.  The Newtonian world view is that there is no preferred location or state of motion (setting the stage for relativity, btw).

Newton had an important point to make; he made it and moved on. Unfortunately, the creation vs evolution debacle has turned everyone into contagonists; the salient points on both sides are all but swallowed by statements to make a point rather then express a point.  I find that the only way to make progress on such topics is start with points of agreement to then focus down onto the real differences.

So where do Torah creation and evolution agree?  They agree that:
  • Our universe had a beginning (evolution is a late comer, but pointing that out is more making a point and not expressing a point); ie, it was created; hence, there is a Creator.
  • Everything was created with the first b'reishis/bang; all subsequent stages were merely an expression of the development of that initial creation.
  • There was a development from the beginning till now: amorphous energy/matter to clumps of matter in systems to plant life to animal life to human life; that is, from simple to complex.
  • The development was in definite, punctuated stages; not a uniform development.  (Again, evolution is a late comer... ok, ok,.. I'll stop now.  No I won't, of course.)
  • The distant points of light are stars like our sun and are hot; the moon generates no light of its own, rather it reflects the light of the sun.
  • Man, and only man, has free will and the intelligence to to make reasoned choices.
  • ...
Interesting side observation: Torah creation knows the above as received wisdom directly from the Creator; evolution knows from observation and inference.  Fascinating that the observation and inference confirms the received wisdom.  Hard to imagine how that could have happened by accident.
The only real difference, at the end of the day, is the nature of the Creator and His relationship to this universe.  Evolution says that creation just happened.  The nature of the Creator (aka laws of physics) is to create.  In that view, the Creator is indifferent to this world and whether or not the Creator is sentient is totally irrelevant.  Moreover, there is no intrinsic meaning nor purpose.  By contrast, Torah creation is an express of the Will of the Creator, who cares deeply about His creation.  Moreover, the creation was purpose designed to facilitate the mission for which we were created: to allow us humans to choose to build a relationship with our Creator.

The truth is, the Aristotelian, Newtonian, and Einsteinian world views are, in fact, more than worlds apart and completely irreconcilable.  On the other hand, to design an experiment that can discern which is more accurate is quite a challenge.  To design an experiment to distinguish between Torah creation and evolution is even more of a challenge.  Given the consequences, I (as I have stated before) believe the only rational choice is to live a Torah life.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Pizza, Uncrustables, and Stuff -- What Bracha?

Many years ago (in fact, more than two decades ago), I called R' Fuerst from my desk at work as I sat down to lunch.  I had a piece of (quite delicious) homemade pizza for lunch.  I nearly always eat at my desk as I am working (or writing TftD...), so my lunch at work cannot in any way be considered as sitting down to a formal meal; aka קביעת סעודה.  That being the case, I wasn't sure whether to wash, say ha'motzi, and bentch; or was the pizza downgraded to a m'zonos.  He told if it was a snack, then it's m'zonos; if a meal the ha'motzi.  Which what I have always done since then.  I recently found out how/why that works. The Shulchan Aruch, 168:17 discusses פשטיד''א, which is describes as a baked dough with meat or fish or cheese.  In other words: pizza.  Note: while the dough doesn't not need to be baked together with the meat/fish/cheese, it is  required that they dough was baked with the intention of making this concoction. ...

Thought for the Day: Yetzer HaRa -- Spiritual Force of Tuma vs Physical Ta'avos

In any project planning, there are two basic approaches: top down and bottom up.  Top down starts with describing what you want done at the highest level that seems reasonable.  You then break that down into a list of things that are smaller in scope (they only accomplish part of the job) and are therefore easier to actually accomplish.  That process can is then repeated with each sub-project.  Each iteration produces a new set of smaller projects.  For any of the projects, the level above provides the "why" for the project of interest, and the projects below provide the "how" for the current project.  Bottom up starts, as it's name suggests, from the lowest level -- here is stuff I know I can do, and proceeds by asking "what can I do by putting this stuff together?" For example, I have a project to slake my thirst.  Top down would start by a requirement to get a cool drink into a container from which I can drink.  That breaks down into: (1) fin...

Thought for the Day: Why Halacha Has "b'di'avad"

There was this Jew who knew every "b'di'avad" (aka, "Biddy Eved", the old spinster librarian) in the book.  When ever he was called on something, his reply was invariably, "biddy eved, it's fine".  When he finally left this world and was welcomed to Olam Haba, he was shown to a little, damp closet with a bare 40W bulb hanging from the ceiling.  He couldn't believe his eyes and said in astonishment, "This is Olam Haba!?!"  "Yes, Reb Biddy Eved,  for you this is Olam Haba." b'di'avad gets used like that; f you don't feel like doing something the best way, do it the next (or less) best way.  But Chazal tell us that "kol ha'omer HaShem vatran, m'vater al chayav" -- anyone who thinks HaShem gives partial credit is fooling himself to death (free translation.  Ok, really, really free translation; but its still true).  HaShem created us and this entire reality for one and only one purpose: for use...