Ok... get over it; I was also surprised to discover that Chazal addressed evolution. Who would have thunk? Where? Here (Brachos 61b): R' Akiva explained why he was teaching Torah in public -- even though the government had outlawed such assemblies on pain of death -- with a parable: A fox saw fish darting together from one place to another. He asked them from what were they fleeing. They responded from the nets that people were bringing to catch them. The fox suggested that they join him to live together with him on dry land as his ancestors and their ancestors had done. (Italics mine, but that's how R' Akiva phrased the fox's proposal.) The fish said to the fox: Everyone extols you for being the most insightful (פיקח) of the animals. You are not insightful; you are a fool (טיפש)! If we are afraid in an environment that supports our life, how much more so would be afraid in an environment that does not supply even the basic necessities for us to live!
So... I first wondered why they called the fox a fool; I thought he we being sneaky and trying to con them into being his meal plan. Apparently the fish (and, by extension, R' Akiva) didn't see it that way. But the 500 lb gorilla here: "live together with him on dry land as his ancestors and their ancestors had done"?! Umm... what? When did foxes and fish live together? The Marharsha gives a beautiful and insightful explanation of the נמשל of R' Akiva's משל; but nary a word on the משל itself. Neither did ArtScroll quote nor note any sources. I finally found an explanation from the אמרי בינה brought in a footnote in the M'sivta Shas.
Of course I'll tell you what he said and what I think it means; but, first... my signature non-sequitur scenario whose relevance only becomes clear in the end. (At least, that is my plan, hope, and belief.)
Scientists love/live to build models. The models are built from and are meant to explain measurements in the physical world. (That's really a science, in a nutshell.) As an example of the kind of activity would be to build a model of water density as a function of temperature. (As models become more mature, they cover more phenomena and dependencies. But it's always just more of the same.) So our scientist would begin by building a lab in which he could both set and measure with extreme precision the volume and temperature of water samples. He would acquire ultra pure water to be sure he could reproduce his results. He would take 100s or 1000s of measurements.
Let us further imagine that our scientist can only make measurements between 40° and 200° Fahrenheit. He will build a model based on his measurements. Also based on his measurements, he will be able to tell you the accuracy with which he is reporting his results. You ask him, "What is the density of pure water at 45°?" He will report a number with confidence bounds. Of course, if you ask him for a density outside the range which he has measured, he will tell you that the results will be less accurate -- with the decrease in accuracy increasing as you get further outside the range in which he has measured; but he will be able to tell you precisely how much error you can expect. He is a very good scientist who follows all the correct protocols and knows his topic very, very well.
Now you ask him for the density of water at 211° and at 213°. He will confidently give you two numbers, the number at 213° being larger that at 211° by just a little bit, with a concomitantly larger uncertainty. His number for 211° will be right on target. His number for 213°, though, will be wrong; laughably and ridiculously wrong. Not because of bad measurements. Not because he is a bad scientist. It will be wrong because he didn't know that liquid water becomes a gas (aka steam) at 212°. He didn't know because it is outside his range of experience. He is quite adept at the scientific method, and everyone agrees; his ability to take careful data and construct reasonable models is not in question. What is in question is whether he is insightful or a fool. If he responds, "Hmm... fascinating. I must explore the implications of this new data."; then he is insightful. If, however, he responds, "My data and methods are unimpeachable. Reality has a problem." -- then he is a fool. But who could possibly be so ridiculously foolish?
Says the אמרי בינה, the fox is saying that since the world was originally all covered in water, obviously his ancestors and the fishes' ancestors had lived together. But the fox is a fool; because their ancestors had not even been created yet.
So that's the problem. Evolution is not in and of itself foolish. If you never heard about the order of creation, or about the idea of creation, then you have to come up with something. All those careful measurements, all that thought. But when you find out that you were missing a key piece of information, then you have two choices: (1) To ignore reality because it doesn't fit with your idea of what should be. (2) Accept reality, work out the implications of that crucial bit of new information, and then change your world view accordingly.
Who could possibly be so ridiculously foolish as to ignore the reality of מתן תורה and just continue on as if his world hadn't been just turned upside down? Who, indeed.
So... I first wondered why they called the fox a fool; I thought he we being sneaky and trying to con them into being his meal plan. Apparently the fish (and, by extension, R' Akiva) didn't see it that way. But the 500 lb gorilla here: "live together with him on dry land as his ancestors and their ancestors had done"?! Umm... what? When did foxes and fish live together? The Marharsha gives a beautiful and insightful explanation of the נמשל of R' Akiva's משל; but nary a word on the משל itself. Neither did ArtScroll quote nor note any sources. I finally found an explanation from the אמרי בינה brought in a footnote in the M'sivta Shas.
Of course I'll tell you what he said and what I think it means; but, first... my signature non-sequitur scenario whose relevance only becomes clear in the end. (At least, that is my plan, hope, and belief.)
Scientists love/live to build models. The models are built from and are meant to explain measurements in the physical world. (That's really a science, in a nutshell.) As an example of the kind of activity would be to build a model of water density as a function of temperature. (As models become more mature, they cover more phenomena and dependencies. But it's always just more of the same.) So our scientist would begin by building a lab in which he could both set and measure with extreme precision the volume and temperature of water samples. He would acquire ultra pure water to be sure he could reproduce his results. He would take 100s or 1000s of measurements.
Let us further imagine that our scientist can only make measurements between 40° and 200° Fahrenheit. He will build a model based on his measurements. Also based on his measurements, he will be able to tell you the accuracy with which he is reporting his results. You ask him, "What is the density of pure water at 45°?" He will report a number with confidence bounds. Of course, if you ask him for a density outside the range which he has measured, he will tell you that the results will be less accurate -- with the decrease in accuracy increasing as you get further outside the range in which he has measured; but he will be able to tell you precisely how much error you can expect. He is a very good scientist who follows all the correct protocols and knows his topic very, very well.
Now you ask him for the density of water at 211° and at 213°. He will confidently give you two numbers, the number at 213° being larger that at 211° by just a little bit, with a concomitantly larger uncertainty. His number for 211° will be right on target. His number for 213°, though, will be wrong; laughably and ridiculously wrong. Not because of bad measurements. Not because he is a bad scientist. It will be wrong because he didn't know that liquid water becomes a gas (aka steam) at 212°. He didn't know because it is outside his range of experience. He is quite adept at the scientific method, and everyone agrees; his ability to take careful data and construct reasonable models is not in question. What is in question is whether he is insightful or a fool. If he responds, "Hmm... fascinating. I must explore the implications of this new data."; then he is insightful. If, however, he responds, "My data and methods are unimpeachable. Reality has a problem." -- then he is a fool. But who could possibly be so ridiculously foolish?
Says the אמרי בינה, the fox is saying that since the world was originally all covered in water, obviously his ancestors and the fishes' ancestors had lived together. But the fox is a fool; because their ancestors had not even been created yet.
So that's the problem. Evolution is not in and of itself foolish. If you never heard about the order of creation, or about the idea of creation, then you have to come up with something. All those careful measurements, all that thought. But when you find out that you were missing a key piece of information, then you have two choices: (1) To ignore reality because it doesn't fit with your idea of what should be. (2) Accept reality, work out the implications of that crucial bit of new information, and then change your world view accordingly.
Who could possibly be so ridiculously foolish as to ignore the reality of מתן תורה and just continue on as if his world hadn't been just turned upside down? Who, indeed.
Comments