Who Needs ID? – Part One | Cross-Currents

Who Needs ID? – Part One | Cross-Currents - a Reaction

Yitzchok Adlerstein writes an interesting piece about Evolution and Intelligent Design in Cross Currents. What makes it interesting is that Adlerstein is a generally a hard-line, fundamentalist Haredi who has little patience for those who would evince any doubt about the divine origins of Torah and the ultimate and exclusive correctness of his brand of Judaism. Having just finished Karen Armstrong's book "A Case for God", I understand a little better why a fundamentalist feels the need to reconcile his religious view with science. To Adlerstein's credit, he is not just rejecting science, but trying to come to terms with it:

Maybe I’m not properly Orthodox, but evolution is just not an issue for me. [...] I recognize that I am in the minority in this regard (although not so sure if this is true for frum folks with scientific background), but I made peace with evolution years ago. I’m neither convinced of its truth (although it explains volumes of collected phenomena that no one in the frum community even begins to deal with) nor convinced of its untruth. Of course I reject one small assumption made by some evolutionists, including the most strident and vocal ones. They believe that not only did G-d have no part in it, but that having adequately explained the Great Mystery of Life, there is no need to believe in G-d, c”v. My belief is that if the Ribbono Shel Olam set up the original conditions, including the physical constants of nature in such a way as to produce the world as we know it, using natural selection and about 15 billion years (a span of time so large I simply can’t wrap my mind around it to decide whether the scenario is plausible or ludicrous), I for one would have no objection. As R Samson Raphael Hirsch wrote in the infancy of the theory – well before he could, in all fairness, properly analyze it, but also before over a century of corroborating evidence – if the theory turns out to be true, we will stand in even greater awe of the wisdom of HKBH. There is wondrous elegance in reducing all of existence to what was contained in the singularity that preceded the laws of nature as we know them. Reducing all there is to a mysterious oneness has great appeal to me.

Adlerstein has been willing to loosen his grip on a literalist meaning of the Torah, at least the first chapters that describe in decidely non-scientific terms the creation of the world. This can be no easy feat for someone so squarely in the Haredi camp. He goes on to acknowledge the advantages of a non-literalist view to the scientist: "Evolution provides a framework for understanding much of the natural world... The language of biology is the language of evolution, and it has been that way for decades."

But Adlerstein knows that there are many in the Haredi camp may be better off simply keeping science at an arms length:

If you have no occasion to ever step over the threshold of modern science, there would seem to be little reason to abandon the plain meaning of the opening of Bereishis. This seems to be the message of quite a few Gedolei Torah who live in communities in which science simply doesn’t figure. Their advice should be vigorously heeded.

It is unfortunate that Adlerstein thinks that anyone should heed advice to remain ignorant. Ignorance is the antithesis of what Judaism stands for; Judaism has always been a search for truth. The greatest Jewish theologians and thinkers have been those who have understood that truth is elusive and conditional, subject to change and refinement through the introduction of new data.

But all of this discussion could be simply avoided by acknowledging that the purpose of science is neither to prove the existence of G-d nor to describe G-d's ways in the world. Neither is subject to scientific proof nor can they be disproved by any scientific method. Science, not religion, can explain the physical processes by which the piece of rock on which we exist came into being. Science, not religion, can explain the biological mechanisms by which single-cell protozoa may have mutated and evolved into human beings as well as other species. But science can provide no moral reason for that mutation, nor should it try. Having become human, science can not tell us how to live our lives with meaning, cope with adversity, die with dignity, and find our way to the bright light that is G-d's love - that is the realm of religion. So, I agree with Adlerstein (a rarity) when he says: "I feel comfortable getting up in the morning and shouting, 'Mah rabu ma’asecheh Hashem…!'"