Rabbi Shlomo Cohen

17 Langeries Dr.

Monsey, NY 10952

(845)356-7584

Anyone involved in Outreach has had to enter discussions regarding the merits of evolution in light of a belief in Hashem. Each person eventually settles on certain arguments. There are many to choose from. The purpose of this article is to outline as many of these arguments as possible. Only the highlights will be presented. The full argument with supporting documentation will require further research on the part of those interested. Some of the arguments will appear stronger than others, however the reader ought to see that the sum total of all the arguments must, inexorably, lead one to critically question the scientific basis of the theories. Please note that dinosaurs have not been mentioned. This is so because they do not require any special argument regarding their existence or supposed evolution. (See Tiferes Yisroel at the end of Sanhedrin)

The contention is that intellectual honesty will lead anyone to conclude that:

a- current scientific theory has not yet achieved a state of complete understanding

or that

b- Jewish thought is, perhaps, closer to the truth.

These two contentions may, in fact, be one and the same.

Insofar as the first contention, we must always bear in mind that no major scientific theory of one hundred years ago remains acceptable today in their original forms. The very basis of our understanding of the cosmos has radically altered in every particular from the ultimate vastness of the universe to the ultimate minuteness of sub-atomic particles and everything in between. This being the case, we may only assume that scientists will continue to alter their theories. Much that we accept as truth today will most likely be scorned in a few decades. If so, the term "scientific truth" is an oxymoron. It is, therefor, no small matter to base one's belief on the shifting quicksand of contemporary knowledge.

People have been tortured, put to death, imprisoned and excommunicated through the ages for daring to question conventional wisdom. All too often they were subsequently proven correct The Catholic Church had to apologize to Galileo. That apology occurred 500 years too late.

Here are just a few theories that once held sway. Flat Earth, Geocentric universe, ether between the planets, diseases are caused by night vapors, bathing is unhealthy, the atom is the smallest possible unit of matter, all stars are on a dome equidistant from Earth, there is intelligent life on Mars, lead can be turned to gold, moving faster than 20 mph in a car is deadly etc.etc.etc. ad nauseum.

By definition, a theory cannot be proven, only disproved. In the course of the last hundred years, piece after piece of the theory of evolution has been disproved until little of substance remains. Darwin himself, in the Origin Of The Species, wrote that many of his suppositions required proof. Scientists spent the next hundred years looking for that proof which was never forthcoming. Yet, it is the only approach taught in our schools. It is noteworthy that this theory has had a profound effect on our entire society. It has touched every aspect of the "hard" and "soft" sciences, the humanities, jurisprudence, medicine, art, literature and entertainment. Movies, television, toys and games are affected. Newspapers, magazines and books, fiction as well as non-fiction, popular and academic, are all full of evolution. Accounting seems to have escaped being tarred with the brush of evolution. One wonders how long that will last?

Every child is constantly exposed by every teacher, every book and the weight of the entire media that this is TRUTH! It is not even presented as supposition. It is always given over as axiomatic, proven, acknowledged fact.

Torah study is the quintessential search for truth. The ostrich approach to Yiddishkeit cannot possibly suffice. Placing one’s head in the sand is resulting in the loss of Nishamos. Every Jew is responsible for every other Jew. Pirkei Avos tells us that we must know how to answer the Apikores. Those answers must come from a base of knowledge. Simply stating that science is dumb will convince nobody and brand you as the fanatical ignoramus. Answer the Apikores "L’shitaso", on the basis of his own stance.

PART ONE

Understanding the scientific evidence

I TIME

1- There has been insufficient time for the development of all the species. Indeed, it has been amply demonstrated that there has been insufficient time for even the simplest form of life to have evolved

[Most of the following figures come from Grzimek's Encyclopedia of Evolution, Von Nostrand Publishers 1976.]

George Gaylord Simpson estimates that there have been 500,000,000 to 4,000,000,000 species since life originated. (pg. 47)

The Earth formed 4.5 -5 billion years ago. The oldest rocks are 4 billion years old. (pg. 63)

The oldest fossils are 3.1 billion years old. The oldest living thing was Archaea dated at 3.96 billion years old. Blue green algae dates to 3.56 billion years. Eucarya, a more complex cell with a nucleus, dates to 1.8 billion years. (pg. 113)

Assuming one common ancestor:

Using the lower figure of 1/2 a billion species divided by 3 billion years would yield a figure of one new species on average every 6 years.

Using the higher figure of 4 billion species divided by 3 billion years gives an average of one new species every 1.33 years.

In the 1.8 billion years since Eucarya the lower figure of 1/2 billion species gives us an average of a new species every 3.6 years. The higher figure of 4 billion results in a new specie every .45 years.

It appears obvious that their numbers just don't work.

2- "George Wald, in The Origin Of Life, assumes that a primeval soup of organic molecules somehow originated. He then proceeds to show that, given enough time, random combinations of molecules might form biologically relevant associations and, ultimately, life....... The oldest fossils indicate that the most primitive cells arose early in the history of the Earth. Thus, relatively short spans of time were available for the origins of cellular life. The age of the Earth is some 4,500 million years, and the oldest known fossils are dated at about 3,000 million years. Formation of the Earth’s core and development of stable ocean systems and a solid crust required about 500 million years, leaving a gap of only 1,000 million years. During this early era small organic compounds must accumulate, biological polymers must form, protocells must arise, and a genetic and protein synthesizing system must evolve. These events are not consistent with the Wald hypothesis of random associations."

( Scientific American Life: Origin and Evolution 1980, pg. 34)

3- It has been mathematically demonstrated that the process of evolution is a statistical impossibility given the complexity of even simple life forms and the time allotted. The numbers used go beyond the number of atoms in the universe. " The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident is zero" (Physics Today 25 pp. 23-28). "The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2000 = 10 40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup." (Evolution From Space, pg. 24, Hoyle, Wickramasinghe: Dent, London 1981)

" In 1966 there was an inconclusive and often ill-tempered two day symposium at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology in the University of Pennsylvania entitled "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution" Here it became clear that doubts among biologists were doubled and redoubled by physicists, mathematicians and engineers, some of whom were openly incredulous at the lack of a testable scientific basis for evolutionary theory. Few biologists expressed any uncertainty, on this occasion, about natural selection being the supreme explanatory law... Computer scientists, especially, were baffled as to how random mutations alone could possibly enrich the library of genetic information. A mutation, they repeatedly pointed out, is a mistake -- the equivalent of a copying error. And how could copying mistakes build up into a new body of complicated and ordered information?" (The Neck of the Giraffe Francis Hitching, pg. 82)

Murray Eden, Professor of Engineering at MIT said that, in plain language what the biologists were proposing went as follows: "Begin with a meaningful phrase, retype it with a few mistakes, make it longer by adding letters; then examine the result to see if the new phrase is meaningful. Repeat this process until the library is complete." (Quoted in The Neck of the Giraffe pg. 82)

4- Geologists have found 26,000,000 year intervals between appearances of multitudes of new life forms which have no apparent sources. The Cambrian explosion occurred about 535 million years ago. At that time virtually all species of animal extant today appeared almost simultaneously, most with no antecedents. The Pre-Cambrian gives not a hint of what was to come. Angiosperms burst on the scene in the Cretaceous already divided into classes of which many are still here today virtually unchanged. Nothing in the Pre-Cretaceous rocks prepares us for their sudden appearance. (Discovery Magazine)

5- The oldest living things (bristlecone pines), the beginning of civilization, the start of agriculture, the first cities all date to about 5,000 years ago.

- The age of the universe is only theoretical and highly speculative. It is inferred from the cosmic red shift which could very well have other causes or explanations. The given mathematical deviations in the age can be up to +/- 50%. The observable data has been collected over a very short period of time. Much of the data is contradictory. Quasars were thought to be 3 – 4 billion years old. Now the age is given at only 1 billion.

.

II- Dating Procedures

6-There are several dating systems in use. Each has an inherent weakness in its basis. The assumption that all processes that are occurring have always occurred at the same rate is attributable to Sir Charles Lyell, the father of modern geology. Initial conditions are unknown. Recent research in gases trapped in the Antarctic and Greenland icepacks have shown highly significant fluctuations in the amount of carbon in the air. Any use of carbon dating is thus of little if any use whatsoever since it is impossible to determine what is actually being measured. "When the Carbon 14 dating method was first suggested, its discoverer, W.F.Libby was himself cautious about the evidence supporting the basic assumption. Since that time, a considerable body of evidence has been gathered to indicate that, in fact, there have been variations and this first basic assumption must be tempered with these observations. In addition, variations in the rate of Carbon 14 production as a function of climate, season and position on Earth have been found and analyzed extensively. Furthermore, it has been learned that changes in the Carbon 14 level can be brought about by changes in the cosmic radiation caused by changes in the Earth’s magnetic field." (Torah and Science and Carbon 14 in B’Or HaTorah vol.2)

"Calibration: Radiocarbon dating was at first hailed as the solution to the archaeologist’s dating problems. Later research has shown this enthusiasm to be a little too optimistic. Unfortunately, the rate at which C14 is produced in the atmosphere has fluctuated considerably.... Radiocarbon dating has been used to establish most of the chronologies described in this book for sites dating to the period between 70,000 B.P. and 1500 C.E..... Without C14 dates, world prehistory would be almost undated." ( People of the Earth--An Introduction to World Prehistory Brian Fagan)

"Four bone artifacts thought to provide evidence for human occupation of North America approximately 30,000 years ago are, at most, only about 3,000 years old, report archaeologist D. Earl Nelson of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia and his colleagues in the May 9 SCIENCE. The difference in age estimates between the two types of carbon samples from the same bone is, to say the least, significant" (Science News Vol. 129, May 19, 1986) Similar problems may effect other dating systems.

Carbon dating done on living tissue has resulted in ages that are absurdly older than the living items.

The age of the Earth is derived from the measurement of uranium in rocks. However, the initial conditions on Earth are unknown.

This table shows other dating systems presently in use:

Method Mother Isotope Half-life (years) Daughter isotope

Uranium-lead U238 4.498 x 109 Pb206

Uranium-lead U235 7.13 x 108 Pb207

Thorium-lead Th232 1.39 x 1010 Pb208

Rubidium-strontium Rb87 5.0 x 1010 Sr87

Potassium-argon K40 1.3 x 109 Ar40

Uranium- thorium U234 2.5 x 105 Th230

Ionium Th230 8.0 x 104 Ra226

Radiocarbon C14 5.7 x 103 N14

(Introduction to Paleontology)

These methods are used to date rocks, as opposed to organic materials. Each, of course, is based on the same basic assumption that these processes of radioactive decay have remained constant throughout. This assumption can never be proven. Much of the work in dating uses circular reasoning: layers from fossils, fossils from layers.

lll-- The Fossil Record

7- Dating by means of geologic layers is totally haphazard. Textbooks would have us believe that there are actually places in which one layer is stacked above the other in an organized, orderly fashion that can be read as easily as a book. These places really don't exist. The layers are often hundreds or thousands of miles apart, the layers are jumbled and are often found in different orders in different places. Conventions are held to vote on which site will be used as the "true" order on which research, papers and theories will be based. " Not only have geological strata never been found to be contiguous in any one central location, but frequently they are in reverse order. A rock bed 350 miles wide and 6 miles deep has been discovered in the Glacier National Park in Montana. In order to solve a very sticky problem, geologists have conjectured that the rock was thrust 40 - 50 miles from its original location. For this rock is pre-Cambrian, approximately 500 million years "older" than the Cretaceous rocks in the strata below it" (Creation: The Origin of Life M.Trop, pg.45)

8- The fossil record has been a tremendous blow to evolutionists as it never once yielded a single possibility that would have fulfilled Darwin’s expectations. Darwin complained, "Innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the Earth?" His answer was the extreme imperfection of the fossil record. The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: The fossils go missing in all the important places. There are about 250,000 different species of fossilized plants and animals in the world’s museums. Compare that to the estimated 1.5 million species known to be alive on Earth today. "Everything that has been found fits neatly into existing phyla but for a few isolated instances that presented science with a new phyla each of which was highly specialized." (Denton Chap.8) Professor N. Heribert-Nilsson of Lund University, Sweden, after 40 years in the field, sums up: "It is not even possible to make a caricature of evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained by the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled." (Quoted in The Neck of the Giraffe, Hitching, pg. 22) "...in a sense this account is science fiction".(The Origin of Vertebrates NJ Berril)

9- Only one alleged "missing link", archaeopteryx linking reptiles to birds, has been 'found'. Given the estimated half a billion to four billion species scientists claim have lived there are simply too many missing links. Darwin wrote that these connecting links were crucial to his theory. After one hundred years of searching they have simply not been found because they are not there.

10- "The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table. Moreover, such fossils as are found are usually so fragmentary (Lucy is the rare exception) and in such ambiguous surroundings, that many interpretations are possible." (What Ever Happened To Zinjanthropus John Reader, New Scientist, March 1981, pg. . 802) Scant evidence, yet they would have us believe that they know enough to draw pictures and tell us how these early people lived. Paleontologists find a few artifacts, everything else is pure conjecture and fanciful imagination. It is important to remember that the fossil record contains only bones or teeth. Soft tissue is only seen as a completely squashed rock image when it is found at all. It has been said that a Neanderthal man in a three piece suit could stroll around Wall Street without creating any undue comment

IV The New Science of Genetics

11-The discovery, in 1953, by Watson and Crick of the structure of DNA has brought about an entirely different understanding of how organisms propagate. The ramifications for evolutionary theory are awesome. One would have thought that the questions raised by genetics alone would have quashed the notion of randomness. As gene mapping continues, it seems likely that several proposals to revamp the entire system of classifications will occur. The concepts of genus, species, phyla and families may yet be forsaken for a system in tune with similarities in gene structure rather than similarities in physical appearance. Over time this will certainly change the way we view the relationships between living things.

Tracing the concept backward to the first living organism, biology is forced into the preposterous notion that this "simple" one celled organism contained within it all the information necessary to ultimately produce all the multi-faceted millions of species of plants and animals which followed it. The renowned French biologist, Prof. Grasse stated "To attribute such a power to a single substance, however complicated and exceptional its molecular structure may be, is in my view aberrant."

12-The irreducible complexity of a cell, or its structures, forces a conclusion that these structures could not have possibly existed in a simpler form. Hence, they either never evolved or came into being as fully completed workable units.

Research sponsored by NASA, to enable astronauts to recognize the most rudimentary forms of life, suggested that the simplest kind of living thing would contain at least 124 proteins of 400 amino acids each.

"Frank B. Salisbury in American Biology Teacher, concludes that the odds of the chance evolution of a medium sized protein of 300 amino acids was about one in 10600 - a number completely beyond our comprehension. Scientists generally rule out of consideration any event that has less than one chance in 1050 of occurring." (quoted in The Neck of the Giraffe pg. 66, 67)

To give the reader a taste of the concept of 1050 the chances of a person in the United States being struck and killed by a lightening bolt is 1x 106. The chances of winning the Lottery are 1 in 1010. To begin getting into really big exponents we need to shift into an entirely different mindset. Were we to remove all the "empty space" between the nuclei of atoms in a solid we would effectively reduce the space occupied by the matter to 1 part in 1048. (This is basically the makeup of a neutron star.) Reducing our sun in this manner would leave it the size of a grain of sand. To "understand"1048 try to envision a pile of white sand with the volume of the sun and one grain of black sand in the pile. What do you suppose are the chances of finding that one black grain of sand? 1 in 1048. What I have not been able to determine is any example, which could, even remotely, give us a picture of what 10600 means if it can be said to have any meaning at all.

13- Current state of genetic research, unknown even 40 years ago, strongly mitigates against evolutionary processes. Genetic mapping should be expected to show a progression in gene complexity. As it happens, the salamander, for example, has 20 times more DNA than a human. (see Denton). There does not appear to be any correlation between the amount of DNA and the complexity of an organism. Geneticists have found only a 1% difference in the DNA of humans and chimpanzees. Such a minor difference does not account for the observable chasm separating these two species.

14- Selective breeding over thousands of years (e.g. cats, dogs, horses, sheep) as well as in the lab (tens of thousands of generations of fruit flies) has only resulted in inbred genetic weakness, taken away an ability to survive in the wild and has never resulted in a new species.

"Luther Burbank, perhaps the most famous plant breeder in the history of the United States, once pointed out that nobody had succeeded in growing black tulips or blue roses, because the genetic material was simply not there. "I know from experience that I can develop a plum half an inch long or one two and a half inches long, with every possible length in between, but I am willing to admit that it is hopeless to try to get a plum the size of a small pea, or one as big as a grapefruit....In short, there are limits to the development possible"( quoted in The Neck of the Giraffe pg. 54)

"Ernst Mayr...selectively bred successive generations of (fruit) flies to try and increase or decrease the number of bristles they grew, normally averaging thirty six. He reached a lower limit, after thirty generations, of twenty-five bristles; and an upper limit after twenty generations, of fifty- six bristles. After that the flies rapidly began to die out. Then, Mayr brought back non-selective breeding, letting nature take its course. Within five years, the bristle count was almost back to average."(Quoted in The Neck Of the Giraffe pg. 57).

V Logical weaknesses in the theory

15- Aside from the statistical problems associated with spontaneous life forming from the primordial soup "At least five major factors limit the kinds of compounds that might have accumulated in the primitive ocean:

1st, there are limitations on what can be made by inorganic means;

2nd, all organic matter degrades spontaneously with time;

3rd, some substances are readily destroyed by radiation;

4th, many compounds would have been removed from the ocean by precipitation or adsorption.

5th, there are serious chemical incompatibilities among the constituents of living matter, and some of the components of the soup would react to form non-biologic substances.

In view of these limitations, one is challenged to seek a series of steps toward life that are compatible with the environment." (Chemical Events On The Primitive Earth P.H.Abelson, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 55 (1966) pg. 1369)

Furthermore, there is an insuperable problem associated with the survival of the first amino acids, assuming they formed spontaneously in the first place. Any oxygen in the atmosphere would have quickly degraded any primitive organic chemical. Yet without oxygen there would be no ozone layer to protect the amino acid from ultraviolet light which would have effectively ended the process. To date there has been no satisfactory explanation for this problem.

We are presented with an additional problem. Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. However, DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein!!! " How, when no life existed, did substances come into being which, today, are absolutely essential to living systems, yet which can only be formed by those systems?" (Quoted in The Neck of the Giraffe pg. 66)

16- All systems tend to deteriorate unless they are maintained. The more complex the system the more quickly it will tend to fall apart unless a sufficient amount of energy is put into the system to maintain it. Since life is a complex system we would expect that over time life forms would deteriorate, species should get weaker.

"Deleterious mutations should be the rule. The reduction of entropy in living systems is such that it is probably a violation of the second law of thermodynamics." (Reality Revisited Sassoon, pg. 89)

17- On the other hand, evolution should cause higher forms to retain all of the best traits. In fact, higher species lose many advantages. Theoretically, man should be the furriest, fastest, strongest, largest, etc.

18- The idea that mutations cause evolution may require not one, but two, of the same mutation occurring at the same time, in the same place, one male, the other female and both surviving and able to reproduce. More likely than not, which is still unlikely as identical mutations don’t often occur together, both would have been produced from the same mother probably resulting in heavy inbreeding which is known to usually cause genetic weakness, not advantage.

"Survival of the fittest" is a nonsensical theory in that it is post priori thinking. Gee, the lion survived so it must be fit. There is simply no way to establish fitness a priori. The theory is untestable and bad science.

19- Furthermore, species and individuals are resistant to change.

-Individual mothers will kill offspring that are different.

- Groups of animals will not tolerate many differences and will kill or chase away any young that are too different. These young would then lose the protection of the group and would most likely die.

20- Adaptation requires either vast amounts of time or Punctuated Equilibrium. Over vast time spans the probability of a mutation surviving and spreading through a population is statistically improbable. Punctuated Equilibrium should be observed if it is reaction to change in the environment, as is thought. It has not been observed even with major changes. Man has domesticated many animals, thoroughly changing their environment. Other species have adapted to living alongside man (mice, rats, pigeons etc.) yet none have undergone any real change. Dogs, descendants of the wolf, have been bred into many forms. Each retains its essential ‘dogginess’ without any real change, certainly no evolution into other species.

21- Convergence, means that an extraordinary number of unrelated species share many physical similarities that would have had to evolve separately. This concept has several inherent weaknesses not the least of which being that random accidents had to occur over and over with the same results under different conditions.

One of the most remarkable examples of this phenomenon is flight.

The ability to fly had to evolve in four disparate types of creatures four different times!

INSECTS -- winged and non-winged appear simultaneously in the fossil record during the Carboniferous period 300 million years ago with no clue as to how they developed.

DINOSAURS -- Pterosaurs are found in the fossil record of 180 million years ago with no signs of earlier forms.

BIRDS -- Appear in the record 60 million years ago as fully formed creatures. There is some debate regarding the possible evolution of birds from dinosaurs however, the physiognomy of the two are too vastly different to be easily explained away.

BATS -- appear last in the record some 50 million years ago. They are the only flying mammal. No possible evolutionary explanation suffices. (The Neck of the Giraffe, Pg. 94)

22- Or conversely, Typology. All classes of life share amazingly similar structures. All mammals have hair, mammary glands, 3 ear bones, a diaphragm. All birds have feathers etc. If there are so many branches of development, why does all life share DNA and cilia in common? Why is there not more differentiation? Why do animals, thought to have evolved separately, share so many common features? (Denton, Chap.5)

23- Randomness could too easily upset the delicate "balance of nature". Too strong a predator, too effective a virus, locusts not stopping....- as it is, checks and balances are so finely tuned as to rule out randomness. (The story of the introduction of the rabbit in Australia.) "Additionally, no purely random process of extinction would have eliminated so effectively all ancestral and transitional forms, all evidence of the supposed evolution while leaving all the remaining groups so isolated and related (in vague ways)." (Denton pg. 36)

24- Darwin saw homology as a crucial argument for evolution. Homology states that members of the same class, independently of their habits of life, resemble each other in the general plan of their organization. "Indeed, homology has remained the mainstay of the argument for evolution right down to the present day. However, it has been found that homologous structures are often specified by non-homologous genetic systems and the concept of homology can seldom be extended back into embryology. There has been a failure to find a genetic and embryological basis for homology." (Denton Chap.7) In fact, the entire system of classification is based on similarities. These similarities may be arbitrary rather than innate.

25- Heritable variation can only occur in three ways.

A positive variation that increases survival chances,

a negative variation which decreases survival chances

or a neutral variation that has no effect on survival chances.

The mutation rate must randomly utilize all three possibilities. All probabilities are then multiplied by a factor of three making the positive influence of heritable variation effective only one third of the time at best since the norm is negative variation..

26- Interspecie variation was thought by Darwin to be a driving force in evolution. In fact, he based much of his theory on his observations of finch differences spread across the Galapagos Islands. Interestingly, in 1967 the U.S. Government placed 100 finches from Layson Island to a group of 4 other atolls having no finch population. Within 20 years there were noticeable differences in bill structure among the birds on the 4 atolls. It would seem that bill differences are adaptive in nature and that the finch population readily changed in ways to match the food available. This with no mutations, gradual or otherwise. The bill differences would have to be already built into the DNA ready to reprogram as needed. (Spetner pg. 202)

27- Sequential patterns, long thought to be the path of evolutionary changes, falls apart when studied carefully. "The ‘sequential’ nature of the pattern is neither straightforward nor is it an indication of evolution". (Denton Chap.5)

28- Punctuated equilibrium is merely the concept of creation but without G-d.

29- That the Earth was seeded from other worlds (a la Francis Crick) merely moves the problem back one step and entirely begs the question. That Crick would even advance such a notion and that other scientists would take it seriously is an indication of how desperate they are for any equation that does not equal G-d.

30- Dependent structures had to either come on the scene in an immediately usable form or the structure is useless. Did the rattlesnake first evolve sharp hollow teeth or poisonous venom. Each without the other does not help the snake. Both evolving simultaneously boggles the mind. Both structures are also dependent on a host of other interconnected glands, nerve systems, musculature and reflexes.

31- Instinctual behaviors raise more questions. When the kangaroo evolved its pouch, what mechanism prodded the baby kangaroo to crawl into the pouch immediately after birth. Logically, any explanation put forth does not suffice.

32- There are simply too many huge evolutionary jumps. The change from cell division to egg laying to live bearing, herbivore to carnivore, gill breathing to lungs, photo-synthesis to digestive systems, non-skeletal to exoskeleton to skeletal etc. etc. all require massive changes across so many genetic proteins. To have occurred slowly places the evolving organism at a survival risk. To have occurred randomly, all at once, is beyond reality, or from a different perspective, to believe in miracles!

There have been no satisfactory explanations for the development of hair in mammals, feathers in birds, teeth, compound eyes, blood circulation, mollusk shells, poisonous snakes, segmentation or transformation of gill arches.

"Darwin’s technique throughout, according to the philosopher Dr. Gertrude Himmelfarb, is to convert possibilities into probabilities, and liabilities into assets. As possibilities were promoted into probability, and probability into certainty, so ignorance itself was raised to a position only once removed from certain knowledge." ( quoted in Neck of the Giraffe)

33- To state that "the fittest survive, and survival is the criterion of fitness" is a tautology"(Goldberg). That is, the statement suffers by dint of circular reasoning. Additionally, it seems that this reasoning may only be applied sparingly. Baleen whales sweep through whole swarms of krill. No matter how fit the krill it will survive as a matter of chance rather than fitness. Their theory is replete with similar arguments. Darwin’s book never proved a single thing. In fact, he explained how evolution, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, might have happened. He also exploited, to his advantage, the admitted difficulties of his theory. (Spetner, pg. 76)

34- Try to imagine the evolution of a bicycle to a car, or even a Chevy to a Caddy. To evolve from a cat to a lion would require far fewer changes than from a cat to a dog. There were fewer, less complicated steps involved from the invention of the wheel to the development of a Rolls Royce than from a single cell plant to an oak tree. Evolution by gradual change is "like becoming a millionaire by saving your pennies." (Spetner pg. 52)

VI Weaknesses in the "science" of evolutionary theory

35-Scientists generally agree that, in all likelihood, life arose only once. Unique events are essentially outside the realm of research since they are non-reproducible.

The greatest mystery is how genes came into being in the first place.

Secondly, how did they become imbued with a meaningful set of instructions?

Thirdly, what, in the coded information, allowed for increased complexity in certain instances while maintaining a status quo 99.999...% of the time?

Fourthly, how could a single set of instructions contain information permitting the vast range of living things with all the differences in size, habitat, structure, etc. etc. etc.

36- Macro-mutations are deleterious. Not only have beneficial mutations never been observed but it is a known fact that spontaneous abortion will generally rid the mother of a fetus that is too different.

37- This theory is non-observable, non-reproducible and thus, by their own definition, non-scientific or, more to the point, not science. (See also Denton pg. 75) "Despite the fact that Darwin’s theory of evolution has won wide acceptance, it is nevertheless not experimentally demonstrable and it is impossible to verify it in the laboratory"( In The Midst Of The Scientific Revolution pg. 134, Prof. Aharon Katzir.)

38- Even in the laboratory, under the most carefully controlled conditions, where vast time scales have been reduced by removing all the variables and all the ingredients have been artificially introduced in the proper amounts, scientists have been unable to accomplish, by design, what they claim occurred by accident in the primordial soup.

VII Academia

39- Vested interest in the academic world of publish or perish leads many scientists into making insupportable statements and then write a whole book to support them. Science generally proceeds by peer review. This system has a serious drawback. When errors are uncovered nobody goes back to determine what other research was based on the initial error. For instance, the coelecanth is a fish that was believed to be extinct for millions of years and was used to establish fossil layers. It was discovered, alive and well, in the mid-1900’s. Were these layers ever rethought? What ramifications has this had in the field?

40- This does not even take into account proven hoaxes and falsified data, examples of which come to light with startling regularity. In 1908, after a particularly thorough exposure of his methods had received wide publicity, Ernst Haeckel wrote to a Berlin newspaper, "To cut short this unsavory dispute, I begin at once with the contrite confession that a small fraction of my numerous drawings of embryos (perhaps six or eight percent) are in a sense falsified -- all those, namely, for which the present material of observation is so incomplete or insufficient as to compel us, when we come to prepare a continuous chain of the evolutionary stages, to fill up the gaps by hypothesis, and to reconstruct the missing links by comparative syntheses.... After this compromising confession of forgery I should be obliged to consider myself ‘condemned and annihilated’ if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner’s dock hundreds of fellow culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of ‘forgery’, for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematized and constructed" (quoted in The Neck of the Giraffe pg. 204)

41- Many theories are constantly altered merely as a matter of convenience, consensus or to reflect current thought with or without any change in the underlying facts. Even Einstein was guilty of forcing part of his theory into a preconceived notion. " In 1917, a year after the completion of his general theory of relativity, Einstein tried to find a solution of his equations that would describe the space-time geometry of the whole universe. Following the cosmological ideas then current, Einstein looked specifically for a solution that would be homogeneous, isotropic, and, unfortunately, static. However, no such solution could be found. In order to achieve a model that fit these cosmological presuppositions, Einstein was forced to mutilate his equations by introducing a term, the so-called cosmological constant, which greatly marred the elegance of the original theory, but which would serve to balance the attractive force of gravitation at large distances." (Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes pps. 32-33)

42-Scientists consider themselves rationalists and search for systems that are logical and make sense. Evolution has become a dogma asking of its adherents a greater leap of faith than any religious belief other than idol worship. If it ever was, it is no longer rational nor does it make sense. "Our faith in the doctrine of evolution depends on our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation" (The Dogma of Evolution, L.T. More)

"Patterson told me that he regarded the theory of evolution as "often unnecessary" in biology. "In fact," he said, "they could do perfectly well without it." Nevertheless, he said, it was presented in textbooks as though it were "the unified field theory of biology ", holding the whole subject together and binding the profession to it. Once something has that status, he said, "it becomes like religion." (Agnostic Evolutionists- The Taxonomic Case Against Darwin , Tom Bethell, Harper’s Magazine, Feb.1985 Pps 51-52).

VIII Teleological arguments - the argument from design

43- Simply put, this argument states that if one were to find a watch on a desert island it would clearly indicate that an intelligent being had been there. Similarly, design in nature speaks of intelligence and purpose.

Several of the best examples of this argument are:

A- Reproduction as a miracle. The process would seem to be outside nature. Life itself is abnormal in nature.

B- How has intelligence evolved? The brain is merely an organ. How it "thinks" is barely understood. Why should a larger brain equal greater intelligence or any "intelligence" for that matter? The very concepts of abstract reasoning, conscience or altruism go well beyond the mere connection of synapses.

C- Transitions are puzzling in evolutionary terms.

Caterpillars only eat, they cannot reproduce. What prompted the caterpillars to evolve spinnerets, make cocoons, essentially liquefy themselves, metamorphose into butterflies, many of which are unable to eat but can reproduce. All insects follow the same pattern. Other animals have similar changes such as tadpole to frog.

Transitions to modes of defense or offense raise the serious question of how those animals defended themselves or captured food prior to transition, and even more puzzling, during transition. Often there does not appear to be a compelling reason for the change. Non-poisonous snakes got along, and still get along, quite well. What prompted only some of the snakes, in the same area, eating the same foods, having the same enemies, to change?

D- Survival tactics dictate that animals be able to breath and drink simultaneously. The throat structure that enables them to do that restricts the range of sounds they can produce. Human babies sleep much of the time. It is important to get as much nursing as possible in the short waking periods. Human infants are born with the same throat structures as animals, hence the ability to breath and suckle at the same time as well as a limited repertoire of sounds. "Shortly after 18 months, an infant’s larynx begins to descend in the neck. The larynx no longer locks into the back of the nasal cavity, so the breathing and swallowing pathways cross above it. On the plus side the pharynx expands and can create a broader range of sounds..." As they require less sleep they lose the ability to breath and drink simultaneously. As the structure changes, the range of sounds broadens until, voila, speech is possible." (Science News, July 8,1989, Vol. 136 No.2 pg. 24)

E- Interdependency, symbiosis and parasitism require explanations. Flowers "evolved" nectar producing organs solely to attract bees, hummingbirds etc. in order to spread their pollen. Firstly, how was pollen spread before nectar? Secondly, what did bees or hummingbirds eat before nectar? Thirdly, Whatever possessed the flower to assume that producing nectar would attract anything, let alone the very vehicle needed to spread pollen? All the above does not begin to address the issues of the positioning of the stamens, that the bees would have the necessary hairs to capture the pollen tightly enough to hold yet loose enough to be released in the next flower and so forth.

F- Conditions on Earth are too exact. Were the planet much larger or smaller, closer to or farther from the sun, rotating faster or slower, life would not be possible. Were the atmosphere somewhat different, more or less water, or any of the water, oxygen or carbon cycles not operating life could not exist. Had the continents not formed or gathered at the poles, if the physics of water was the same as any other liquid, if the ozone layer wasn’t there, life would not exist.

G- "By the 1970’s, with the big bang firmly established, physicists began to think about alternative scenarios for the universe’s evolution. Say you tinkered with the value of gravity or altered, very slightly, the strength of the electro-magnetic force -- how would this effect the path of the universes evolution? What they quickly found was that even the slightest tinkering with the values of physics derailed the whole process. Sometimes you ended up with the wrong kind of stars. In other cases you ended up with no stars at all. No matter what alternative scenario you tried to cook up, the most minuscule changes in the fundamental constants completely eliminated the possibility of life.... Any tinkering with the gravitational constant in relation to electro-magnetism would have resulted in a universe with no middling stars like our sun, but only cooler "red" or hotter "blue" one--- incapable of sustaining life’s evolution. Any weakening of the nuclear "strong force" would have resulted in a universe consisting of hydrogen and not a single other element. That would mean no oxygen, no water, nothing but hydrogen.

"but these observations proved to be merely the tip of the iceberg. ....scientists would discover an increasingly daunting and improbable list of mysterious coincidences or "lucky accidents" in the universe---whose only common denominator seemed to be that they were necessary for our emergence. Even the most minor tinkering with the value of the fundamental forces of physics-- gravity, electromagnetism, the nuclear strong force, or the nuclear weak force-- would have resulted in an unrecognizable universe: a universe consisting entirely of helium. a universe without protons or atoms, a universe without stars, or a universe that collapsed back on itself before the first moments of its existence were up. Changing the precise ratios of the masses of subatomic particles in relation to one another would have similar effects....To take just a few examples:

--Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 1033 times weaker, stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster.

-- The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium ( making water impossible).

-- A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2%) would have prevented the formation of protons-- yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5% would have given us a universe without stars.

-- If the difference in mass between a proton and neutron were not exactly as it is--roughly twice the mass of an electron-- then all neutrons would have become protons or vice versa. Say good-bye to chemistry, as we know it -- and to life.

-- The very nature of water--so vital to life-- is something of a mystery. Unique among the molecules, water is lighter in its solid than its liquid form: Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and the Earth would now be covered in solid ice. This property in turn is traceable to the unique properties of the hydrogen atom.

--The list goes on." (Quoted in God-The Evidence by Patrick Glynn, Prima Publishing 1997 pps 29,30)

"All that we see in the universe of observation and fact, as opposed to the mental state of scenario and supposition, remains unexplained. And even in its supposedly first second the universe itself is causal. That is to say, the universe has to know in advance what it is going to be before it knows how to start itself. For in accordance with the Big Bang Theory, for instance, at a time of 10-43 seconds the universe has to know how many types of neutrino there are going to be at a time of one second. This is so in order that it starts off expanding at the right rate to fit the eventual number of neutrino types." (Astronomer Frederick Hoyle, Quoted in God- The Evidence by Patrick Glynn, Prima Publishing 1997 pps 29,30) Glynn goes onto say that "Hoyle’s notion of the universe needing to "know in advance" later outcomes captures the depths of the mystery. The fine tuning of seemingly heterogeneous values and ratios necessary to get from the big bang to life as we know it involves intricate coordination over vast differences in scale--from the galactic level down to the subatomic one--and across multi billion year tracts of time. Hoyle, who coined the term "big bang", has questioned the very legitimacy of the metaphor of an initial "explosion". "An explosion in a junk yard does not lead to sundry bits of metal being assembled into a useful working machine", he writes. The more physicists have learned about the universe, the more it looks like a put up job." (ibid.)

H- Let us not forget garbage disposal. Modern cities fight a very real, ongoing, and expensive battle ridding themselves of accumulated garbage. Our solution is to merely ship the problem elsewhere and ignore it. Nature has an extraordinary means of disposing of dead organic matter simply and effectively in a manner which allows for the reuse of virtually every bit of matter. The process is part of the food cycle!!! Each and every living cell is possessed of a garbage disposal system as well.

IX Specifically Man

44- There are innumerable issues that specifically relate to the evolution of man. Fossil evidence is very sketchy. Zinjanothropus was inferred from a single skull without a jaw which was pieced together from over 400 pieces found scattered in tons of dirt. Many "old fossils" exist that are similar to modern man yet are left out of the theories since they can’t be conveniently fitted in.

Cranial capacity, intelligence,-- there is no correlation between brain size and intelligence in modern man. on the evidence, it appears that Cro-Magnons’ brains averaged slightly larger than ours.

Ability to plan for the future and remember the past.

Much wider range of emotions.

Unlike all other primates, man does not conform to the pattern of a luxuriant coat of fur covering nearly the entire body.

Speech and the wherewithal to pass information on to others.

Ability to see colors [shared only with old-world monkeys]. {This alone raises a question. If all primates had a common ancestor which was able to discern color, then all primates would either be able to see color or would have lost that ability. Otherwise we must presume convergence, that man and monkey independently evolved the ability to see color, leaving open the question as to why no other animal evolved in this manner, since so many others did develop sight. One would think that this ability has high survival possibilities.}

Social conscience, value systems and altruism.

Opposable thumb.

Bipedalism-- This simple adaptation required substantial changes in the feet, pelvis, spinal column, skull and all the related musculature as well as synapse and brain modifications.

Sophisticated use of tools and the ability to shape environment to needs.

Recent research in mitochondrial DNA has shown that all human beings appear to stem from one woman.

X Moral and philosophical issues

45- The increasingly secular outlook of the 19th century paved the way for evolutionary theory which then became the fundamental justification for that secularism. Virtually all late nineteenth and twentieth century value systems rely on the initial attack which evolutionary theory made against G-d as well as against mans' responsibility for his actions. The philosophical underpinnings provided by Darwin led inexorably to the development of Marxism, Secular Humanism, Communism, Fascism, etc. A case may be made that Darwinism led, in a straight path, directly to the crematoria of the Holocaust.

Much of the moral turpitude of our times is a direct result of the belief that since we are merely animals and G-d does not exist, we need not take any responsibility for our actions. A very strong case can easily be made that moral behavior requires an objective, higher source. There is nothing wrong with murder unless one recognizes that G-d forbade it.

" I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption... For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." (REPORT, June 1966, Confessions of a Professed Atheist A. Huxley)

46- Although the vast majority of the tenets of evolution have been called into question, if not outright disproved, since no other satisfactory theory has replaced it, as a matter of convenience, scientists continue to rely on the theory. Although it flies in the face of rational thought, educated people will choose to be intellectually dishonest rather than admit that the only alternative, a Prime Mover, is required.

Liberal secularists are apt to consider themselves open-minded. They fail to note that Orthodox Judaism has asked, and answered, all their questions long since. A true Ben Torah is always open-minded. It is the liberal secularist who fails to consider the facts. They simply refuse to question the tenets and dogma they have accepted. Try debating them and you will be told that you are a religious fanatic and there is no sense in trying to talk with you. They are the ones being close-minded. The pot calls the kettle black and that is the end of discussion. Nowadays, it is heretical to question the idea of evolution.

Books, articles in Mathematical, Astronomical and Scientific Journals and speakers at scientific conventions have been raising serious questions regarding virtually all aspects of evolutionary theory for decades. One would expect, if not require, those who espouse any form of this theory to be busy countering any and all comers, yet, the literature is strangely silent.

"..Spetner’s calculation has been available in published form since 1964. In view of the central importance of this problem to evolutionary theory, one would have expected a flurry of attempts to produce alternative calculations which would make the situation more palatable. But there have been no attempts at all." (Prof. A. HaSofer in B’or HaTorah, Vol. 3. 1983, pg. 13-21).

PART TWO

Some little known Torah Approaches

Rabbi Shlomo Cohen

Having surveyed the arguments against evolution, we are left with only one approach which science, per se, is unable to deal with, being outside the realm of scientific inquiry- a Prime Mover, Hashem. We have quoted eminent scientists who have remarked on this problem. Accepting Hashem, the orthodox Jew must either:

deal with the discoveries of the last hundred or so years,

refute them

or ignore them entirely.

Ignoring has never solved a problem. It is also difficult, at best, to refute many scientific discoveries or their implications. It would appear that on some level we must face the topic head on. This leaves several questions that must be answered. I) How do we, or do we even need to, account for the vast amounts of time required by scientists? II) How do we account for the extensive fossil record? Long periods of time have a very specific record. This is related to the time spans involved. III) What explanations do we offer for hominids or "prehistoric man"? IV) Geologic evidence of plate tectonics, ancient volcanic activity, several eras of massive glaciation, crustal upheavals, magnetic pole switches, direct hits by massive meteorites, eroded mountain ranges all require time. V) Light from the Sun takes 9 minutes to reach the Earth. Light from the nearest stars takes 4 or more years. The light from distant stars takes millions of years to reach Earth. We see this light whereas we should only see light from stars within 5761 light years. How do we account for the time?

Initially, it would appear that science and Torah are too far apart to even consider any form of synthesis. Let us keep in mind that the general evolutionary pattern is the same as in the Torah. Appearance of light, formation of mass, then water, followed by plants, then animals culminating in man. The major difference is causation.

To even enter into a meaningful discussion of these issues requires at least minimal awareness of the fundamentals of biology, botany, zoology, organic and inorganic chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, physics, archaeology, paleontology, geology etc. All of this would need to be synthesized into a cohesive philosophy. Generally speaking, the more vociferous the speaker the less he tends to know about any of these areas. Ignorance may be bliss but it is also dangerous.

Generally, Orthodox Jews lean toward the literal meaning of the verses in the Creation saga. This is known as Emunah P'shuta, simple faith. This is not fundamentalism. We do not agree with "Creationism" as espoused by Christian Fundamentalists. Their belief stems from a translation of the Bible, which is inexact at best, misleading at worst. Without the benefit of an oral transmission their belief system suffers from an almost childlike misunderstanding of the Torah’s intent. To align ourselves with the Christian right amounts to Chukas Goyim and Al Tailaich B’Derech Itom.

Nonetheless, many Seforim mention other approaches, which bear analysis. Keep in mind that each of these statements was made long before the questions they satisfy were even raised. As a whole, Chazal have satisfied all of the questions. The vast time frames have been accounted for, the fossil record explained and even prehistoric man is included. We are left puzzled as to why Chazal even raised the issues before science developed to its present state, but glad they did so our Emuna is not touched

Those who do not accept anything beyond Emuna P’shuta may base their opinion on the Mishna Chagiga 2;1, which tells us that we may not teach about creation to two students. We must limit ourselves to teaching only one student at a time to prevent misunderstanding. Thus, any lecture on these issues is suspect. Secondly, we are taught to not delve into "what came before, what will come after, what is above and what is below." (Ibid.) Certainly, "that which came before" would include any discussion of cosmology, the age of the Earth and the universe, Big Bang theory, prehistoric man etc. thus limiting our ability to raise these issues, study these sciences or attempt to resolve the problems involved. We could not begin to discuss these topics at all were it not for the fact that eminent Gedolim of every generation have already done so.

To assume that nothing "came before", as Emuna Pshuta does, raises an interesting series of questions. What is it about the act of creation that Chazal felt should not be taught to more than one student at a time? Assuming as we do that there is an "after" an "above" and a "below", why are there those who adamantly protest the existence of a "before"? One may assume that the answer is wrapped up in the nature of the act of creation. The average student will find the information virtually incomprehensible. The numbers involved are mind-boggling. Creation itself is beyond human ken. Few secularists today have any real grasp on their theories. Even they recognize that at some early point the laws of physics break down entirely. Presumably, Chazal felt that delving into these waters would be an exercise in futility for all but the few who are able to comprehend the information within the matrix of sound Hashkafa.

Current Yeshiva education leaves a great deal to be desired. Science is usually the orphan of the curriculum. The more right wing the Yeshiva the more this holds true. Even those Yeshiva graduates who go on to college generally go into medicine, dentistry, accounting, computers, education. Few go into the hard sciences. Of those few, many will live in a split world espousing one set of values at home and in Shul and a totally different set amongst professional colleagues. The values seem to go on and off with their yarmulkes. Ba’alei Tshuva come to Frumkeit from an altogether different direction. Many do have backgrounds in the hard sciences. They have been exposed to a wider range of information. They often have a greater need to synthesize their two worlds. The information is no longer in the hands of a few. It is widely disseminated. In the most right wing Yeshivos grade school children are aware of dinosaurs and those bugaboos of Emuna Pshuta, the M and B words (millions and billions of years ago) found in every textbook printed. The Yeshivos, unwisely, choose to ignore the references rather than have workshops to train the Rabbeiim in approaches that preempt future problems.

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s article on "The Age Of The Universe" makes the point that while many people do not want to even deal with this whole subject, and consider those who do as Apikorsim, they should be made aware of the fact that our system of thought requires a definitive approach only in areas of Halacha. In areas of Hashkafa there is room for widely diverging opinions and we say "Eilu Va’eilu, Divrei Elokim Chaim", both are valid. Furthermore, since the topic, in its secular guise, is so widely disseminated even amongst the Frum world it is incumbent on us to present a Torah approach which at least offers a palatable alternative to Emuna Pshuta for those who need the alternative. Additionally, the Ba’al Tshuva movement has forced the Torah world to develop many approaches to attract people back to the fold. Zealots do not usually make good front-line Kiruv workers. Their message is often too stark to be swallowed easily and is usually a turn off to one who is hearing a Torah approach for the first time.

I-TIME AND THE FOSSIL RECORD

Stating the problem

The present Jewish year is 5761. This is not the age of the Earth. It represents an internal dating system developed by the Sages in the time of the Mishna utilizing the dates given in Tanach and working backward to Adam HaRishon. Thus, the true age must be stated as 5,762 years plus the six days of creation. Exactly what are the six days? Does the Torah mean six days of 24 hours? If we are to define days as occurring as a result of the Earth’s rotating on its axis alternately facing the sun and then away we are faced with the problem that the sun and moon were not positioned until creation day 4. Minimally, days one, two and three had to have some other definition.

A further question develops which I have not seen addressed by any commentator. "And it was evening and it was morning day _____" may only refer to one specific line of longitude at any given moment presuming a sun. Creation all at once could have occurred, then, only on days one, two and three. Did creation proceed as the world turned on days four, five and six? The location of the Jewish "International dateline" rests on this question and has very real ramifications in Halacha. The only other possibilities are: 1) That animals, for instance, were created at sunrise in Israel, for arguments sake, while they appeared in America at 12 midnight the previous evening which is, of course, absurd. 2) That the animals were created at 12 noon in Israel with the rest of the world achieving creation simultaneously. 3) That creation occurred just prior to sunset in Israel with creation occurring retroactively across the rest of the world. 4) That creation occurred only in Gan Eden and the plants and animals spread out from there. Those who maintain that everything was created at the outset of day one and merely put into place the rest of the week would not have any problem. Those who say that creation continued all week would need to put forth a scenario that allows for creation to be spread out over time, a different schedule for each location. The problem this poses is quite subtle.

Going a step further, the Torah tells us that nothing was growing until a mist went out to water the plants. If so, than we must assume that the idea of plants was conceived in Creation day one, the seeds were planted in Creation day three but that nothing actually grew until the plants were watered. The Torah tells us of this happening in Perek 2 Pasuk 4 with no indication of chronology. We know, of course that there is no chronology in the Torah. Nonetheless, the order in which these two facts are presented raise a question. Beyond the obvious is the additional question of why the water cycle was not yet operating since the waters had been there from Day one and collected on Day two?

SOURCES

-An early reference to our problem is written in the Kabbalist work Sefer HaTemuna attributed to the first century Tanna, Rav Nechunia Ben HaKana. [Others attribute the work to Rav Yitzchok of Acco. See below] In discussing Shmitta (Sabbatical cycles) he states that the world will exist for six thousand years and be destroyed in the 7,000th year. However, since the Sabbatical cycle is a part of a larger Jubilee cycle of seven Sabbatical years, he avers that the world will last for 49,000 years. Far more than what Emuna Pshuta allows. It always helps to have a Tanna on your side.

-The Gemora devotes some discussion, which is germane. Chagiga 11b contains a Mishna that states, "One may not lecture about the acts of creation before two students… Anyone who delves into four things it would be better had they not been born: What is above, what is below, what came before and what will come after." The Gemora then proceeds to discuss these issues over several Dafim. There are various opinions regarding the meanings involved. Many commentators clearly state that the concern is in understanding what preceded creation. The Rambam in his Pirush HaMishnayos refers to this as does the MaHarsha. The Rashi on this Mishna contains a Tosfos. The Tosfos asks an insightful question. Is it not so that the "above", "below" and "after" refer to actualities? Ergo, the before must also refer to an actuality, that there was something before!

-Aryeh Kaplan quotes a "highly significant interpretation" of the Sefer HaTemuna by Rabbi Yitzchok of Acco, a student and colleague of the Ramban. He is often quoted by the Raishis Chachma and is known as the person who investigated and verified the authenticity of the Zohar, which had just been published at that time. Rabbi Kaplan states that he had obtained a photocopy of Otzer HaChaim, one of Rav Yitzchok’s works, and discovered a novel interpretation of Sabbatical cycles. The relevant quote is: "I, the insignificant Yitzchok of Acco, have seen fit to record a great mystery that should be kept very well hidden. One of G-d’s days is one thousand years, as it is written, "For a thousand days in Your sight are as a day" (Tehillim 90:4). Since one of our years is 365 ¼ days, a year on high is 365,250 of our years. Two years on high is 730,500 of our years. From this, continue multiplying to 49,000 years…." "Behold, our eyes see that the world has existed for a very long time. This is to refute the opinion of those who say that the world has not existed more than 49,000 years, which is seven Sabbatical cycles." [Note the Rav Yitzchok does not even mention refuting the 4,900 year figure that would have been in vogue in his time! It is also noteworthy that he uses the solar, rather than the lunar year. What stands out is his statement that this needs to be kept a secret, yet he writes it down for dissemination]. Rabbi Kaplan completes Rav Yitzchak’s equation by doing the math. "Thus, according to Rav Yitzchak the universe would be 42,000 x 365,250 years old, this comes out to be 15,340,500,000 years, a highly significant figure. From calculations based on the expanding universe and the cosmological observations, modern science has concluded that the Big Bang occurred approximately 15 billion years ago. But here we see the same figure presented in a Torah source over seven hundred years ago!" (Immortality, Resurrection, and the Age Of The Universe: A Kabbalistic View- Aryeh Kaplan , Ktav Publ. 1993) {See this article for other cogent arguments presented by Rabbi Kaplan.}

The Medrash Braishis Rabba contains several statements that apply to our discussion:

Perek I sif 4. "Six things preceded the creation of the world. There were those that were created in deed and those created in thought." The Ran on Nedarim 39 states that the world was impossible without them.

Perek 3 sif 4 tells of a discussion between R’ Shimon Ben Yehotzedek and R’Shmuel Bar Nachman regarding the origin of the light created on the first day. R’Shmuel tells R’Shimon that he received the information "B’Lichisha" silently (i.e. in secret) and would pass it along the same way. It is not for public dissemination.

Perek 3 sif 7. Rebbe Yehuda says that the verse does not say "Yehi Erev" but "Va’Yehi Erev". The extra Vav telling us that there was a period of time prior to Creation. Therefore, Rebbe Abahu taught that He created worlds and destroyed them until He created this one.

Perek 3 sif 9 alludes to Hashem building worlds and destroying them

Perek 8 sif 2. is an interesting Drasha comparing merchants going to market, asking those who are returning what the market is like, to the days of creation, each new day asking the preceding day "What things has Hashem already created?". This works well for each day except the first. The Medrash asks ":And who did the first day inquire from?" Answers the Medrash, "From the Torah which preceded the world by 2,000 years." "A day of Hashem’s equals 1000 years." ( According to this Medrash one of our years is 365,250 years for Hashem. Multiplied by 2,000 we find that the the Torah preceded the world by 730,500,000 years.)

Perek 11 sif 2 is a very esoteric discussion of the first Shabbos and Hashem’s use of the original light in Gan Eden even though the Sun and moon had already been created. The Medrash then alludes to the fact that this light shone for 36 hours and it wasn’t until Motzei Shabbos that the darkness of night was known.

Perek 12 sif 3. The commentators say that this Medrash is referring to worlds which preceded this one.

-The Zohar talks about seven times that the Earth will be destroyed and recreated

-Rabbeinu Bachya to Bamidbar 10:35, as well as Vayikra 25:8, alludes to the series of cosmic Shmittos and Yovelos and vast amounts of time. He ends his discussion with the warning that these are matters that are best minimized and that we are not to dwell on them as being included in "that which is above and that which is below".

-The Kuzari (1;67) says clearly that a belief in prior worlds is not a defect in faith to the Ba’al Torah who needs to believe they existed! "V’im Mitztareich Ba’al Torah L’Ha’amin B’Hiyuli, B’Chomer Kadmon V’Olmos Rabbim Kodem HaOlam HaZeh Lo Haya B’Zeh P’gam B’Emunaso" {Hiyuli is a Greek work used by Chazal to define material which existed prior to the creation of this world.}. Both the Otzer Nechmad and the Kol Yehuda, commentators on the Kuzari, discuss this point at length. Neither raises any objection to the statement.

It is fascinating to note that scientists have found proof of six prior massive extinctions on Earth. Since the Zohar gives no clue as to the process of destruction and re-creation, we may be free to speculate that these extinctions are what the Zohar may mean. As in many other instances, it is remarkable that Chazal have come up with a number that science subsequently verifies. We continually ask "Why did they make the statement in the first place? What issue did it resolve? and secondly, "Where did Chazal get their information from?" These numbers go well beyond coincidence or lucky guesses.

-The Ari z’l (Rav Yitchak ben Shlomo Luria d.1572) speaks of long periods of time during the six days of creation. The MaHarShach (Rav Shmuel Saton HaCohain d.1719), on this Ari z’l says, " the nights were not as our nights, the days were not as our days, the years not as our years" and he further quotes the Pirush Yonasan (Braishis Perek 1 Pasuk 16) referring to great amounts of time during the first six days of creation.

-The Alshich (Rav Moshe Alshich M’Tzefas d.1573), amongst many others, comments on the possibility that there was a considerable period of time at the very beginning of Creation. (Braishis, Hakdama Bais)

-One of the earliest Seforim we have in our possession is Pirkei D’Reb Eliezer. In discussing the number of animals Noach took into the ark in Perek 23, Pirkei D’Reb Eliezer mentions that there were 32 species of birds and 365 species of insect. The Radal, Rabbi Dovid Luria, interprets this Medrash in Pirkei D’Reb Eliezer to mean that there were an original 365 species of animal and 365 species of birds which then needed to adapt to the environment as they spread across the globe. He states that this adaptation occurred as a result of differences in climate and food. Hashem showed Noach which of all the species were the originals. These were taken on the ark. After the flood the process repeated itself resulting in the thousands of species we see today. All animals today are derived from those original, basic species. [A very similar notion is presented by Leakey in The Sixth Extinction.( pg. 27) "All these thirty odd modern body plans trace their origin back to the Cambrian, back to that orgy of innovation that took place in the interval of 530 to 525 million years ago. If a potential phylum was absent in the Cambrian it was doomed to be absent for all time."] {See also above Part I #26}.

-We also find, in Pirkei D’Reb Eliezer, several other highly interesting points.

- He references seven things that were created prior to the creation of the world. (Perek 3).

- In Perek 5 we find that the Earth was featureless until Hashem commanded the waters to be gathered to one place. Hashem folded the Earth’s crust so the water could flow to the lowest spots. This not only provides us with dry land it also explains mountain ranges and plateaus and could well explain crustal upheaval and stress which in turn explains earthquakes and volcanic activity. If we are to understand "one spot" to be literal it may explain why scientists think that originally all the continents were joined into one super-continent they call Gondwanaland or Pangea which leads to plate tectonic theory, magnetic pole switches crustal upheaval and volcanic activity.

- Rav Tzvi Hirsh Chajes (d.1855) comments in his notes to Nidda 23a on the Talmud Yerushalmi Nidda 3b on the Gemora that mountains were not included in Creation but formed later. He finds that this may explain why we find remains of plants and animals in the depths of the Earth which are no longer found.

-See the Tiferes Yonasan by Rav Yonasan Eibshutz on the very first Pasuk in Braishis.

-See the Drush Ohr HaChaim in the Tiferes Yisroel (Rav Yisroel Lifshitz (d.1860) at the end of Nezikin Aleph in which he discusses these issues at length. There he quotes the Braishis Rabba, the Rabbeinu Bachya and the Ramban that the Earth has been created and destroyed seven times (although he indicates that we are in the fourth cycle). He also writes that Breishis begins with the very beginning and skips the prior worlds "as they make no difference to us at all". He claims that fossils and the geological record help substantiate what the commentators had long since proposed. Because of the stance he has taken on this one issue there are some groups which refuse to use any of his many works. Others have torn the offending pages out of his Sefer. It is worthwhile noting that he was not the first to note these things, only the most specific.

- Rav Eliyahu Dessler (d.1953) discusses these issues in Michtav Me’Eliyahu Vol.II p.151. He begins "The days referred to here relate to the period before the completion of creation, when the concept of time was different from that which applies now." He continues with a discussion of the Ramban’s commentary to Breishis 1:3.

-Even the inestimable Rashi on his comments to the first Pasuk of Braishis tells us that "The verses do not come to tell us the order of creation as if to say this came first.....(he then brings examples to back up his point) perforce the verses do not come to tell us the chronological sequence of events at all."

-Everyone agrees that the Jewish dating system begins with the Creation of man. The previous six days are not included in the count. Rav Shimon Schwab Zt’l writes a long dissertation attempting to show the possibility of massive events compressed to occur all within those six days.

Alternatively, seeing that the sun, by which man measures time, was not put in place until Creation Day four, one may view Creation "days" as occurring on Cosmic time which may, or may not, be synchronous with our measurements or our understanding. Even today, cosmologists theorize that there are places in the Universe where time does not exist (inside a black hole or anything moving at the speed of light) or where time moves at a different rate (the event horizon surrounding a black hole as well as any matter moving near the speed of light). "Up to the beginning of this century people believed in absolute time. However, the discovery that the speed of light appeared the same to every observer..... one had to abandon the idea that there was a unique absolute time. Instead each observer would have his own measure of time...... To someone high up, it would appear that everything down below was taking longer to happen." (Stephen Hawkings, A Brief History of Time pg. 143)

-Rabbi Menachen Kasher, in his magnificent opus "Torah Shleima", devotes several pages to a lengthy discussion (Braishis 1 sik katan 422) on the Medrash which states that the verse does not state "Yihi Erev" but "VaYihi Erev". R"Yehuda Bar Simone says this is to teach us that there was an order of time prior to creation. The first part of his discussion centers around the Rambam’s Moreh Nevuchim The Rambam devotes some space to the question of when time began and whether time existed prior to creation or was actually an integral part of the creation. Rabbi Kasher then proceeds to utilize a second set of proofs regarding the Medrash that the Torah preceded creation by 2,000 years. From there he enters into a survey of the views surrounding the 974 pre-Adamite generations and the Midrashim about the 7, or 10, things which were created beforehand. He cites several sources establishing the existence of periods of time between the creation of time and the creation of the heavens and the Earth. His last statement revolves around the Drush Orech Chaim of the Tiferes Yisroel synthesizing current scientific knowledge with the words of Chazal.

Rabbi Kasher proceeds, in the following Medrash, (simen 423) to discuss the idea of Hashem creating worlds and destroying them until He created this one. He starts with several P’sukim and then cites the relevant quotes from the Zohar followed by the argument between the Rambam and the Kuzari. The following paragraph is devoted to the view of several Mekubalim. One is of special interest. Sefer Ma’Areches HaShulchan authored by Rabbeinu Peretz, a Cohain of Barcelona, an early Rishon, writes that we are unsure of which Shmitta cycle we are in presently. He brings proofs as to why we are certainly not in the first.

-The book "Challenge" edited by Cyril Domb contains a whole section devoted to this question Several writers bring a variety of viewpoints attempting to synthesize current scientific knowledge with classical Jewish thinking

II- PREHISTORIC MAN

-The Gemorah speaks of 974 generations prior to Adam. (Shabbos 88b, Chagiga 14a, Zevachim 116a) The Machlokes there centers around whether these generations are to be understood allegorically, however, since at least one Amora is of the opinion that these generations actually lived we can rely on that Amora. Seforim point out that the Gematria of the word Braishis is 974.

-Rabbeinu Bachya, the Tzioni and Recanati all make reference to pre-Adamite generations on the Pasuk Vayikra 25:8. The Sefer HaChinuch speaks about them as well.

-The Rambam, in Moreh Nevuchim says that any scientific statement made by Chazal is not necessarily Torah. Their statements may only reflect the scientific knowledge current in their day. (Chelek Shlishi Perek 14 at the very end). This is a fascinating position for the Rambam to take. Certainly, most frum people today would be very uncomfortable with this little known position and without the Rambam’s imprimatur it would smack of heresy.

-Rav Shamshon Refoel Hirsch (d.1889) dealt with this issue as well when evolutionary theory was first gaining credence in Europe. In "Collected Writings" Vol.7 pg.263, Rav Hirsch recognizes that the theory is no more than a "vague hypothesis still unsupported by fact". He goes further to postulate that even if the theory would somehow be proven correct, the Orthodox Jew would "give even greater reverence than ever to the one, sole God Who, in His boundless creative wisdom and eternal omnipotence, needed to bring into existence no more than one single, amorphous nucleus and one single law of ‘adaptation and heredity’ in order to bring forth, from what seemed chaos but was a very definite order.....". He concludes that the concept of L’Meeno (according to their species) can even accommodate this theory of the origin of life.

We have quoted Tannain, Amoraim, Rishonim and Achronim. We have quoted Midrashim, Gemora, mainstream commentators and great Mekuballim. This overview of the literature should bring us to the conclusion that both early Chazal and Gedolim of later generations have seen fit to record opinions which are in direct contrast to that of Emuna Pshuta. The first several chapters of Breishis are Sodei Sodos. To be able to plumb the depths of wisdom hidden behind a cosmic veil of secrecy is left to the brilliance of the Mekubalim .The issue, for us, is of import only on the level of a person’s Hashkafa. There are no direct consequences or ramifications in one’s faith or practice. Hashem, by definition, has no constraints. He can have chosen to create the world in an instant, in a week or in 15 billion years. For Hashem, who is above time, it is all one and the same. He may also have chosen to tell us about it in the most esoteric terms to be understood by only the few who spend their lives delving into His mysteries. For those whose Emuna is strong enough, Emuna Pshuta will suffice. Others may need explanations which do not clash so jarringly against their upbringing, education and Weltanschauung . For them we say Yaish Al Mi Lismoch, they may climb on the shoulders of giants. Ailu V’Ailu Divrei Elokim Chaim, one stance is not a total contradiction to the other. Both may abide side by side. Ultimately, of necessity, since there can be only one truth to be revealed by Eliyahu HaNavi, Zachur L’Tov, it is probable that the process of science and the classical thinking of normative Judaism coming to the same conclusions will continue apace. One hundred years ago they were worlds apart. Fifty years ago the media declared G-d dead. Today, science is discovering things we have known to be true all along.

Other sources:

- Chagiga 12. re: first moments

- Brachos 32: re: configuration

- MaHaRal in Gur Aryeh Parshas Bo beginning "K’derech She’ain Machmitzin" re: time

- Chagiga 11b "incumbent to inquire from the end of the heavens to the end of the heavens"

- Shabbos 78a on the obligation to study astronomy

First Perek of Avoda Zara on 18,000 worlds

back to the recent complex creation part 3