Posted on 02/23/2006 5:26:21 PM PST by gobucks
A sophisticated debate about Darwinian evolution is going on at the topmost levels of the Catholic Church. In the Jewish community, however, the discussion remains mostly primitive and ill informed. Surely this embarrassing state of affairs can be corrected, and I have a suggestion.
In a nutshell, the debate is over whether evolution was guided or not. Intelligent Design, or ID, asks if a purely material and unguided mechanism like Darwin’s can explain the course of life’s history, including things like the micro-machinery in every cell and the sudden infusion of genetic information in the Earth’s ancient seas 530 million years ago, the famous Cambrian explosion.
Pope Benedict XVI has spoken pointedly of the “intelligent plan” guiding the cosmos, a nod to Intelligent Design. Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, writing in The New York Times, went further in defining the ways that Darwinism conflicts with a religious worldview. Recently in the official Vatican newspaper, a professor of evolutionary biology fired back that ID “creates confusion between the scientific plane and those that are philosophical or religious.”
In the Jewish community, with a few notable exceptions, no comparable debate is going on. Too many Jews want to be on what they consider the prestige side of the controversy but neglect to look beyond the misleading headlines.
Orthodox Rabbi Eliyahu Stern of the Park East Synagogue in Manhattan has singled himself out as a harsh critic of those who challenge Darwin. We both write for Beliefnet, where Rabbi Stern dismissed Cardinal Schonborn and ID scientists as if they were all backwoods fundamentalists, with their “zeal to make the literal biblical story into a dogma for America.”
In reality, ID theorists would hardly deny that the forms which complex life takes have changed or evolved over hundreds of millions of years. Rather, ID points to positive evidence of a designer’s guiding hand in that long history. More than 475 scientists, at places like Yale, MIT, Rice and the Smithsonian Institution, have affirmed in a signed statement that they doubt the power of Darwin’s selection/mutation mechanism to produce the splendor of life all around us. The Discovery Institute, where I work and which has led the ID movement, compiled the list of Darwin doubters. This is far from biblical literalism.
So why should you care? Because Darwinism, if accepted, makes any meaningful Judaism intellectually untenable.
Many Darwinists know well what is at stake. Their leading biologist, Richard Dawkins of Oxford, forthrightly states that religious “faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.”
Darwin himself appreciated that there was no common ground between his materialistic view and the older understanding that an immaterial designer oversees all that exists. In “The Origin of Species,” Darwin’s working premise is that God has no role in the history of life.
By contrast, in the Friday-night kiddush, a Jew gives witness to the evidence of a transcendent designer, speaking of “all His work which God created to make.” By custom, we stand for this kiddush because it is considered a form of testimony, and in a Jewish court the witness stands. An honest Darwinist should not say kiddush.
In “The Descent of Man” (1871), Darwin spells out the moral implications of his theory, notably that unguided evolution produced the moral laws as much as it did the plants and animals. Such laws could have turned out differently, as the animals could have turned out differently had chance variations led life’s history down a different path.
So there is nothing absolute about our ideas of right and wrong. Wrote Darwin, “We may, therefore, reject the belief … that the abhorrence of incest is due to our possessing a special God-implanted conscience.” If ethics has no such secure foundation, there can be nothing sacred about doing the right thing.
ID may have implications about what is sacred, but is it science? Ask the arch-rationalist Maimonides, who fought a similar fight 800 years ago. Some philosophers claimed they could prove that the universe is eternal and thus had no beginning. Maimonides said this made nonsense of biblical faith, which presupposes a beginning and a designer. Rambam showed that the “proofs” of an eternal universe fell woefully short.
He was right. In 1965 the Bell lab scientists Penzias and Wilson showed how the detection of cosmic background radiation, left over from the Big Bang, proved the universe was finite and had a definite beginning.
In his “Guide of the Perplexed,” Maimonides wrote that combating the Darwinism equivalent of his day was the highest calling of a Jew: “The utmost power of one who adheres to the Torah and who has acquired knowledge of true reality consists … in his refuting the proofs of the philosophers bearing on the eternity of the world.”
Alas, our community remains as a perplexed as ever. What’s needed is more and better-informed debate, particularly among those who take Rambam’s directive to heart, casting illumination on a crucial issue. n
David Klinghoffer (www.davidklinghoffer.com) is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle and the author most recently of “Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History” (Doubleday).
An honest Darwinist should not say kiddush.
a neat juxtaposition for you ...
"A sophisticated debate about Darwinian evolution is going on at the topmost levels of the Catholic Church."
Got to be kidding me...is this the same CAtholic Church that ruled recently that they were wrong about limbo. Looks like all that "sophisticated debate" didn't provide many answers there!
Could I get a copy of that list of discoveries the Discovery Institute has made? Anybody?
Well, no, unless I missed it the Catholic Church has not yet ruled on Limbo.
The idea of worshiping a God so incompetent that he has to keep nudging his creation to get it to perform up to specs is preposterous.
It makes him sound as incompetent as a pool player who has to hustle around the table nudging the ball to make a triple bank shot.
So9
I stand corrected....they hope to rule on the same any time soon (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-ed-limbo13feb13,0,2215882.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california)
I would welcome the Jews into this debate.
Could I get a copy of that list of discoveries the Discovery Institute has made? Anybody?
"Could I get a copy of that list of discoveries the Discovery Institute has made? Anybody?"
They have discovered that an enormous number of scientists practice their craft so badly they should be sued for malpractice, at best, but better, quackery.
So, D.I. has discovered that the reason scientists are so bad at teaching science is that it is actually NOT science, but instead of form of evangelism. Thus, Secular Darwinian Scientists are merely priests for the philosophy known as scientific materialism, and they are adroitly deceptive about the fact they are preachers first, seekers of 'knowledge' second.
If I were a secular scientist, I would appreciate very much the encouragement, the goad, provided by those heretics who are mal-appropriating MY word "science" for their nefarious ends (hurting my cash-cow grant machine, for example). Such prodding will only shorten that length of time by which evolutionary scientists will finally be able to show the crazy creationists just how air tight the T.o.E is .... really.
That's one view. Mine differs: I find in Scripture that God intervenes in history because He loves us -- not because He forgot to put the right English on us.
"So why should you care? Because Darwinism, if accepted, makes any meaningful Judaism intellectually untenable."
Oh BS. This is supposedly a new realization? Where was this guy and this objection for the past 100 years?
Obviously you haven't played for $5 a ball, or $1 a ball, even.
The media always tries to make mischief for the Church on these issues. I have no idea what Pope Benedict will actually decide.
Off the top of my head, I don't think it was a burning issue. Why not just leave it alone? There are plenty of more urgent concerns at the moment.
Evolution is directed just like weather is directed. If you believe it, you believe it. If you don't, you don't. There's no objective evidence one way or another.
Well, maybe sophisticated is the wrong word. But surely you would not deny the Jews their shot at understanding. After all, Jesus started his logic from the Jewish postulates.
Well, maybe sophisticated is the wrong word. But surely you would not deny the Jews their shot at understanding. After all, Jesus started his logic from the Jewish postulates.
And they discovered this by their original science which has been peer reviewed and published where? Anywhere?
Now you'll claim a big conspiracy theory prevented the publication. Right.
They have discovered that an enormous number of scientists practice their craft so badly they should be sued for malpractice, at best, but better, quackery.
So, D.I. has discovered that the reason scientists are so bad at teaching science is that it is actually NOT science, but instead of form of evangelism. Thus, Secular Darwinian Scientists are merely priests for the philosophy known as scientific materialism, and they are adroitly deceptive about the fact they are preachers first, seekers of 'knowledge' second.
If I were a secular scientist, I would appreciate very much the encouragement, the goad, provided by those heretics who are mal-appropriating MY word "science" for their nefarious ends (hurting my cash-cow grant machine, for example). Such prodding will only shorten that length of time by which evolutionary scientists will finally be able to show the crazy creationists just how air tight the T.o.E is .... really.
I simply do not understand posts like this.
Why are you so bitterly anti-science?
Is it for religious reasons, that you just don't like the answers science finds, or is there some deep-seated personal animosity?
Most of the folks on FR who disagree with evolution at least provide reasons for their beliefs, but you seem to be genuinely anti-science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.