sign in sign up
<<
Home , Anthropic principle

Nature&Science : Why Has It Become a Battleground Between Science and Religion? By Nathan Aviezer

wo of the leading proponents of reasons that are explained in every biol- 1. What logic is there to the intelligent design (ID) are the ogy textbook.1 In fact, Darwin himself December 20, 2005 ruling of the Tmathematician and asserted in his famous book, The Origin United States Federal Court in Professor William Dembski, at the of Species, that if abrupt changes had Pennsylvania? This ruling banned the Southern Seminary in Louisville, ever occurred in a species “that fact teaching of ID, and decreed that Kentucky, and the biochemist Professor would be fatal to the theory of evolu- Darwin’s theory of is the only Michael Behe, at Lehigh University in tion through .”2 Since explanation of the animal kingdom that Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Both scien- the proponents of ID can point to may be taught in the science classroom. tists, who are religious Christians (the many examples of abrupt changes in Why? Isn’t a major goal of science edu- relevance of this fact will become clear species, it follows, in accordance with cation to teach the student to keep an presently), point to various features of Darwin’s own words, that the theory of open mind and consider various alterna- animals that, so they claim, are too evolution fails to account for the devel- tive approaches to explain the physical complex to have come about through opment of the animal kingdom. This, and biological data? If so, what impelled gradual evolution (“irreducible complex- in a nutshell, is the argument of ID. the Federal Court to forbid teaching ID ity”). They therefore claim that these In fact, many of Professor Behe’s in the classroom as a possible alternative animals must be the product of an examples of abrupt changes in species to Darwin’s theory? “” who produced have subsequently been challenged by 2. Don’t religious people believe these sudden changes. Sudden changes other scientists. These scientists claim that God created (and therefore in a species are incompatible with that the indicated features can be designed) the world, including the ani- Darwin’s theory of gradual evolution for explained on the basis of gradual change, mal kingdom? Isn’t this precisely the and therefore, these features are not a claim of ID? Therefore, doesn’t it follow Professor Aviezer is a professor of physics at challenge to Darwin’s theory.3 that all Torah-observing Jews automati- Bar-Ilan University and a fellow of the cally accept ID as a tenet of their reli- American Physical Society. He has written QUESTIONS gious belief? books on Torah and science including In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and We begin our discussion of ID by 3. Why is the entire scientific Science (New Jersey, 1990) and Fossils posing the three questions, seemingly community so adamantly opposed to and Faith: Understanding Torah and quite compelling, that proponents of ID ID? Some of the most ardent Science (New Jersey 2002). often ask their opponents. Darwinists have called attention to the

12 JEWISH ACTION Fall 5767/2006 difficulties that have arisen in recent ation of the . The universally non. He or she recognizes that the years in trying to accommodate the cur- accepted “standard theory of cosmolo- acceptance of the existence of miracles is rent fossil evidence with the concept of gy,” known as the theory, based on religious belief. This belief is gradual evolution.4 Therefore, there asserts that the universe had a begin- not science, and it can never be verified. seems to be at least a reasonable chance ning, which cosmologists commonly This leads to the first question that ID may be the correct answer. Isn’t refer to as the “creation.”5 For example, posed above, namely, why did the it the fundamental task of science to Nobel laureate Paul Dirac writes: “It Federal Court ban the teaching of ID in seek the truth wherever it may be seems certain that there was a definite the classroom? The answer is clear. ID found? Perhaps the strident opposition time of creation.”6 Dirac could make invokes a supernatural cause (“intelli- to ID on the part of non-religious scien- this assertion and still remain a card-car- gent designer”) to explain the animal tists derives from a hidden agenda, and rying atheist. However, the believing kingdom. ID may or may not be true, these scientists are not approaching this Jew will see in Dirac’s scientific state- but that is not the point. The point is question with the appropriate level of ment a striking confirmation of the that ID is not science, but rather, a reli- objectivity. opening verse of the Torah: “In the gious tenet. The Court has no interest Answering these questions will be beginning, God created the heavens and at all in the true origin of the animal the main focus of this article. We will the .” This difference of opinion kingdom. But the Court cares very also discuss why ID produces a deep between the believer and Dirac has much about the teaching of religion in uneasiness among many believers in nothing to do with science, but rather it the science classroom, and hence its Torah hashkafah. Indeed, we shall see relates to faith. unequivocal ruling against ID. that there is a striking similarity The second assumption of science between ID and the ideas that underlie is no less important. There is no a priori MIRACLES AND THE TORAH idolatry. Therefore, it should not be sur- reason why there should be regularity to The Torah completely confirms prising to learn that religious scientists nature. found the exis- the assumption of science that there is can be found in the forefront of the tence of laws of nature to be quite sur- regularity to nature and that the physi- opposition to ID. Finally, a suggestion prising, and wrote in an essay in 1936: cal universe operates according to fixed will be presented regarding how the reli- “The most incomprehensible feature of laws: olam keminhago noheg.9 Indeed, it gious high school science teacher might the universe is that it is comprehensi- is forbidden to depend on an overt mir- affect a synthesis between Torah and sci- ble.”7 Does the regularity of nature acle for supplying one’s needs or for ence regarding the formation of the ani- imply that miracles do not occur? If so, solving one’s problems: ain somchin al mal kingdom. it could pose a serious problem, because hanes.10 Similarly, praying to God for Rambam has emphasized that one who the occurrence of a supernatural event is SCIENCE does not believe in the occurrence of denounced in the Gemara as a tefillat Science is the enterprise that miracles is a heretic.8 How does a reli- shav (useless prayer) and is strictly for- attempts to explain the functioning of gious scientist accommodate science’s bidden.11 the physical and the biological world on assumed regularity of the universe with All of this, however, should not be the basis of the laws of nature, without Rambam’s dictum about the existence of interpreted as implying that God does invoking supernatural causes. Science is miracles? not interact with the physical world. based on two fundamental assumptions. The answer is that science does This is certainly not the case, as 1. The universe (that is, matter and not assume that miracles do not occur. Rambam has emphasized. Otherwise, energy) exists, and science does not have Rather, it assumes that the universe usu- our prayers for Divine help would have to explain what caused it to exist. ally operates through the laws of nature, no meaning. Thus, the key question is 2. There is regularity to the universe so often in fact that one may entirely not whether, but how God influences (the laws of nature), and science does ignore the miraculous in seeking expla- events. not have to explain the origin of this nations for physical phenomena. Thus, The Gemara answers this by say- regularity. The laws of nature are few in my atheist colleague will claim (and that ing that Divine providence is bestowed number—the scientist is not entitled to is all that it is—a claim) that miracles in a manner that is “hidden from the propose a new law of nature whenever never occur, whereas I will claim (based eye” (samooe min ha’ayin).12 In other he encounters difficulty in explaining on my religious beliefs) that miracles do words, the framework in which God some physical phenomenon. occur, at the will of the Almighty, but interacts with the physical world is These seemingly “obvious” their occurrence is so rare that miracles within the laws of nature. God’s inter- assumptions are really quite profound, do not intrude into my scientific vention rarely involves overtly supernat- with very important implications. The research. Thus, the religious scientist ural events. Miracles occur every day, first assumption eliminates, for the sci- never invokes the supernatural as the man’s needs are provided, prob- entist, all conclusions based on the cre- explanation of any physical phenome- lems are solved—but it is all “hidden

Fall 5767/2006 JEWISH ACTION 13 from the eye.” earth itself not fall? The obvious answer human being. It must therefore be a This brings us to the second ques- to the Greeks was that the earth does Divine agency (“intelligent designer” in tion posed above—must the religious not fall because some entity is holding it today’s terminology). We have thus person accept ID because he or she up. Moreover, the entity must be Divine proved the existence of God. believes that God created the world and because no human being is strong The bubble burst in the seven- everything within it? The answer is “no” enough to hold up the earth. Therefore, teenth century, when Isaac Newton for- because, as we have seen, God’s creative the Greeks thought that there must be a mulated his famous three laws of activities are usually carried out within god, whom they named Atlas, who held motion in The Principia, the most the framework of His own laws of up the earth (depicted below at his important book of science ever written. nature. Torah hashkafah does not view task). The Greeks understood that one Newton’s first law of motion (the law of the laws of nature as a non-religious, cannot ask, “Why does Atlas not fall?” inertia) states, in complete contrast to materialistic explanation for the func- As a god, Atlas was not bound by laws; Aristotle, that a moving body will con- tioning of the universe. Quite the con- he may remain suspended at will. tinue to move forever unless some force trary. The laws of nature were estab- causes the object to stop moving. In the lished in the universe by God Himself THE MIDDLE AGES examples given before, the force that and form an important expression of Proposed proofs for the existence causes the furniture or the ball to stop His faithfulness to mankind. The first of a supernatural entity were not con- moving is the force of friction. However, chapter of Bereishit teaches us that the fined to the ancient Greeks and if friction were not present the motion Creation was not the result of capricious Romans. Attempts to prove the exis- would persist forever. In the heavens, battles between warring deities, as stated tence of God persisted well into the there is no friction. Therefore, according in the Babylonian and Greek creation Middle Ages and even beyond. to Newton’s law of inertia, heavenly stories. Rather, the Creation followed Consider one of the most famous proofs bodies will continue to move forever the universal rules laid down by God. of all—the “prime mover argument.” without any agency being required to We all experience in our daily lives the keep them moving. HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS FOR ID truism asserted by Aristotle: “There is To complete the picture, Newton’s ID is not a new concept. no motion without a mover.” When I law of inertia predicts straight-line Throughout history, people observed rearrange the living room furniture motion, whereas the move phenomena of nature that seemed com- under the close supervision of my wife, around the sun in an ellipse. This was pletely inexplicable, and they postulated I am painfully aware of the fact that the explained by Newton as resulting from supernatural beings (analogous to couch will not budge even one inch the gravitational attraction between the today’s “intelligent designers”) to explain unless I push it, and the instant that I sun and the planets. The famous ellipti- these phenomena. Raging seas, towering stop pushing, the couch ceases its cal of the planets, discovered by , daily tides, terrifying hurri- motion. If I throw a ball, its motion will Johannes Kepler in 1609, have therefore canes—all these seemed to have no pos- persist momentarily even after it leaves been completely explained by the laws sible explanation other than the activi- my hand because I have imparted some of nature, without the need to invoke ties of the god of the seas. The dazzling “impetus” to the ball. According to the supernatural causes. The “prime mover sun, whose brilliance provides the light, widely accepted “impetus theory,” the proof” for the existence of God is thus heat and energy that makes life on earth ball will continue to move until it refuted. possible, seemed to have no plausible uses up all its acquired impe- This famous explanation other than the sun god. The tus. Then, the ball will “proof” for the exis- list goes on and on, and accounts for come to rest because tence of God was the vast pantheon of gods that charac- “there is no motion based on lack of terized the ancient world. without a mover.” knowledge of The ancients asked sophisticated Let us now turn physics. It is an questions about the world in which they our attention to the example of what lived. If their questions seem primitive heavens, where one is known as the today, it is only in the hindsight of observes the ceaseless “God of the modern science. Consider the following motion of the heaven- gaps.” When example: My grandson is playing with ly bodies—night after some physical phe- his ball. Already at the age of four, he night, year after year, nomenon seems knows that if he lets go of his ball, it century after century. completely inex- will fall. Everyone knows that an object What causes the per- plicable, one says, falls unless held up by some entity. petual heavenly “Aha! It must be The ancients asked: Why does the motion? Certainly no God Who is

14 JEWISH ACTION Fall 5767/2006 causing this phenomenon.” The prob- at all costs. And ID has been chosen as to permit the existence and promote the lem with this approach is that the “com- the weapon with which to launch the welfare of human beings. Many scien- pletely inexplicable” phenomenon attack. tists have commented on these findings, (“gap” in our knowledge) invariably For the scientist, the most unset- and they have given this discovery a receives an explanation as science pro- tling feature of ID is its frontal attack name—the anthropic . A gresses. As each “gap” in scientific on science. Because science does not, at detailed discussion of what is meant by knowledge closes, God is forced to this moment, understand some particu- the , and its impor- retreat to the next “completely inexpli- lar phenomenon, the proponents of ID tant implications for the believing Jew, cable” phenomenon. “God of the gaps” propose to entirely abandon the search was the subject of a previous article in arguments thus place God in continual for a scientific explanation (that is, Jewish Action.13 retreat before the relentless advance of within the laws of nature) and to seek a The point to be emphasized is the science. Surely, this is not the path to supernatural explanation instead. One crucial difference between the anthropic take in our approach to the Almighty. would have thought that something principle and ID. Unlike ID, the would have been learned from past anthropic principle operates within the THE SITUATION TODAY experience. It has been shown again and framework of science. In other words, An old “proof” for the existence of again that physical phenomena that are the anthropic principle does not claim God has now appeared on the scene in not understood at the moment do that science is insufficient to explain the the new garb of ID. Let no one have become understood subsequently within physical universe. For this reason, the any doubts about the identity of the the context of science. Science has an anthropic principle is accepted by, and “intelligent designer”; it is God. excellent track record and is not to be indeed was formulated by, mainstream Therefore, it is not surprising that all abandoned lightly. scientists. The brief discussion to be pre- proponents of ID are religious people, This leads us to the third question sented here is just the tip of the iceberg who see in ID a proof for the existence posed above, namely, why is the entire regarding what might be taught to the of God. The popularity of ID has been scientific community so adamantly religious high school student, without nothing short of phenomenal. Public opposed to ID? This is because scientists abandoning science and without com- lectures, conferences, debates, numerous see ID as a rejection of science and a promising Torah values. articles and entire books have been return to the ancient world of spirits, Professor Freeman Dyson, of the devoted to this subject. The interest in deities and other supernatural beings Institute of Advanced Studies in proving the existence of God does not that were previously proposed to explain Princeton (where Albert Einstein was a seem to have abated since the Middle physical phenomena. The entire enter- professor for many years), writes: “As we Ages. The modern packaging is, of prise of science is based on the assump- look out into the universe and identify course, very different from that of tion that the laws of nature, and not the many peculiarities of physics and medieval scholasticism, but the motiva- supernatural entities, are the true expla- astronomy that have worked together tion remains unchanged. If the validity nation for the physical phenomena that for our benefit, it almost seems as if the of one’s faith can be proved, then belief we observe. If scientists don’t under- universe must in some sense have known will be enhanced and doubts will be stand something at the moment, they that we were coming” (emphasis mine).14 removed. There seems to be a religious think harder. They don’t throw up their Sir , Royal Society agenda motivating the proponents of hands and give up the search. research professor at the University of ID. Cambridge and holder of the title The existence of such an agenda is IN THE JEWISH CLASSROOM astronomer royal (Britain’s most distin- supported by the fact that ID has been The final subject to be discussed is guished honor in astronomy), discusses restricted to the subject of biological what might be taught regarding the in his 1999 book, Just Six Numbers, six evolution. Why? There are surely physi- “creation of man” in the science class- physical parameters, which, if any of cal phenomena that are even more enig- room of the Jewish high schools. If, as these six parameters had even a slightly matic than evolution in the fields of emphasized previously, ID is not the different value, would produce a uni- physics (quantum reality), answer, then how should the religious verse in which life could not exist. For ( and ) and science teacher deal with this subject? example, one of these physical parame- astronomy (gamma-ray bursts). Yet, in There is a wealth of recent scien- ters is the ratio of the gravitational spite of the many current scientific enig- tific data that suggests a point of view attraction to the electrostatic repulsion mas, no one has suggested ID as their that is completely compatible with both between each pair of . In his explanation. There is something about modern science and Torah hashkafah. introduction, Rees writes (p. 4): “Our evolution, and in particular, human Within the last few decades, scientists universe is governed by just six numbers evolution, that seems to pose a threat to have discovered that the universe … if any one of them were to be only religion, and therefore it must be fought appears as if it were specifically designed slightly altered, there could be no life”

Fall 5767/2006 JEWISH ACTION 15 (emphasis mine). once. Professor Francis Crick, who This can be compared to a king of received the Nobel Prize for discovering flesh-and-blood the structure of DNA (the famous dou- who built a palace and furnished it ble helix), writes: “The origin of life and prepared a meal— appears to be almost a miracle, so many and then, he brought in his guests are the conditions which would have (Sanhedrin 38a). JA had to be satisfied to get it going” (emphasis mine).15 Professor Harold Klein, chairman Notes of the United States National Academy 1. See, for example, Eldra of Sciences committee that reviewed ori- Solomon et al., Biology, 5th ed. (New gin-of-life research, writes: “The sim- York, 2003), 442-443. plest bacterium is so damn complicated 2. 1859; Mentor reprint edition that it is almost impossible to imagine (New York, 1963), 305. how it happened” (emphasis mine).16 3. See, for example, H. Allen Orr, It is surely not difficult to inter- Boston Review 21:6 (December 1996): pret these scientific findings as signs that 28-31. Evolutionary biologist Professor the Almighty, according to His will, Orr summarizes his detailed critique of orchestrated the formation of the uni- Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box with the verse in the very special way that was following words: “Behe’s attack on evo- required to permit the existence of liv- ing creatures, as expressed in the first lution is cleverly argued—and wrong!” chapter of sefer Bereishit. 4. , The Panda’s The above quotes, and many Thumb (New York, 1983), 151. more that could be added, deal with life 5. For a non-technical account of in general. What can be said specifically the Big Bang theory, see Nathan about human life? Are there any indica- Aviezer, In the Beginning (New Jersey, tions from the scientific data that the 1990), chap. 1. appearance of human beings on our 6. Commentarii 2:11 (1972): 15. involved very special events— 7. Quoted by Max Jammer, events that could reasonably be attrib- Einstein and Religion (Princeton, 1999), uted to the Almighty? The answer is a 42. resounding “yes!” Professor Stephen Jay 8. The Guide for the Perplexed Gould of Harvard University (a recog- nized authority in the field of evolu- 2:25. tion), writes: “We [human beings] are 9. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Laws an improbable and fragile entity … the of Kings 12:1. result of a staggeringly improbable series of 10. For a listing of Talmudic events, utterly unpredictable and quite sources for this principle, see eds., Meir unrepeatable” (emphasis mine).17 Berlin and Shlomo Yoseph Zevin, To what does Professor Gould Talmudic Encyclopedia 1, pp. 679-680. attribute this “staggeringly improbable 11. Berachot 54a. series of events” (which he describes in 12. Bava Metzia 29b. detail in his book) that made human 13. Nathan Aviezer, “The existence possible? Gould concludes that Anthropic Principle” (spring 1999): 9- it was all just “luck!” This is, of course, 15. the only possible conclusion of an athe- istic scientist. But, as religious Jews, we 14. Scientific American (September can reasonably come to quite a different 1971): 59. conclusion. 15. Ibid. (February 1991): 109. Man was created on the eve of the 16. Ibid. (February 1991): 104. Sabbath—and why? 17. Wonderful Life (New York, So that he could begin his meal at 1989), 14.

16 JEWISH ACTION Fall 5767/2006