Against Stephen J. Gould

A debate has been raging for several years now. This discussion involves the idea of science versus the Bible, which one is right? Is science, with the idea that the world is billions of years old and that man had the same ancestors as monkeys right, or is the Bible, with the idea that man was created by G-d and the world is only 6,000 years old, right? First, before this topic is dealt with, the question must be asked, do these two ideas, in fact, contradict one another? Surely, only someone with enough understanding of both sides can even entertain the thought of trying to answer this complicated question. The author, Stephen Jay Gould, believed that he could understand and answer this question. He believed he could tell the world the ideas behind both sides, but could he succeed by properly representing both sides of this argument?

Until recently, Stephen Jay Gould, some would say, was one of the most brilliant people out there. His books were sold in the millions and several people revered him for his academia. He won several awards for his books including the National Book Award and the National Book Critics Award. As a professor at Harvard, he increased his popularity tenfold with a more select crowd. All of these details show us how knowledgeable and revered Dr. Gould was before his passing. Even with all of this acclaim, the question still arises, was he the right person to solve this debate of the Bible versus science?

In Stephen Jay Gould’s essay “Genesis and Geology” he starts off by appearing to represent two sides of this classic debate. Gould brings in W. E. Gladstone, a Greek scholar and a former prime minister, to represent the Bible’s point of view and uses Thomas Henry Huxley, an adamant agnostic, to represent the view of science. Within this argument Gladstone explains that the Bible's order of creation can in fact be the same as science’s order of creation. For example, Gladstone does not argue that the Bible is saying that the world was created in six days, but rather explains that the six days mentioned in Genesis are really a longer period of time. He is quoted in “Bully for Brontosaurus” as saying, “The ‘days’ of creation are metaphors for periods of undetermined length separating the major acts of coherent sequences (404).” This shows how Gladstone’s argument is trying to explain the Bible’s point of view in conjunction with science’s point of view that the world is really much older than 6,000 years.

Thomas Huxley did not appreciate this at all. Gould states a counterargument that Huxley made, “First, while the broadest brush of the Genesis sequence might be correct—plants first and people last—many of the details are wrong by the testimony of geological evidence from the fossil record (404).” Huxley is coming to tell us that even though you can make the general ideas of the Bible congruent with scientific ideas, you will still be unable to make the whole Bible agree to scientific ideas. This was the main debate between Huxley and Gladstone.

In “Bully for Brontosaurus” this debate between Gladstone and Huxley is not seen as an argument where both sides, Bible and science, are given equal credibility as Gould would first have you believe. Gould tries to make the reader think that he is going to represent two sides of a debate, but in truth the reader only ends up hearing how wrong the Bible was in its explanation of creation. Gould even says about Gladstone’s argument, “But Gladstone came to grief on his major claim—the veracity of the Genesis sequence…So he took refuge in the oldest ploy of debate. He made an end run around his disproved argument and changed terms of discussion (410).” By telling us this fact Gould is showing us how he picked a debate where the person’s explanation of the Bible’s point of view was inaccurate. How then could Gould have given both points of view, scientific and Biblical, if the person representing the Bible’s point of view was not in fact the view of the Bible? Why wouldn’t Gould have chosen a different representative of the Bible’s point of view that is clear and accurate? This leads one to believe that Gould was not trying to represent both sides of the argument, but rather only one side, agnostic.

Gould also presents Huxley, the representative of science’s point of view, in a highly favorable light. He explicitly puts down anyone who believes in the Bible’s way of creation while giving Huxley credibility. He states “It doesn’t matter a damn because Huxley was right…Gladstone and most modern purveyors of his argument have missed the essence of the kind of MYTH(I am emphasizing) that Genesis 1 represents(412).” Gould is very haughty here and he does not care for both sides of this argument as he had you believe in the beginning of this essay. In the beginning of this essay Gould gives off the impression that he will represent both sides fairly, but we see he is not trying to do that in the end.

Keeping in mind that Gould himself was an Atheist, it comes as no shock that he is trying to show the Bible in a negative light. Gould explicitly shows us how he does not believe in the truth of the Bible by saying, “Would such a correspondence mean that G-d dictated the Torah word for word, of course not (415).” This is clearly an attack on anyone who holds that the Bible is from G-d. All of the people who explain how the Bible’s explanation of creation can coexist with science’s explanation of creation believe that G-d wrote the Bible, or else they would not feel a need to reconcile these two points of view. By stating that the Bible is not from G-d, Gould is showing that he is not trying to reconcile the ideas brought in Genesis and science, but rather he is trying to verify one idea, that the bible is false.

This essay of Genesis vs. Geology definitely does not portray both sides of the debate the author is bringing. It is clearly one sided. In no way does Stephen Jay Gould even entertain the thought of the Bible’s ideas even remotely coexisting with science’s ideas. If Stephen Jay Gould would have brought other arguments, like discussions among his contemporary counterparts that clearly believe in the Bible’s veracity and prove it in their own essays through scientific ideas, then I would say he is trying to show the two sides of this discussion. Sadly, Gould did not try to represent both sides and leaves his readers with only one side of this debate.

As a person that believes in the veracity of the bible I can say that reading this essay has opened my eyes in some ways. First, the only way to have real understanding of this debate is to hear both sides from two people who are on opposite sides of this debate, not just one atheist. The reader needs to hear the Bible’s aspect from a person knowledgeable in the Bible’s reasoning, and hear the scientific approach from a scientist that is knowledgeable in the scientific approach. However, someone who is not familiar to this debate and perceives both sides from only one aspect will not truly understand the debate. I believe that there should be a counterargument written against Stephen Jay Gould’s argument and it should explain the truth behind the Bible’s point of view.

Adam and Eve- What can we learn

Who were Adam and Eve? They were the first human beings to have the breath of G-D blown into them. However, does that mean that they were created as humans originally or is it possible that evolution occurred and once monkey like creatures evolved into man, then G-D blew life into that creature? Either way man exists, but his origin still remains vague and unclear. The bible describes the creation of the world, but it is so cryptic that it is really impossible to understand its true meaning. Even stranger, there are opinions in Judaism, such as the Rambam, that hold that Adam and Eve are allegorical.

The question to ask here is does it really matter what we think Adam was or is the importance the lessons we can learn from his story. Actually, this is a question one can ask throughout all of history, does it matter what Abraham Lincoln looked like or does it just matter what he did? Was Julius Cesar a tyrant or a great leader? These are all questions that are, in essence, irrelevant since we can never know the truth for certain, but we can definitely learn lessons from his life.

Now that we understand that the Adam story is allegorical and what should be learned is the lesson so what is the lesson? The Rambam in his famous book The Guide for the Perplexed says, "In the history of the first sin of man, Adam, Eve, and the serpent represent the intellect, the body, and the imagination. In order to complete the imagery, Samael or Satan, mentioned in the Midrash in connection with this account, is added as representing man's appetitive faculties. Imagination, the source of error, is directly aided by the appetitive faculty, and the two are intimately connected with the body, so which man generally gives paramount attention, and for the sake of which he indulges in sins; in the end, however, they subdue the intellect and weaken its power. Instead of obtaining pure and real knowledge, man forms false conceptions; in consequence, the body is subject to suffering, whilst the imagination, instead of being guided by the intellect and attaining a higher development becomes debased and depraved." The Rambam is trying to teach us that giving into our desires causes our intellect to suffer. By giving into our animalistic desires we take away from our ability to achieve a higher intellect and more knowledge.

Do We Really Think Judaism Has Always Been Like This?

Over at Rationalist Judaism, Rabbi Slifkin mentioned something that I have been thinking about for a while. He talks about how his six year old came home with a picture of Adam in a kapata (long jacket) with a beard and payos (long sideburns and side hair). Basically, he was dressed like a man from 18th century Poland. This brings up many memories of people drawing Moshe, Aharon, Dovid, etc in 18th century Polish garb. The question here is why would anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of history think this to be true?

In truth, I can understand why teachers would have their six year old students draw these people this way. They are drawing the picture of a man from the Torah, obviously they relate Torah with Judaism and Judaism with black hat and payos. That makes sense for six year old children. The problem I have is when these kids grow up, do they view Moshe, Dovid, Adam, and Avraham in the same way or do they realize that this was not how people dressed 3000+ years ago. I am not saying that it bothers me that these children might view our forefathers in these clothes, but it does bother me if they think this is how they observed Judaism and conducted their overall way of life. What I mean by this is that I think a simple understanding of the evolution of Judaism is necessary for all Jews to understand on some level. Judaism did not exist the way it is now in the times of King David. Anyone who thinks that is completely obtuse.

Why do I think it is important to understand the evolution of Judaism? If one does not understand the original form of Judaism, then they can not understand why and how Judaism exists today, except for the basic answer of G-D. However, I think that answering this question by saying G-D is like someone asking how an airplane can fly and then someone answers G-D. Well, obviously G-D is the ultimate reason, for someone who believes in Judaism, but you can also explain the dynamics and the physics of how an airplane flies. So too by Judaism, one can say that Judaism exists the way it does today because it was G-D's plan, or they can actually understand the evolution.

Why does not knowing the evolution of Judaism matter? I am so glad you asked! Someone who does not understand the evolution can not dictate or even presume to set rules for the Jewish religion. In my opinion, a Rabbi that poskins on societal issues, like what is appropriate dress, can only do so if they understand what the Torah expects from every person and how those expectations have been modified throughout the generations. If the Rabbi does not understand the history of the halacha then he can do one of two things, make up his own halacha based on nothing of substance, or a previous Rabbi that said something, but only verbatim. IN all honesty, this is a completely worthless Rabbi. I can make up halacha just as well as him and I can read previous Rabbis just as well, so why do I need you to tell me what the GRA said or to make up my own halacha?

What Rabbi is valuable? A Rabbi that understands how Judaism has evolved from the times of Har Sinai until recent days. He tells us that the reason why Jews in Poland wore kapatas and shtrimels were because those were what nobles wore and it was cold there. A Jew is a representative of the entire nation so they must always look appropriate, therefore people in Poland wore kapatas and shtriemels. This is a Rabbi that already understands the reason behind the minhag (custom) of wearing specific clothing. In Rome, the Jewish people most probably dressed in the Toga, especially when they had an audience with the senate or Caesar.

I thought good Rabbis were just people who knew a lot of Gemorah, Rishonim and Achronim, why do they need to know about history? Well, if I haven't made it clear through my allusions to this answer I will try to be more blunt. It is very nice for a Rabbi to know Gemorah, Rishonim and Achronim by heart, however, what makes a Rabbi valuable is his ability to understand a halachic question based on the circumstances and then navigate through halacha, custom and things that are completely worthless. Without knowing the history of halacha, the Rabbi would have no idea of the basis for the halacha and any ruling given would have to be verbatim from a previous Rabbi who did understand the history. The problem is, halacha would no longer be adaptable to the ever changing world. The point is this, how did the Rabbis of yesteryear deal with electricity? There were no previous rules. Some Rabbis who actually understood the laws of shabbos at their core made halachic rulings, others just made wild assumptions. With the advances in medicine, some Rabbis understand medicine and the halachas involved, others just forbid everything because they know nothing of either.

The point I am trying to make is that we must realize our rich and fruitful history. In certain time periods certain laws or customs were enacted for specific reasons. Chazal even tell us that if a custom was instituted for specific reasons and those reasons no longer apply, then we have no reason to follow that custom (See Aruch Hashulchan 303:21 and 22 and Shulchan Orech 303:19 with the Rema for an example of this idea). I am not saying that specific things should be thrown out or not, all I am saying is that a competent Rav should be able to realize what things are important and which things are not. To assume that Judaism has always been like this is to deny truth. We should admit that things have constantly been changing, that does not make Judaism less valid. Everything changed within parameters that were set forth by the Torah. If Judaism was not an adaptable religion then it would be worthless!

The most disheartening of all things involved here is when certain Rabbis who are called Gedolim treat the religion like they are the Pope. What I mean by this is that back in the days of when we first discovered heliocentricity (Sun is the center) the church put anyone in jail that would say this. Nowadays also, people think if you say that world is older than 5770, you are a kofer. I would love for someone to show me where the Torah says that. It would be enlightening. I know a lot of Rishonim that say against that, but they must be daas yachidim (single opinions). Then I guess they must have been kofers also. I am unsure why this is something that can not be told to the masses, it is not a basic tenant of faith in any way, shape or form. Judaism is not the religion that says the world is only 6000 years old, it is the religion that is adaptable to advances in science and other areas. The reason it is adaptable is because everything in the Torah is meant to be relevant forever. This is why, throughout every age, Judaism has been applicable. This is why it is so disheartening to see some people get stuck in the 18th century, this is not what Judaism is meant to be.

Why Start the Torah With Bereishis?

In the Ramban's Toras Hashem Temima he discusses the difference between Reishis and Techila, both words mean in the beginning, however, their implications are completely different. Without referencing the Ramban, I am going to hit on the same idea.

The question here is why did the Torah start with Bireishis instead of techila? If we are talking about the beginning of a project it seems like techila is a more appropriate word. The word techila denotes the beginning of an action, whereas Reishis refers more to the importance of something. This is why the head is referred to as the Rosh, because it is the most important part of the body, but techila only refers to a sequence of events.

This can teach us something about the idea of Breishis bara elokim. Does it mean that the first thing G-D created was the heavens and earth? Maybe. However, if this was the only thing G-D was tring to convey then why not say Bihatchala? The reason is that G-D is teaching us that the most important parts of creation are the heavens and earth, not necessarily that they were created first.

But now we can ask, "Who cares?" Who cares that the heavens and earth are the most important creations. What is that going to teach me? This is the question that I really want to answer.

The fact that G-D tells us that the HEAVENS and EARTH are the most important creations tells us a tremendous idea. One needs to realize that this world and the next world are both important. It did not say the heavens were created bireishis, nor did it say that the earth was created bireishis, rather the Torah tells us both were created bireishis. G-D is telling us that they are both important.

With this in mind, one can understand why G-D started the Torah with bireishis. Before one can appreciate anything in the Torah they have to understand that Heaven and Earth are of equal importance. If one thinks that heaven is more important, they can not properly understand the Torah. If one thinks earth is more important, they have missed the boat. Only if a person can find the proper balance can they truly appreciate the Torah.

This is a nice idea, but how can we put this in to practice? The way I see it is that one must see the commandments of Bein Adam lamakom (between man and G-D) as of equal importance as the bein adam lichavairo (between man and man) and vice versa. To think one is more important than the other is to miss the whole point of the Torah. The Torah teaches of the relationship between man and G-D, but it also teaches of the relationships between men. Throughout the Torah is a mixture of relationships and they are examples of how to act and how not to act, on top of the relationships between man and G-D that teach one how to act and not to act in that arena.

Praying To G-D and Shana Tova To All

I hope everyone has a meaningful and useful Rosh Hashana. All too often we just pray without real meaning behind our words. If there is a day to actually contemplate and understand what you are saying, it is Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. All too often we let these days just glide by and do not utilize them in the proper way. When a person is wrapped up in the world around them, be it in business, a profession, or even school they often forget about the important things in life. I, for one, feel like this years Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur will be hard to make meaningful because my concentration will be elsewhere, worrying about tests. Hopefully, I and everyone else will be able to overcome our worldly worries, if even for a moment, and be able to really connect to G-D. Not just connect to Him, but have a real meaningful experience. I want to be able to feel, emotionally, G-D as my king. It is so difficult, especially this day and age to really envision G-D and connect to Him.

In the time of the giving of the Torah man was flooded with spirituality, so much so that Idol worship was a problem. This day and age, we have the exact opposite problem, no one believes in anything they can not see or feel. I think that living in this era presents a very real problem for prayer. If I can not imagine G-D in my head, then how can I connect to Him, how can I make Him relatable to me? I think this is a very big challenge.

I am always jealous of people that I see praying with so much intent and heart. I don't understand how they can make it as if G-D is truly in front of them. Maybe they are all trying, but not really succeeding, or perhaps they are succeeding. When I was in Shaalvim, I used to try my hardest to imagine G-D right in front of me and connect to Him spiritually. I was really into the Maharal, Ramchal, Zohar and I read all types of Chassidus. In the end of the day, these books did not help me relate to G-D. I think the Maharal helped me to understand Judaism better, but nothing helped me with my relationship to G-D. However, more recently I got into the Ralbag and Rambam, I think that these great Talmidei Chachamim have helped me relate to G-D on a level that I was never able to reach before. When I am davening now, I try to realize that I can't imagine G-D, it is impossible because, according to the Rambam, G-D is indescribable. This has really helped me, because now I focus on myself when I pray. I try to think about my place in this world. Also, I think about the beauty of the world and how amazing the creator of the world and Universe must be. That is how I relate to G-D now and I think it is more meaningful, to me.

I believe that the reason I am on this world is to live my life according to the Torah. G-D put us on the Earth to live our lives, but those lives must be according to certain rules and customs. With this in mind, I pray to G-D to help me make the decisions that are best for me and will help me live a prosperous life. So with this view, that G-D wants me to live a life in the physical world (having a family, helping others and therefore getting a job to support my family and to make me able to help others), I pray. My prayers are focused towards G-D in the sense of realizing my place in this world and I ask for assistance in leading a moral and meaningful existence. I hope I, and everyone else, will be able to relate to G-D through the most meaningful way possible and that we can ignore our earthly duties for a moment and focus on our connection to G-D.

Dissecting Bodies and Believing In G-D

I don't understand how anyone who dissects a human body and understands it in detail can deny that there is certainly a G-D. There are so many intricancies that exist inside the body and perfectly placed structures so everything moves correctly. If this was the work of random evolution without some higher being, why wouldn't there be natural flaws in the general population? I mean, why should't we have muscles that work in a more unorganized manner. How is everything so perfect?

The other day we had a ceremony for the people that donated their bodies to us for the dissections. There was a lot of people that spoke and said how grateful we are and how appreciative we should be. However, there was also a bishop that spoke. Now, I am clearly not Catholic, but I had to appreciate his words, especially since he quoted Psalms. Some people thought it was inappropriate for a bishop to speak at a Med School and give a prayer for the bodies that we were dissecting. However, I would disagree. I thought it was very meaningful for the Med School to involve religion in this ceremony. First off, the Med School is a private school and it can do whatever it wants. However, I also think it shows a realization that there is a higher power at work.

When someone looks at these bodies they have to think, what separates the living from the dead? One of my friends at Med School even told me, " I am not religious, but when I look at these bodies and see how small the separation is between us and them I start to think." I was very impressed with this idea because he was so right. I know that there are certain molecules that are working in a living person that have stopped working in a dead person, but there is still something spiritual and otherworldly that you just can't help but wonder.

I am still bewildered why people think that if evolution occurred it is impossible that G-D exists. I do not see these two things as mutually exclusive. It makes a lot of sense to say that there was a higher being guiding evolution. Everything in the world works so perfectly together and evolution's steps occurring was something like one in a billion chance. This is not all of evolution occurring, but rather every step that was needed had a very slim chance. I just can't see how everything happened without a higher power. Without a higher power guiding it, it is practically impossible for human life to have occurred.

Ki Tavo- What Does Making a New Covenant Mean?

ט וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה וְהַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם, אֶל כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר: הַסְכֵּת וּשְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל, הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה נִהְיֵיתָ לְעָם, לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ. 27:9 And Moses and the priests the Levites spoke unto all Israel, saying: 'Keep silence, and hear, O Israel; this day thou art become a people unto the LORD thy God.

In this week's parsha we see Moshe telling the Jewish people that they should follow in the ways of G-D and to listen to His words. If they do then they will be blessed and if they do not then they will be cursed. Not exactly a big chiddush (new idea) here. However, what does interest me in this parsha is this verse that I quoted at the top. The interesting aspect of this verse is that when Moshe is telling the Jewish people to keep the Torah and if they do they will be blessed and if they don't they will be cursed, he is not the only one talking. It says that Moshe and the Kohanim, (who are) levites told this to all of Israel. Why in the world does Moshe need "backup" to tell the Jewish people these curses and blessings? Also, why does the Torah single them out as Levites? What is so special about the Levites, specifically in regards to telling other people to follow G-D?

The Seforno tells us why it is that the Kohanim have to be mentioned here when it comes to teaching the nation about the curses and the blessings. It is because the Kohanim are supposed to be the teachers of the nation. This is why it is so important for them to be there along with Moshe teaching the Jewish people the Mitzvos and what one should or should not do. This was their purpose within Klal Yisroel (when not in the Bais hamikdash). They were given the all important responsibility of educating the nation in the mitzvos (commandments) and the reward and punishment for keeping or transgressing those mitzvos.

The reason why Moshe and the Kohanim had to be specified as Levites is a wild idea from the Meshach Chachma. Are you ready? He says that we learn in the Midrash Tanchuma and the Yalkut in parshas Netzavim that there were 3 covenants made between the Jewish people and G-D. One was when they left Egypt, one was at Mount Sinai and the third was right here with Moshe before the Jewish people entered the land. The reason that there was a third covenant, the one with Moshe in this week's parsha, was because the second covenant, the one at Mount Sinai, was battul (voided) because of the sin with the Golden Calf. Therefore, the Meshech Chachma thinks that this is the reason that Moshe and the Kohanim are specified as Levites, because Levites did not participate in the sin of the Golden Calf. Since the Levites did not sin by the Golden Calf, they did not need to make a new covenant with G-D. This might also be why Kohanim (priests) are designated as the ones to teach all of the Jewish people the law, because they had a stronger covenant than the rest of the Jewish people, according to this Meshech Chachma. The Levites had the covenant of naaseh Venishma (we will do and then we will hear), but the covenant now was listen to what I say and then accept it.

The part that I find wild about in this Meshach Chachma is that he is willing to say there was a new covenant after Mount Sinai. I mean, I don't know what the repercussions should be, but to say that a sin, even if it was the Golden Calf, causes us to need a new covenant, well that is just scary. If the Jewish people are in Galus now and we have had two temples destroyed, doesn't that mean that we should have to have a new covenant now? What would be the difference between the sin of the Golden calf and all the Jews who have completely rejected G-D's existence?

I think the answer is as follows. Notice how the Meshech Chachma says there were three covenants. One was at the exodus from Egypt. In what way was this a covenant? Also, in Megilas Esther chazal tell us that there was a new covenant that was made between G-D and the Jewish people. What does this all point to when we talk about covenants? It seems like, to me, that these covenants are promises from G-D to the Jewish people that as long as the Jewish people follow the Torah and commandments then they will live in peace and prosperity. That is why after the Exodus the Jews were able to go receive the Torah. That was the first covenant between G-D and the Jews (the reason for this covenant was because of the previous covenant made with Avraham because of the 10 tests that he had passed). Then after the Jews received the Torah, the fulfillment of the first covenant, they were going straight to Israel, but they sinned with the Golden Calf and the Meraglim happened. Now, the Jewish people were stuck in the desert for forty years that acted as an atonement and right before we go into the land we get to make a new covenant which leads to Jewish prosperity in the Land of Israel. However, once there was rampant sinning the Jewish people were kicked out of the land. After several years of atonement the Jewish people made a new covenant with G-D and got to come back to Israel. Many years pass and then there was so much sinning going on again, the Jews were again kicked out of Israel. Still, we are in the stage of atonement. There have been many people who have speculated as to why we are still in exile and why the Moshiach (Messiah) has not come.

Personally,the way I see it, when the Jewish people either had learned their lesson or cried out to G-D that there would be no more Jews, only then was a new covenant made. By Egypt, the Torah says that G-D came to save them because He heard their cries for help. Also, chazal tell us that many Jews were assimilating into the Egyptian culture and had G-D not taken them out then, there would be no Jews left. Therefore, that was the proper time to make a new covenant with the Jews. By the sin of the golden calf, after forty years in the desert the Jews had done proper teshuva (repentance) and were now allowed to enter the land because they had overcome their previous sin. The same thing happened with the return of the exiles from after the destruction of the first temple, they had done proper repentance. However, our current situation was caused by Sinas Chinam, baseless hatred of one another. It seems like this sin has existed throughout the Jewish community ever since the destruction of the second temple. We, as a people, have not overcome this and we are not desperate enough yet to say that we can not survive in galus. Therefore, there is no reason why G-D should make a new covenant with us until either we are in dire need or we actually start to respect and love one another. Unfortunately, the later has not occurred, even though we have been in exile for thousands of years, and hopefully we will not need the Moshiach to come because of the former.