Kingdom of Priests

Kingdom of Priests


A Rabbi Rethinks Intelligent Design

posted by David Klinghoffer

Recently I was part of a group from the Discovery Institute that went down to Los Angeles to make presentations about issues relating to Darwinism and intelligent design to groups of rabbis in the area. Our efforts bore fruit in several forms. Stephen Meyer and Richard Sternberg were invited to teach seminars on intelligent design at three prominent Orthodox Jewish high schools (YULA boys high school, YULA girls high school, and Shalhevet), to great acclaim. Meyer spoke about some of the material from his new book, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne), which the Times Literary Supplement has now recognized as a “book of the year.” I had the opportunity to talk to a group of rabbis and put before them my frustration at the Jewish community’s resistance to thinking critically about what’s at stake in the Darwin debate. Mathematician David Berlinski and biologist Jonathan Wells spoke to the same group, very effectively, and Berlinski met privately with other religious leaders, as I did.

One tangible and gratifying result was our success in changing the mind of one L.A. rabbi whom I’ve liked and respected very much for many years, and whom I admire even more now.
Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein is a well known and highly regarded writer and teacher at the Simon Wiesenthal Center who also serves as a professor of Jewish law and ethics at Loyola Law School. His most recent book is an outstandingly lucid translation and adaptation of the Maharal’s Be’er Hagolah. We’ve occasionally clashed in online forums. He had been consistent in rejecting intelligent design as a subject worthy of the Jewish community’s sympathy or commitment — until he met David Berlinski and Steve Meyer. On his group blog, Cross-Currents, Rabbi Adlerstein has now written an eloquent  and thoughtful exploration of his thinking on the subject. In a nutshell, the take-home message is: 

For the majority of Jews today who are not theologians, I am beginning to see a place in the Orthodox world for some of the thinking and the materials associated with ID.

His analysis is not a simple one and so you should read it for yourself here and here. I think it’s fair to say that for himself, as an individual, he still sees no problem with Darwinian evolution as he understands it (which is not the way most Darwinian biologists do). However, he recognizes now the value for Jews in general of understanding the debate between Darwin and ID. He sees the latter’s primary importance as undermining arrogant scientism and clarifying the serious challenges that Darwinism still faces, 150 years after the Origin of Species first appeared, in explaining life’s origins and development:

[I]t will be important to show that there is smugness — indeed a religious faith — in the ability of the prevailing theory to ultimately address major issues. It will help show our children that those who mock faith are themselves people of great faith — in a different system.

He would like to see the debate explored in Jewish high schools.
What exactly turned him around on the issue? 

Rabbi Adlerstein’s “Ah hah!” moment came in a conversation with Steve Meyer. Steve in turn was recounting the “Ah hah!”-type realization that another prominent clergyman, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, had thanks to biochemist and ID theorist Michael Behe.

Dr. Meyer instantly grasped [my, i.e. Rabbi Adlerstein's, pragmatic objections to ID], and dealt with them one at a time. He left his deepest impression upon me with an anecdote:

Ten years ago, Dr. Michael Behe (author of Darwin’s Black Box; often associated with irreducible complexity) met with Father Richard John Neuhaus in the offices of the magazine the latter founded, First Things. Behe was looking for allies, and approached Fr. Neuhaus, one of America’s most respected Catholic thinkers. Neuhaus listened, and finally was not able to contain himself. “Michael! You are a true believer! You have studied some theology. Why would you need any of this?” With great economy of expression, Neuhaus telescoped all my reservations in one exclamation. The true believer need not fear evolution, nor look for the inexplicable as the “place” where G-d resides. Nor need he fear the depredations of evolution on our sense of specialness, and hence on our commitment to a set of moral expectations. The true believer will find G-d in all things, comprehended or not. He will find his moral signposts in the revealed word of G-d.

Behe was equally effective. “You are right, Father. But millions of people are not theologians. To them, if the scientists can explain everything, they will listen to the scientists, not to those who speak of G-d.” Neuhaus accepted the point, and in the decade before he died, he moved in the direction of greater friendliness towards ID, publishing four articles about it.

Rabbi Adlerstein’s is not exactly my way of thinking. For myself, I don’t see any way that is both theologically and scientifically feasible to reconcile Judaism with Darwinism. Either God shaped and designed life with a purpose that He imagined from the beginning, or He didn’t. Classical Jewish thinkers of the past have prompted us to expect to find evidence of design in nature, and warned of the danger of relying on faith without confronting and understanding that evidence. But leave that aside. I believe what Rabbi Adlerstein is saying here is that even if there were a path open to such a reconciliation, the sophistication or perhaps the abstruseness of it would place the path out of the reach of most Jews. Which constitutes a problem for educators and leaders, who are charged with inspiring faith.
Christians, of course, face the very same difficulty. Theological arguments for “theistic evolution” tend to be incomprehensibly arcane.
Since it’s what he calls the “God-consciousness” of the Jewish people that rightly concerns Rabbi Adlerstein, his own ability, as a theologian, to make the reconciliation becomes sort of beside the point. He wisely grants the value, then, of acquainting Jewish students and laymen with the scientific critique of Darwinism and its scientific alternative, namely intelligent design. One hopes that other Jewish educators will prove to be as open-minded, and open to rethinking past beliefs, as Yitzchok Adlerstein.


Advertisement
Comments read comments(6)
post a comment
Paul Burnett

posted December 19, 2009 at 6:33 am


Intelligent design creationism does make more sense than evolution to some devoutly religious people with Judeo-Christian backgrounds – it was deliberately crafted to do so. The “design” that the blind watchmaker of evolution has created over billions of years can indeed be interpreted by the scientifically illiterate and the willfully ignorant and the gullible to be “intelligent” – but it isn’t.
And no matter how much anti-science propaganda is foisted upon Jewish students and laymen, the pseudoscientific carping about evolution falsely presented as a “scientific” alternative, intelligent design creationism, remains a pseudoscience. There is a very good reason that the National Academy of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and essentially every other actual scientific society in the country has condemned intelligent design creationism as a pseudoscience.



report abuse
 

Dennis

posted December 20, 2009 at 1:33 pm


In science if an hypothesis can not be falsified, it can not be varified. One can not empirically prove the non-existance, or existence, of a designer, God, therefore ID is wishful fuzzy thinking, a “feel good”. Such fuzzy thinkers once tried to determine how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Who are these people whom the Enlightenment bypassed? Mythologies do not have to be historically true to be useful. True believers have closed minds and are often dangerous, as history demonstrates. This ID silliness has become rather boring. Enough.



report abuse
 

Mark2

posted December 20, 2009 at 4:05 pm


“True believers have closed minds and are often dangerous, as history demonstrates.”
That’s why Creationists ought to be open to certain things having evolved, and Darwinists ought to be open to at least one thing having been designed. At least theoretically.



report abuse
 

Ray Ingles

posted December 21, 2009 at 9:01 am


Mark2 – Evolutionary biologists (calling them “Darwinists” is like calling relativistic physicists “Einsteinists”) are open to things having been designed. Several items in the biological world have been proposes as being ‘intelligently designed’ or ‘irreducibly complex’ – e.g. the bacterial flagellum, the clotting cascade, the vertebrate immune system – and that has spurred actual further study of those systems.
And, as it turns out, intelligent design has not been needed to account for them. Maybe someone will eventually come up with an iron-clad example… but it just hasn’t happened yet.



report abuse
 

Ray Ingles

posted December 21, 2009 at 9:30 am


I believe what Rabbi Adlerstein is saying here is that even if there were a path open to such a reconciliation, the sophistication or perhaps the abstruseness of it would place the path out of the reach of most Jews.
Gotta be careful with that. C.S. Lewis, in “The Screwtape Letters”, has his devil say, “Believe this, not because it’s true, but for some other reason. That’s the game.”
The point being that “educators and leaders” should teach what’s actually true, or our best understanding of it. (At the very least, educators should.) If that can’t be done (perhaps because the truth is ‘sophisticated’ or ‘abstruse’), then maybe you teach a simplified version that glosses over details. But you expressly label it as a ‘simplified version’ or ‘useful model’ or whatever.
Me, if I’m going to err it’ll be on the side of more information and more precision. I’ve got no problems with high standards for truth and accuracy.



report abuse
 

Mark2

posted December 21, 2009 at 11:08 pm


“Evolutionary biologists are open to things having been designed. ”
The only real response to this is, “Yeah, right. Maybe 30% of the time.”



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Kingdom of Priests. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Kabballah Counseling Happy Reading!

posted 11:24:22am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Animal Wisdom: The Voice of the Serpent
Our family watched Jaws together the other evening -- which, in case you're wondering, I regard as responsible parenting since our kids are basically too young to be genuinely scared by the film. The whole rest of the next day, two-year-old Saul was chattering about the "shark teeth." "Shark teeth g

posted 3:56:33pm Mar. 16, 2010 | read full post »

Reading Wesley Smith: Why the Darwin Debate Matters
If the intelligent-design side in the evolution debate doesn't receive the support you might expect from people who should be allies, that may be because they haven't grasped why the whole thing matters so urgently. I got an email recently from a journalist whom I'd queried on the subject. "All told

posted 5:07:12pm Mar. 15, 2010 | read full post »

The Mission of the Jews
Don't miss my essay over at First Things on the mission of the Jews to the world. This, I think, the key idea that the Jewish community needs to absorb at this very unusual cultural moment, for the time is so, so right. Non-Jews are waiting for us to fulfill the roll God gave us in the Torah. Please

posted 6:14:16pm Mar. 05, 2010 | read full post »

Darwin at the Mountains of Madness: Evolution & the Occult
Of all the regrettable cultural forces that Darwinism helped unleash, perhaps the most surprising and seemingly unlikely is its role in sparking the creation of modern occultism. Charles Darwin himself could not have been less interested in the topic. But no attempt to assess the scope of his legacy

posted 2:04:11pm Mar. 04, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.