Evolution and Its Moral Consequences

Question:

My son and I were talking about the origins of humankind. He said that he was offended by the belief that man had descended from the ape family, and was adamant that we all came from Adam and Eve. I, on the other hand, believe Darwin's theory to be a more reasonable explanation of our evolution, and think it is ridiculous to continue teaching children the creation myth. Of course, this discussion can go round in circles forever. Are you able to shed some light on the topic?

Response:

An elderly rabbi was once on an airplane to Israel sitting next to a self-professed atheist. They were amicably chatting the whole trip.

Every now and then, the rabbi's grandchild, sitting in another row, would come over to him, bringing him a drink, or asking if he could get anything to make him more comfortable. After this happened several times, the atheist sighed, "I wish my grandchildren would treat me with such respect. They hardly even say hello to me. What's your secret?"

The rabbi replied: "Think about it. To my grandchildren, I am two generations closer to Adam and Eve, the two individuals made by the hand of G‑d. So they look up to me. But according to the philosophy which you teach your grandchildren, you are two generations closer to being an ape. So why should they look up to you?"

Beliefs have consequences. If children today lack respect and are unable to honor their elders, if tradition looked down upon and the values of the past all but forgotten, is it not a natural consequence of modern education? If we teach our children that they are merely advanced animals, then they will act that way. And they will treat their parents and teachers like the obsolete versions of humanity that they are.

We have to be aware of the effects of our beliefs. If we believe that humans came about by accident, then life has no meaning. There can be no meaning to something that happens by chance. A random explosion or mutation cannot give us purpose. My life, your life and all human history has no real significance whatsoever. Whether I live a good life or one full of evil makes no difference. It is all a big accident anyway.

We only have purpose if we were created on purpose. Our lives only have meaning if we were created by a meaningful being. If we teach our children that they were created on purpose with a purpose, then they will know that more is expected from them than from an animal. The Adam and Eve story needs to be taught, not just because it is true, but because it is the basis of morality.

Both creationism and Darwinism require faith. To accept that G‑d created man and woman requires faith. To accept that a single-celled organism spontaneously mutated billions of times to form the human being also requires faith. But only one of these beliefs demands that we live a moral life. That's the one I want my children to be taught.

By Aron Moss

Rabbi Aron Moss teaches Kabbalah, Talmud and practical Judaism in Sydney, Australia, and is a frequent contributor to Chabad.org.

About the artist: Sarah Kranz has been illustrating magazines, webzines and books (including five children’s books) since graduating from the Istituto Europeo di Design, Milan, in 1996. Her clients have included The New York Times and Money Marketing Magazine of London.

More articles by Aron Moss | RSS

The content on this page is copyrighted by the author, publisher and/or Chabad.org, and is produced by Chabad.org. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with the copyright policy.

E-mail

Sort By:

NewestOldest

November 8, 2012

process or outcome?

Why do some people refuse to see evolution as a process of creation and creation as an output of evolution? I believe it is in respect to the verses of Genesis which state that man was molded out of mud and that all was created in six days. Evolution confirms that life started in the mud of the seabeds while physics tells us that all creation (universe) is time-bound. The week is a constant unit of time on earth. As Stephen Hawking said in his " a brief history of time", if only we could remember the future the way we remember the past, we could see that all has already been created.Therefore the past and present is a preparation for the future . I want to believe the future will be an utopian ideal of prosperity, peace,happiness and resurrections for all.

wamai
Nairobi

November 5, 2012

How does this prove other life forms?

"God made the beast...and the animal. And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." does not say anything about previous life forms, as far as I can tell. Also there is no such thing in Torah as "animal rights". There are laws about how humans must treat animals, but not one of those laws says the animals themselves, have any kind of 'rights'. Rights, go along with responsibility. And animals cannot take responsibility for anything they do, or fail to do.

Torah is literal
USA

November 5, 2012

Evolution wasteful etc...

I don't see evolution as bad because of potential individuals either, but really, who designs this way? Good design isn't all about trial and error and waste. Even human design is not trial and error. We have principles we follow to eliminate the need for trial and error. And surely, an omniscient being would know all the principles and design based on something other than trial and error - a system that humans don't even use. And yes, trial and error is wasteful and inefficient - no one is questioning that. And, it's possible that we wouldn't recognize alien technology as technology at all I suppose. That's a difficult question. I would expect that we would probably be able to tell. And yes, we only have human design to look at, but it's not the objects themselves, i.e. cars and trains etc... but the principles of design I'm talking about. What the world looks like (i.e. a giant machine) is irrelevant, it's when we look inside and see that it doesn't adhere to design principles.

Travis Cottreau
Wellington

November 5, 2012

What is this thing called "Evolution"?

To evolve means to become different from what it was, namely, it refers to 'change'. This also means before the change, the thing had to exist in some form. ToE concluded that the change must have a changER - namely a factor/s which causes the change. According to ToE, this is the environment, which contains a program to seek out the best way to change and survive ['Survival of the fittest'], usually via stops & starts over millions of years. Let's call this changer factor as NATURE - for want of a better term. Of note: we cannot see nature or capture it in a vase; we do not know Nature lives, or in how many colours it comes in. Some would argue nature is a state of change, not an actual entity per se. Either way, it is unseen and a recently coined word, a mind inside a mindless thing that can porform mindful CHANGES. Here, both the Creator & Nature are unseen, but the former is far more scientifically viable. Because there was no evolution at the big bang point, yet there was change!

IamJoseph
Sydney

November 5, 2012

"God made the beast...and the animal. And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

IMHO, the absence of such a verse would be confounding. Obviously, Gd created a host of life forms before Human, and these were all blessed, have feelings & instincts, and obviously would also know Gd. I would not conclude this was said to our souls in another realm - beause it is related to life on earth and we cannot assume to know what soul means. The Torah is here, not there, it was given for this life and this earth.

Not including other life forms in this verse's application would be bad manners. Of note, all animal rights laws [40 of them] come exclusively from the Torah - all are directed to life on this earth.

IamJoseph
s

November 4, 2012

No such thing as a Half Zebra.

Genesis opposes one common ancestor. The first scientific equation is 'A seed shall follow its own kind' - this clearly negates all came from one seed, resting only on the specific groupings of fundamentall different life forms [species] which are listed for the first time in Genesis - separated by time, terrain & habitat. There has never been evidence of cross-speciation; correct math says there should be millions witnessed, with no effect of the time factor - even if each takes millions of years: the next one starts one second thereafter, making this a continuously manifest process. An offspring is the result of dna programs embedded in the host parent ['seed'], able to pass on this program. There is repro w/o the seed factor. Genesis also correctly says a life form emerged 'COMPLETE' - not as a half life. Genesis wins.

BUTSeriously
Sydney

November 4, 2012

Design

I do not see evolution as “bad” in spite of the loss of “potential” individuals. We can only speculate as to how much “potential” each one of them had.

We tend to look at “design” through the prism of human technology. Even if we discover something far more advanced than our technology, we’ll still expect to find some elements recognizable by our understanding of technology.

That’s a very narrow view of design. Suppose we were to encounter some alien technology. Would we recognize it as technology at all? If this alien technology developed along a different path from ours—fire, wheel, transistor—isn’t it possible we would confuse it with that placeholder we call “nature”? Even if it did something seemingly unnatural, like defying gravity, might we hypothesize that there are other “natural” forces in the universe we have yet to master?

I, for one, am happy that the world does not look or act like a giant human-made machine.

Bert
San Jose, CA

October 23, 2012

observable evidence is equally no goal.

Not being able to observe the goal maker does not equal no goal is incumbent. If I take your PC to Mars, does it mean there is no PC maker? Absolutely not. Only the reverse is the case - a patterned set of complexity negates random.

All we can say is that there is obviously a specific cause, but that we cannot identfy the causer. Anything else negates all of science and inclines on incoherence.

If we examine the laws of gravity that keeps planets in a fixed set of patterned movements, we can say it must have an organizer and that we cannot identify that source in a vase or lab. To disprove this we have to first have a vase bigger than the universe and be able to see this from outside, the causer and the caused before us; not being able to perfiorm this feat does not conclude in 'no goal' - choosing such a position as the proof of 'no goal' is less than credible. This issue is best dealt with by the manifest fact - 'NO MAN CAN KNOW ME AND LIVE' - an amazing, anticipatory answer.

IamJoseph
Sydney

October 15, 2012

Creation is as stated by Gd.

"No man shall know me and live"

Which part is confusing?

IamJoseph
Sydney

October 15, 2012

There is no waste.

Leave a dead body and everything gets utilized - down to the bones which form other useful products; we become food for non-carnevorous cows that eat us as grass after we eat cows. Its a perfect machine which defies the premise of quarks banging into each other randomly, yet we don't understand what causes us to think - are these quarks jitterbugging in our stem cells?

The more important question is why do we come alive with a tap and breath and why do we cease being alive - when all our organs are still functioning? Is that because of a man with a white beard whose name is Evolution - or random quarks who don't know they are doing something incredible no one designed them to do? Shall we leave this question now and jump to point B - because the car making manual proves there is no car maker?

IamJoseph
Sydney

Show all comments

Load next 50