Here's a great tip:
Enter your email address and we'll send you our weekly magazine by email with fresh, exciting and thoughtful content that will enrich your inbox and your life, week after week. And it's free.
Oh, and don't forget to like our facebook page too!
Contact Us

Evolution and Its Moral Consequences

Evolution and Its Moral Consequences



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?


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.

Aron Moss is rabbi of the Nefesh Community in Sydney, Australia, and is a frequent contributor to
Artwork by Sarah Kranz.
© Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with's copyright policy.
Join the Discussion
Sort By:
1000 characters remaining
Isaac Brooklyn July 26, 2017

To; Aron Moss The Torah states that God created "The Man".
The fact that there was a man named Adam, scholars assumed he was the first man, but the Torah does not state so directly.
Scientists, like Dawkins, disagree only with the misinterpretations of the Torah. Bar all assumptions, science, and Torah are not at odds.
"The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God."
...Charles Darwin
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe."
...Albert Einstein
As we can see, prominent scientists do not make such claims, as you suggest, "a big accident.."
Please provide any scientific and biblical proofs in support of the opinion that Adam (father of Cain and Abel) was the first man. Reply

Joseph Australia September 7, 2017
in response to Isaac:

26 "And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

The word 'Adam' is now a noun [not a pronoun]. However, it appears correct this was not the first man but a life-form category as with the previous life creations. The word 'them' says so. 'Species' comes from here.
Nontheless, in the next chapter we have the word 'name' appearing for the first time [because Eve, a 'talking' human appears]. Now, Adam becomes a pronoun, and is the first recorded speech-endowed human, at 5776 years according to the Hebrew calendar.

However one sees it, it is not avoidable that the exacting account of the dating for the first recorded name can be a good guess. I wonder how this is explained. Reply

Bert San Jose, CA March 31, 2017

Don't Throw the Baby Out With the Bathwater Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some scientists, like Dawkins, have an agenda. But that doesn't invalidate science. I firmly believe that, were not for the rhetoric of Dawkins and his like, people would look at both science and religion more objectively. Reply

Torah is literal September 3, 2017
in response to Bert:

Dawkins is not the only one with an agenda to twist science into a phony claim that supposedly disproves Torah when no actual does, ever has, or ever will be able to do that.
No one went back on time to see the Earth more then 6000 years old, therefore there is no proof it is
Sae for human evolution from animals. No one ever saw it happen which means there can be no absolute irrefutable proof it ever did happen.
Scientists van say it looks to them like it did just like Torah following Jews can say based on Torah and based on out side (non circular) evidence ike the fact that Jews have been persecuted like no one else and not only survive when no one else possibly could under circumstances even 1/4 as harsh, but Jews still thrive.
Seculars and athiests reject out of hand, evidence that supports Torah then simply (and falsely) claim "there is no evidence for Torah being true".
But by that tactic, all supposed evidence against Torah can be just, as flippantly dismissed. Reply

Joseph Australia September 3, 2017
in response to Bert:

Something stands out about the Dawkins types in their obsession to negate the Hebrew Creationism. They assume the universe is infinite. But then why do they mention Genesis, the only writings which opens with the universe being 100% finite, with a beginning?

And if science cannot prove or know for sure if the universe is finite or infinite, why do they not examine both scenarios? Perhaps because a finite universe is not possible without a universe maker? How amazing it is that Genesis opens with the challenging premise of a 'beginning'! Reply

Toral is Literal NYC March 22, 2017

Guessing is not the same as logic As I said before (and no obe can refute)
What scientists believe about humans supposedly evolving from animals is the best speculation wh I ch is guesswork.
That is not the same as a "logical fact".

And the fact is that "scientists" like Richard Dawkins, and many others do use their claims of science to draw moral conclusions.
Which I agree has moral consequences, and not very good ones, to put it mildly.

It's at least as logical, if not more so, to conclude that Torah is correct in everything it says about how everything came to be vs claims of atheistic or other anti Torah, scientists.
Look how many Baal teshuvas there, are.
Including many who were athiest secular people who thought science knew the reality that Torah wa just ancient writings of so called "ignorant primitives". Reply

Bert San Jose March 21, 2017

Beyond Logic Evolution is the logical conclusion of over 150 years of scientific research. But, as McCoy would say to Spock, there is much more to the human experience than pure logic. The moral consequences of evolution begin with the idea that evolution is the be-all-end-all of human existence. If everything about our actions and choices is encoded in our DNA, then we cannot rise above our DNA. When people make choices based on survival of the fittest, there are moral consequences.

Morality includes helping those who are not the most "fit" in the Darwinian sense and giving them dignity. It is the opposite of natural selection. It is achievable only when we rise above our DNA by embracing a larger reality of which science is only a part.

I'm not putting down science. I'm saying science has its place and its role. But morality, (which is not the same as cooperation), lies outside of science, and failure to recognize that has moral consequences. Reply

Torah is Literal NYC March 14, 2017

RE 'fossil facts' The only fact regarding fossils is that they have been found.
But one being above the other or below the others does not prove that one came from the other.
Or to put it another way, the miracles (like the facts that only Jews have been persecuted all through history in every generation and still exist. Any other group or culture persecuted to that extent everywhere all through history would have ceased to exist long ago. Look at the American Indians for example, so few left and that was only after 300 years and their persecution has not even been in every generation, it's not going on these days, for example.) that have happened all through history are just as strong evidence that G-d exists as fossil evidence is for so called proof of humans evolving from animals.
And many people have been falsely convicted in criminal cases and later turned out to be innocent.
How much more unreliable must any claims be regarding what supposedly happened, hundreds of millions of years ago? Reply

Torah is literal NYC March 14, 2017

To Paul #1 I'm glad you include yourself. I'm also glad you are working on yourself, as I am on myself.
#2 Your comments part 1 "And do we know that speech caused humans’ success? Maybe, but I prefer not to make sweeping claims without evidence."

You ask me in part 2 if I reject all but eyewitness accounts.
If you reject all the evidence for speech making (at least a huge part of) the difference between human success and animals, then I am doing no worse by saying that you cannot make definitive absolute statements of 'proven fact' regarding what most people believe about humans supposedly evolving from animals.

I accept DNA evidence if it is advanced enough to conclusively prove that someone was in a place he claimed to have never have been in.
DNA evidence does not conclusively prove he was the murderer.
Evidence is based on reasonable doubt, not 'all doubt, whatsoever'.
To claim that belief in G-d is 'proven wrong, and stupid', needs absolute proof, not just "it seems that way.". Reply

Joseph March 14, 2017

Hawking finally succumbs to the science in Genesis, This is seen both in the opening verse of 'In the beginning' and that time, space, darkness & light once never existed. It says the universe, and everything in it, once never existed, and that the entire realm is 'finite'. This negates the 'star-wars' fantasy of MV, String Theory and other parallel universes.
It means, if the universe is un-conditionally finite, there can be no alternatives to a universe creator. Name one if one disagrees?

• Hawking: "There was a beginning: “In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning.
• Hawking: "Time had a beginning: Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Reply

Joseph March 14, 2017

Hi Paul. 3) Regarding defining survival of the fittest and a seed following its own, I’m too baffled by the non sequitur to reply.

# Here, the latter seed following its own kind, makes the survival of the fittest premise null and void. Example: if the former is validated [and it is], the latter becomes superfluous. The former is not a result of a survival mechanization but a program embedded pre-birth, one that does not require a choice or choosing process. The will to survive is ultimately more than instinct; it is a mind function, like knowing fire will burn one’s hands. That is mind, not mere repetitive mindless impulse; this is proven by the mind being able to find a way of transcending the fire and using it for one’s own benefit, like a form of energy – no other life form does that. Reply

Joseph March 14, 2017

Hi Paul. Re 1)
# By prevail, I only meant you are correct and I am not. I did not ask for ancient scripture, I asked only about an older ‘alphabetical book’ than the 5 Mosaic books. Believe me, I did investigate for many years and found not a single parchment, monument, relic that changes the paradigm I presented you. We know that the Hebrew emerged late in the ancient world, there was cuneiform and picture writings, yet I say those were not alphabetical, and not multi-page continuing narratives as with the Torah. It’s a significant factor, perhaps even mysterious: there is no Hebrew writings pre-Torah book, only an oral language. So how can the first output of a new language be its most advance; how did it emerge before mightier, older nations? I examined the premise the Torah could have been written much later than its narratives say, but this too was exhausted and not possible.
Re. 2.
Why make it so complicated that it should depend on how I define powerful. It refers to obvious brain-size and higher threshold activity that is non-generic. I fully understand a human cannot perform as a bee with the same effectiveness, but this cancels out because it is generic to all life forms’ conditions and situations. This is not the case with humans, as they stand alone among trillions of other life forms. Speech [varied from communication], consciousness, moon landing, etc are stand out factors. Reply

Paul Rosenthal New York March 2, 2017

Responding to Comments Part 2 To Torah is Literal:

1) You ask if I include myself among those more interested in convincing than listening. Yes. Which is why, after introspection and reflection, I had determined this thread was depressing and abandoned it years ago. I'm trying to mend my argumentative ways.

2) You observe, when discussing facts, that nobody has traveled back in time to watch evolution. Do you honestly suggest that direct observation is the only type of fact? If so, I assume you reject all criminal trials that don't involve an eyewitness. Or medical tests where the doctor hasn't cut you open and looked inside? In reality, we all, every day, rely on many types of facts beyond eyewitness accounts. For evolution, there are fossil facts, DNA facts, geological facts, chemical facts, etc. Just as we can convince a criminal based on fingerprints, blood stains, and forensic evidence, so we can document evolution using DNA "fingerprints", fossils, geological traces, and countless other fact-based threads. Reply

Paul Rosenthal New York March 2, 2017

Responding to Comments Part 1 Thanks to those who replied to me. I'll try to address those who answer honestly.


1) You ask me for examples of ancient literature so I can “prevail" over you. I don’t want to prevail. That's the "win, not listen" tone I decried. I've no time to do exhaustive research. Which is why I made no claim. (I just noted that your assertion wasn’t backed by evidence; I made no assertion of my own.)

2) You say speech is the most powerful force because humans are the most powerful. It depends on how you define power. If a criterion species longevity, population size, durability, or cooperation, one could argue for other species. Is the richest man the one with the most money, or most love? Different people have different criteria of success. And do we know that speech caused humans’ success? Maybe, but I prefer not to make sweeping claims without evidence.
3) Regarding defining survival of the fittest and a seed following its own, I’m too baffled by the non sequitur to reply. Reply

Joseph Shellim Australia March 2, 2017

" Past life forms need more time to display "survival of the fittest"? When that happens [more time - and we are not even given a time factor, so anything goes!], at least 10 times, it may enter the realm of science - which requires repeatable validation. The Evolution in Genesis, "A seed shall follow its own kind" is in my view the first recorded science equation, and it does not suffer the time requirements per Darwin, and can be observed with repeatable evidence. Therefore, Genesis is better validated scientifically than Darwin.
To date, not a single ape-human fossil connection has been validated - we should have Billions, wherever we dig. All aleged fossils have been concluded as doctred or as errors.

Why we must be suspicious of the time factor requirement:
"Those who lie make sure their proof is far away" At least, that can easily occur. Reply

Joseph March 1, 2017

WHY IS THE WHO-DONE-IT SO HIDDEN & DEBATED? The problem is 2-fold: both proving a creator or a creator-less creation is equally problematic. Its been argued and battled throughout history.
The question becomes, who can make up such a well created who-done-it to leave all to ever pursue it?
The wild card is that had we all known who-done-it, there would be no investigation, no science and no need to pursue it. So thank goodness for the naysayers. They are born of a wisely created compulsion with an equally impacting belief, and with equally no resolution. That must be why the Who-Done-It is so wisely hidden. Its just a wild pondering. What do you think? Reply

Torah is Literal NYC March 1, 2017

RE: Assertions are not facts First assertion: "the depressing fact that nobody here is interested in conversation or understanding other viewpoints"

I wonder if the one making that claim included himself in 'everyone'.

Second assertion; "Assertions are not facts"
That includes the assertion that Humans evolved from animals when no one ever went back in time to see it happen.

Some of us believe in G-d, do we have to prove we believe in

Others say that Torah is wrong because science has supposedly proven it wrong, but no such proof has ever been presented.
It's just 'assertions' based on interpretations of what people believe from fossils and speculation as to how those fossils came to be and speculation about their relationships to each other.
But no one has proof of such relationships.
This one looks like it evolved from that other one.
Great so you are guessing that it did.
But you never actually watched it happen, so you do not have 'proof'. Reply

Joseph March 1, 2017

Paul Rosenthal Re. "(Have you done exhaustive surveys of other ancient literature globally?)"
Provide one, and you prevail over me.
Re. " What evidence says it as "the correct emergence protocol" (whatever that supposedly means)?"
It means animals are not listed before fish; etc.
Re. Can you support the statement that speech is the "most powerful force"?
Yes. Speech Humans are the most powerful entity in the known universe.
Re. Re. Speech is useless for bacteria, the most successful form of life on Earth.
Do you think non-speech life know of bacteria? We have bacteria catered for in the creation chapter, without using terms that would npot be understood by all generations. Check this: 1/20 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures. [small of small = very (doubly) small]
Re. you even define survival of the fittest?
This is better validated:'A seed follows its own kind'
The 5 Hebrew books are mysterious, being the first alphabetical books, emerging as its own first Hebrew writings output. Reply

Travis Cottreau Wellington March 1, 2017

Haha... Thanks Paul... pretty much what you said. I think I've disengaged a bit here from the conversation, although was involved earlier.

Good luck! Reply

Paul Rosenthal New York February 24, 2017

What is science? Setting aside the depressing fact that nobody here is interested in conversation or understanding other viewpoints — everyone simply searches for chances to score points while ensuring that their own minds remain firmly closed — is there anybody here who knows the difference between a statement accompanied by evidence and an unsupported assertion?

We have the statement that the Hebrew Bible is "the first recorded groupings of life forms in the correct emergence protocol." What evidence supports it as first? (Have you done exhaustive surveys of other ancient literature globally?) What evidence says it as "the correct emergence protocol" (whatever that supposedly means)? Can you support the statement that speech is the "most powerful force"? Speech is useless for bacteria, the most successful form of life on Earth.

And what does it mean to say that past life forms need more time to display "survival of the fittest"? Can you even define survival of the fittest?

Assertions are not facts Reply

Joseph February 23, 2017

Phil NY I see the premise of evolution better explained and validated by what is perhaps the first recorded scientific equation:
"A seed shall follow its own kind."
I see also the premise of 'speceis' also comes from this same Hebrew Bible source, namely the first recorded groupings of life forms in the correct emergence protocol.
The past life forms not only did not graduate to the more advanced 'thumb' tool, but they also missed acquiring the most powerful force in the universe: "Speech". Or are you saying the past life froms need more time display 'Survival of the fittest' These factors give me a different view of evolution, a different scientifc view based on realty and validation. Reply

Torah is Literal NYC February 14, 2017

Travis cottreau
I have been away from here for a long time, but now I see this discussion has become quite active again, so to address something I had no time for, way back when;

"Torah is literal
You say, "Once again the fact that belief in H.E.A. causes more violence and immorality in the world is more proof that ..."

"No, see, that's my point. Even if what you say is true, and What you call HEA is completely responsible for all violence and immorality,"

First of all, that is a strawman argument.
I never said anything about it causing "all the violence".

" that doesn't count one millimetre towards it being a false theory."

Not if you do not believe in a god who created the universe with a specifc purpose.

But for those who believe in the God of the Torah, there is no way he would have created a system which would cause the spread of so much evil in the world and still be true.

"That fact that you think it does means you don't get my point at all.

Wrong, you just don't get mine. Reply

Phil NY February 14, 2017

Joseph Shellim RE; Animals and their intelligence compared to humans Animals are not as intelligent as humans.
If humans did not have thumbs as you say, but did have claws and or hooves, they would still be able to dig holes and drag brush over them, and use that to trap animals, both to stop predators and to catch prey.
Also you are arguing against the idea of evolution by implying that Humans did not develope thumbs over time, anyway.
If humans developed them through evolution and the animals didn't, that still shows greater ability and intelligence of humans over all other creatures. Reply

Related Topics