Get Think Jewish Delivered to your Home or Office
HOME | CONTACT US | DONATE LoginLOGIN Ask the RabbiASK THE RABBI
Chabad.org - Torah, Judaism and Jewish Info Torah & Science
 
Chabad.org » Learning & Values » Torah & Science » Questions & Answers » Evolution and Its Moral Consequences
PrintSend this page to a friendShare this
Comment845 Comments

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.

PrintSend this page to a friendShare this
Comment845 Comments

By Aron Moss   More articles...  |   RSS Listing of Newest Articles by this Author
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

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.
 

845 Comments Posted  |  Post A Comment
Reader Comments
Latest Comments:
Posted: Feb 1, 2012
Which Seems More Likely...To Me!
Bert, thanks for sharing your perspective. I appreciate the clear understanding of where you’re coming from.

You directed your questions at Travis, but I’ll chime in too.

It seems to me more reasonable to imagine a world that arose from the natural forces we see around us than to accept one created by a magical being that conforms to no natural laws, for which there is no evidence, which has been imagined and described differently by every culture throughout history, and which by definition is unlike anything else.

Given the choice between believing in a universe based on physical/chemical reactions that fit our observable world, or an explanation that violates every law of our observable world, the former seems more likely.

Beyond that, and on a purely personal level, I find it comforting to see myself as deeply connected to the universe, created by its natural forces, rather than a puppet created by a "God" that then demands constant praise and worship, an idea that chills me.
Posted By Paul, New York, NY

Posted: Jan 31, 2012
Travis: Which Seems More Likely
I’m not saying there MUST be a creator, only that it seems more likely or that it makes more sense to me that there is a creator vs. a spontaneously occurring universe. People believe in many things that can’t be proven scientifically, things that add value to people’s lives. I believe in a creator who established the “natural laws.” I also believe it’s important to learn about those laws in order to deepen our understanding of the universe. But how exactly do we improve our understanding of the universe by assuming there is NOT a creator?
Posted By Bert, San Jose, CA

Posted: Jan 31, 2012
Why 6 days instead of 1ms? Limited prowess?
How do you account 24 hour days in a text which says the sun and moon's luminosity emerged well after the days began [1/V14]? In the absence of hour counts, the first 4 days can best be described as epochs of unspecified time periods.

Of note,these life forms emerged after billions of years [the text]. Of note, Genesis is not deficient in time calcs - it measures speech endowed humans as exactly 5772 years - and we have no means of disputing this today - one of the greatest feats in recorded history, science and math.

I find it amazing we have no history recorded before the Genesis dating - how can a document manage such accuracy at such an ancient time? It is a good challenge to the theory of million year life forms.
Posted By IamJoseph, Sydney

Posted: Jan 30, 2012
Limited Prowess
Some feel that, in order for G-d to be great, acts of creation must be instantaneous. I don't agree, & I don't think the Torah agrees either.

Why 6 days instead of 1ms? Limited prowess?

Why thousands of years to get the Torah? Limited prowess?

We have a prophesy of a world to come in which the lamb lies down with the wolf. Why aren't we there yet? Limited prowess? Or, deliberate acts of a Creator who we don't fully understand?

People come down on both sides of that question.
Posted By Bert, San Jose, CA

Posted: Jan 30, 2012
Infinity is not subject to change.
Whatever changes something is transcendent of it. Infinity is not subject to another transcendence. Infinity is not subject to scientific laws - it always is existent. An expanding universe says it wasn't infinite 10 seconds ago.

Genesis is correct about the 'change' factor as the ultimate and only definition of both finite and infinite. Proof: let anyone disprove creationism - which refers to a precedent factor applying to creation - based on a totally finite universe [no takers!].
Chaos theory is just a star-trek mode conjuring to get around Genesis' finite premise. Chaos remains embedded only in the theoretical.
There is good reason why the Hebrew bible KO'd mighty Zeus, Jupiter and every other belief system humanity has. Why are today's forums debating only one scripture?
Posted By IamJoseph, Sydney

Posted: Jan 30, 2012
re: Which seems more likely
I asked because I assumed that you had a different answer than the reasons I thought of, i.e. cultural background.

Why does the feeling of a spiritual presence and/or your sense of right and wrong have anything at all to do with the beginning of the universe? That seems like a non sequitur to me.

It's not that the universe "occurred spontaneously", which has a lot of assumption baggage that you are tying to it. I.e. that it must produce non-moral beings (whereas morality must happen for any gregarious beings in some form - it's inevitable). The big bang is simply the conclusion of all our observations and our understanding of natural laws. Similarly, all of our understanding of the universe seems to be improved by assuming natural laws and not supernatural ones.

Assuming supernatural laws doesn't seem to help our understanding at all. So, again, it seems like a simple conclusion. Adding God in things at this point is an argument from incredulity.
Posted By Travis Cottreau, Wellington, North Island

Posted: Jan 29, 2012
Check-mating spontaneously
One can challenge any scientist, including the likes of Einstein and Newton, to explain spontaneously in a totally finite universe.

This will show the majestic science embedded in the opening verse of Genesis. Those who run away from the issue by submitting ways to get around the absolutely finite premise are failures and should be dumped with a big gong.
Posted By IamJoseph, Sydney

Posted: Jan 29, 2012
What makes you suppose that?
To iAmJoseph — you write:

" ... an infinite universe has no need of science laws ... "

What makes you think that? A "science law" (or "law of science") is ust a description of what's observed to happen. So whist makes you suppose that the observable happenings in a universe (existence) that has always existed, _must_ be chaotic as you suppose? After all ... You believe that God ihas always existed: so then do you believe that God is chaotic? If a perpetual God doesn't have to be chaotic why would a perpetual universe (an existnce thst always existed) have to be chaotic either?

Posted By Kate Gladstone, Albany, NY/USA

Posted: Jan 27, 2012
Which Seems More Likely
Travis, why do you ask the question if you already have the answer? "The only reason it seems more likely..."

But I'll give my answer. Because I feel that there is a spiritual presense everywhere in my life just like people feel love, happiness, a sense of wonder, & a sense of self, none of which can be proven scientifically. It also makes sense to me that reality is based on intelligence and not on chaos.

My sense of right & wrong are closely tied to my sense of the spiritual, which relates back to the original essay.

What I'd like to know is why some think it's more likely that the universe occurred spontaneously. That seems odd to me. I'd also like to know what has value and what is morality in a reality based on chaos or on mindless recurring processes.
Posted By Bert, San Jose, CA

Posted: Jan 26, 2012
A finite universe negates another universe.
This is the underlying reason for an obsessive scramble to devise infinity - the anti-creationists fail if they do not. Amazingly, Genesis opens with this bold challenge the uni is 100% and totally finite, as if anticipating the primal future challenges.

What is not realized is an infinite universe has no need of science laws - everything was always existing science or not; stars would appear without any need for gravity laws, pineapples would not need sunlight, etc. Science would become superfluous.

But in the greatest event of the universe, only laws tumbled down from Sinai. The message: the uni is based on laws of wisdom. The formless was turned to form in V2, the beginning of science laws. Stars never existed before such laws.
Posted By IamJoseph, Sydney



 


Questions & Answers
How Old is the Universe According to Judaism?
Evolution and Its Moral Consequences
Does the Theory of Evolution Jibe with Judaism?
Can I Believe in Both Science & Torah?