[Avodah] Evolution, Hashgachah and Tehillah

[Micha Berger]

I got permission to share this Google+ discussion with the chevrah for a
broader discussion. Please chime in...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Yonatan Kaganoff - Sep 19, 2011 - Limited
    Is still trying to understand how one could believe in both the
    theory of evolution and the efficacy of prayer.

    (To summarize the contridiction: The theory evolution posits random
    mutation which denies hashgacha pratis or hashgacha klalis. Prayer
    assumes a basic hashgacha of God in this world.)

17 comments

Michael Kopinsky - Sep 19, 2011
    Some things happen naturally, some happen supernaturally. Prayer is
    a request for the supernatural.

Sol Birnbaum - Sep 19, 2011
    See: God According To God by Gerald Schroeder

Yonatan Kaganoff - Sep 19, 2011
    If you believe that God planned and that the world follows some
    sort of order then, by definition, you are rejecting random
    mutation and the theory of evolution. It's not about natural
    vs. supernatural. Randomness rejects a Divine plan.

Micha Berger - Sep 19, 2011
    Evolution doesn't require that the mutation be random. In fact, one
    can have an Intelligently Designed evolution, in which mutations are
    guaranteed to fit the proper distribution function, but are actually
    caused by G-d using "loaded dice".

    Randomness doesn't deny a Divine Plan in general, although it would
    appear to if we're relying on randomness to explain big things, like
    the emergence of sentient life. The Ramban had no problem believing
    that Hashem controlled the detail in humans' lives, but only care
    about the big picture when dealing with other things. (For example,
    Hashem would make sure there would be a lion population in a certain
    area, while leaving it to nature which lions would be involved.) The
    Rambam famously reduces this even further, saying that different
    people are subject to more or less such Divine involvement, depending
    on their knowledge. And the others are left to nature.

    But if one does believe in universal hashgachah peratis, one must ask
    how to define the word "random" and if it even has meaning. Somehow,
    though, dice to land on "1" 1/6 of the time... so it would seem to
    have /some/ meaning.

Yonatan Kaganoff - Sep 19, 2011 (edited)
    Micha: I could be completely wrong, but I believe that there are
    three basic tenets to the theory of evolution:
    1. Over population
    2. Random Mutation
    3. Natural selection (survival of the fittest)

    Once you remove #2, it is no longer the theory of evolution but is
    now something else. One could call it "Intelligent Design", but then
    it is radically different from evolution.

    I am aware that the Rambam and many medieval thinkers accepted only
    hashgacha klalis and had a very restrictive hashgacha pratis. (The
    Rambam only seems to accept hashgacha pratis based upon the revelation
    of tehillim.) However random mutation denies ALL hashgacha. Even
    accepting hashgacha klalit is a rejection of the theory of evolution.

    I don't believe that one could call mathematical probablity and
    distributions "hashgacha". And if one does, then they are redefining
    hashgacha to be something completely than what normal people would
    call providence.

Micha Berger - Sep 19, 2011
    Evolution doesn't require random mutation. Mutation, yes. But in
    fact with loaded dice, evolution would occur more rapidly. In fact,
    HQBH could even work steps toward future designs into the results
    without violating the laws of nature to do so.

    All the supporting evidence requires is that the law of large numbers
    is obeyed. (Law of large numbers: e.g. if you roll a die a very
    large number of times, each number will come up pretty close to 1/6
    of the time.) "Random" means that science doesn't insist on which;
    or perhaps stronger, that it /can't/ insist on which. But that doesn't
    rule out a Designer picking which of those many die rolls are sixes.

    This form of Intelligent Design is in fact compatible with
    evolution. If evolution required that the random be causeless and
    purposeless even on a theological level, it would be making claims
    that are entirely outside the domain of science.

    IOW, either evolution and ID are compatible, or evolution is just
    as non-science as ID is.

Yonatan Kaganoff - Sep 19, 2011
    As ID is a theory formulated around Evolution, by definition ID
    should be compatible with Evolution.

    The theory that you are describing a system that allows for Designer
    (and therefore a design and a telos). However, once you remove the
    randomness than it is no longer Evolution as generally understood
    by scientists, which is a system without a telos.

    If I understand you correctly, in the system that you are describing,
    overpopulation, mutation and survival of the fittest is way for God
    to push organic life in a particular direction with desired results.

Micha Berger - Sep 19, 2011
    I'm arguing that to be scientific, the theory of evolution can't say
    anything one way or the other about design or telos. To take the word
    "random" as necessarily being something other than Divine Providence
    is to leave the discipline of science and enter theological debate.

Sarah E. Beck - Sep 19, 2011
    KG, I agree with you but don't have time for lengthy post. Will
    discuss IRL sometime.

Joshua S - Sep 19, 2011
    "Random" is a concept that confounds science. It essentially just
    means "we can't predict it." So I wouldn't be too worried about the
    random part.

    It's still an interesting question: why would the RSHO' choose to
    structure his world that way.

Micha Berger - Yesterday 11:38 AM
    RJS: I'm not as bothered. There are apparently two aspects to Hashem's
    goal that we can understand (assuming He really made life this way):
    (1) the design of life, (2) within the laws of nature.

    The Creator therefore would logically choose a methodology in which
    causality does not dictate the outcome, which maximizes His "leeway"
    in introducing telos without violating nature. And of such processes,
    one in which such non-deterministic changes are cumulative would be
    particularly convenient.

Yonatan Kaganoff - Yesterday 7:02 PM
    Once we accept your assumptions, then we are dealing with a radically
    different world than one described in Tanach and Chazal. Instead
    of the orderly inter-connected world of Barchi Nafshi, we have a
    "Nature red in tooth and claw," survival of the fittest.

Micha Berger - Yesterday 9:37 PM (edited)
    The seemingly spontaneous emergence of complex organisms and
    ecosystems is incredible elegance and beauty. Much more beauty than
    a simple "poof" miracle. (And if you think about it, no less awe
    inspiring, arguably more so.)

    Nature today is no more or less bloody because of how one
    views its emergence. BTW, seeing evolution as being more
    about competition than synergies is itself an error. See, eg,
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11063939

Arie Folger - 7:01 AM
    YK, re: Borkhi Nafshi, R' Elchanan Samet has a beautiful,
    convincing read thereof (more convincing than the usual
    it-mirrors-the-Account-of-Creation understanding), whereby that
    psalm is a celebration of the cycle of life and its dependence on
    water, a very important vehicle through which G"d manipulates life
    in the world. Once you hear or read his analysis, you might look at
    that text very differently. Doesn't respond to your main question,
    but puts Psalm 104 in perspective.

    I don't know where I had downloaded that shiur from on the internet,
    but it's from the Beit Midrash leTanakh. Worth digging out.