ID (intelligent design) in Jewish Action.

The latest issue of Jewish Action (Fall 5767/2006) has three articles on Intelligence Design by three Orthodox scientists. The articles go from seeing ID as a possible idolatrous concept to the other extreme, as mainstream Jewish Hashkafah.

The first article by Professor Nathan Aviezer of Bar Ilan is, in my opinion, the best from a rational Jewish point of view. He argues that there is a clear delineation between science and religion. Science discusses “how” the universe functions while religion discusses who created it or if in fact it was created. Science deals with empirical evidence while religion deals with subjective interpretations of observations. What is important is that the religious explanation should not conflict with the empirical evidence. Professor Aviezer then explains that the Laws of Nature are unchanging. In fact science tries to define these unchanging laws thus explaining how everything functions and what can usually (emphasis on usually) be expected. God as creator does not conflict with science because He created the universe within the confines of the Laws of Nature by choice. Idolatrous religions on the other hand saw one or more intelligent beings who created the universe at a whim and continue running it that way. That idea is similar to ID thus putting ID squarely in the camp of idolatrous concepts. Professor Aviezer argues for the Anthropic principle as a better explanation. I have not read about it enough to discuss it intelligently. I do however have a minor problem with Professor Aviezer’s presentation where he states: “all of this should not be interpreted as implying that God does not interact with the physical world. This is certainly not the case as Rambam emphasized. Otherwise, our prayers for Divine help would have no meaning.” I believe he misunderstands Rambam on providence and prayer at times of distress. This type of prayer is seen by Rambam as part of Teshuvah compelling one to improve their behavior so that the bad consequences do not reoccur. I will be discussing that when I deal with Hashgacha. Otherwise Professor Aviezer’s article is very well presented and should be read by every thoughtful Jew. That cannot be said about the other two articles as we shall see.

Dr. Gerald Schroeder argues that there is an underlying “sentience” or non-physical component to the Universe. He identifies it as the entity that ID sees as the intelligence behind the design. He argues that it is statistically improbable that the complexities we see in the Universe would come about without an underlying design plan just randomly. Quoting Dr.Schroeder – “Mind is the essence of the creation. Light could become alive and sentient because within the light of the creation is the mind of God”. These are very dangerous words that border on pantheism if not full-blown pantheism. God is not a mind and anything that we can conceive as the essence of God, which this statement seems to imply, cannot be God. It would negate His uniqueness. His argument for a Creator from the Big Bang is also very flimsy. See my post on that issue here http://yediah.blogspot.com/2006/06/professor-stephen-hawking-and-rambam.html .

The next article by Dr. Arnold Slyper a pediatric endocrinologist is even more problematic. First he argues that Darwinism is anti religious because it negates God’s influence in the running of the universe. Quoting - “If one agrees with Darwin that evolution proceeded randomly, then it follows that God is no longer involved in His universe, either because He has no interest or because He lacks the power to do so. In either instance, the concept of a God who has an intimate and ongoing involvement with this world has been negated.” A random world is meaningless “a life without meaning and without absolute morality would be a prescription for despair.” He therefore argues that the universe is probabilistic rather than deterministic. That allows for God to interact through nature without contravening its laws. In his words “God is responsible for chance”. Thank God he admits that this not science only religion. He then continues with a discussion of blueprints, genetic code and Junk DNA which is completely irrelevant to the issue. He concludes that ID is “Jewish to the core and one of our fundamental beliefs”. A little further down he states “There is no one Jewish position on Evolution”. In short the article is confusing and makes very little sense. It is a model for a not thought out position governed by popular beliefs and philosophies. These have no relationship with real Judaism.

Concluding Professor Aviezer wins easily with a clear and well thought out article. It makes one excited about the greatness of HKBH and the beautiful and complex universe we believe He created. Dr. Schroeder uses the BT standard arguments that are dangerous because they smack of Pantheism while Dr. Slyper unfortunately is clearly confused.