Can We Make Do Without Science?
In our previous article, we deprived the physicist,
geologist, astronomer and dendrochronologist (who studies
tree rings) of his justification to extrapolate natural
processes into the indefinite past to arrive at the
incredible ages given by modern science.
We also justified our reliance on the consistency of natural
law into the future. Only the non-natural formation of the
universe and other events described by Chazal lead us to deny
the validity of such backwards extrapolations.
Now we are left with a challenge. Their methodology in and of
itself is not bad science. The scientists are not
technologically incompetent when they use these dating
methods. Only their conclusions based on certain necessary
assumptions are mistaken.
So how can we rely on any scientific theory that involves
making assumptions? Are we as frum Jews discrediting
any and all research that probes beyond directly observable
repeatable phenomena? Must we be `kofer' in atomic and
subatomic particles that cannot be seen even under a
microscope? It would be hard to justify such a rejection in
light of the fact that we ourselves take full advantage of
all the technological and intellectual benefits that all
these disciplines have to offer. (These benefits have
recently even included archaeology.) Can we have a rational
coherent approach that is self-consistent? What would such a
position entail?
The answer is that we need to become discriminating consumers
of scientific theories.
We start off with the following a priori position that
is never negotiable: The ultimate truth about our reality was
revealed to us by the same Creator of that reality through
prophecy and various levels of ruach hakodesh
preserved by our mesorah.
To my knowledge, you cannot find one unequivocal statement in
Talmudic or classic rabbinic literature that attributes the
formation of the universe to natural means. On the other
hand, there are numerous Chazal, Rishonim and Acharonim that
explicitly and unequivocally state the opposite.
As a consequence, those scientific understandings that either
confirm or conform to our superior source of absolute truth
— the Torah — may be adopted. Those that don't,
must be mistaken. And it makes no difference whether the
scientists will eventually discover the mistake through
investigation or they will not.
It is distinctly possible that they cannot in principle
discover their mistake simply because they cannot access the
non-physicality of the forces involved in the formation of
the world (and its deconstruction and reconstruction during
the Mabul period). But mistaken they must be. G-d informed
mankind of unnatural formation of the universe well in
advance of the theories that try to pretend that all events
are natural. This is self-deception on the part of mainstream
science.
Now this may sound arbitrary and illogical: If we acknowledge
the validity of the methodology in one area of life, how can
we deem it faulty or incompetent in another?
The truth is that this approach is completely justified, and
there is nothing arbitrary or illogical about it. Not only do
we all do it, but in fact science does it to itself all the
time.
Let's give an illustration from this very area of earth
chronology. There is a sharp debate between `young earth
scientists' and the scientific establishment. But the debate
is somewhat one-sided. Mainstream science deems the evidence
for an old earth so convincing, that even the scientific
evidence to the contrary is simply explained away on
purely hypothetical grounds.
Most examples of evidence for 'young earth' use
extrapolations of currently observable cumulative processes
very similar to those used for old earth. Yet these
extrapolations in those cases imply that essential components
of our planet (including key elements in our atmosphere,
ocean and magnetic field) could only have been formed
thousands of years ago instead of billions. Among many
others, these processes include: Influx of salts and metals
into the ocean via rivers, the decay of the Earth's magnetic
field, and the small amounts of Helium-4 in the
atmosphere.
Let's flesh out some details of the first example. By citing
measurements of the amounts of various chemical compounds in
the oceans, and measurements of the rate at which rivers are
adding those compounds to the oceans, it is argued that a
maximum (quite young) age for the oceans can be derived.
In response to this, all the mainstream scientists do is
point out the various processes that work in the other
direction to remove these compounds from the ocean which
could theoretically achieve equilibrium. They do not
cite any measurements, research papers, or studies that in
fact show that these processes neutralize the evidence.
The "nexta" example (love that Yiddish) comes from
smaller than expected amounts of Helium-4 if earth is old.
Helium-4 is created by radioactive decay (alpha particles are
helium nuclei) and is constantly added to the atmosphere.
Helium is not light enough to escape the Earth's gravity
(unlike hydrogen), and it will therefore accumulate over
time. The current level of helium in the atmosphere would
accumulate in far less than billions of years. Therefore the
Earth is relatively young compared to their theories.
Once again, the conventional response is to assert that polar
wind can account for the escape. And if that won't do
the trick (because they haven't actually measured it to know
for sure) then there is always the handy "interaction of the
solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods
of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is
reversing." However, no one has ever measured a single
magnetic-field reversal of the earth taking place, let alone
how long they last before reaching full intensity. But that
doesn't stop mainstream scientists from simply assuming that
20 of them could have taken place over the past 3.5 billion
"years" to account for the missing helium. Problem solved.
This means that mainstream scientists don't really accept the
burden of proving the young earth evidence to be grossly
misunderstood. They feel that it is enough to propose
theoretical possibilities. And sometimes they even openly
admit that they may never develop the tools to practically
investigate their hypothesis that explains away the
evidence.
But it makes no difference. Why? Because they feel enough
confidence in the balance of the evidence weighing so heavily
in their favor that it makes virtually all the counter-
evidence pale in comparison. They feel that they can
reasonably conclude that there must be some flaw in the
counter-evidence without any actual proof.
And don't get me wrong; I have no problem with this logic at
all. I think it is perfectly reasonable for scientists to
make these assumptions when you take their limitations into
account. But this logic works in both directions.
So it is, lehavdil, with the irreconcilable conflicts
between science and Torah.
We don't need to assume the burden to disprove the old earth
science. If we use the same approach, it is sufficient for us
to assert, based on Chazal, that star motion was not constant
throughout all time, and that the igneous rocks of the
Creation period simply did not form naturally from magma.
And/or, it is sufficient to assert, based on Chazal, that the
weather conditions which form the annual layering of lake
varves and ice cores were not constant throughout all
time.
Even the so-called `directly observable' evidence of previous
eras from the fossil record can be broken down into a series
of tenuous assumptions to which we can offer counter-
assumptions:
1) It is the dating methods discredited above which
really give the strata an absolute time scale. Without those
methods, the layers in and of themselves don't indicate how
long each period lasted. They are called `floating histories'
that aren't tied to any fixed number of years.
2) The fossils technically can only inform us of the
order in which these creatures perished. Hypothetically, all
these creatures could have been created in the same period
and died off at different periods. To assert that the record
also tells us when they appeared is an intuitive leap that
can be contested.
3) Similarly, Chazal that attest to creatures that
were created and then destroyed before the creation of man.
And we need not appeal to whole worlds created and destroyed
before the six days of Bereishis to find such
references. Bava Basra 74 tells of enormous land and
sea creatures that were created and destroyed during
Bereishis for various reasons. We also have the
primordial serpent who was created with legs that were
subsequently removed (presumably from this entire species of
reptile) long before the death of Odom Horishon.
All these tentative directions of thought provide fertile
ground to posit the extinction of numerous other animals
during periods that well preceded the large-scale demise of
human beings during the Mabul.
This is not an appeal to creationist pseudo-science or flood
geology. Those are explanations that go beyond the tools that
science has at its disposal to analyze and measure
reality.
Rather it is parallel to the tendency of science to sustain
its well-established theories against powerful objections by
positing the existence of all sorts of spooky things.
Concepts such as non-luminous matter and cosmological
constants (popularly referred to as `dark matter' and `dark
energy'), superstrings, repulsive gravity, compacted
dimensions — all these are hypotheticals that have not
been directly measured and may not ever be accessible to
scientific measurement in the future.
We ought to have enough confidence in our mulit-million-man-
mesorah to offset all the theoretical evidence that
relies exclusively on tenuous extrapolations of literally
astronomical proportions.
We've Been Here Before
There is a parable given by the Sefer Hachinuch in his
introduction, concerning the reliability of our tradition in
reporting events that defy scientific explanation. He asks us
to imagine a river whose waters have been observed by tens of
thousands of people to cause lethal poisoning to thousands of
unfortunate other people upon drinking. Then, along comes a
scientist who takes a sample of the river water and
determines that it is absolutely normal and safe to drink.
The Chinuch asks: Who would you believe?
Our situation with regard to most (but not all) conflicts
between science and Torah pose a similar dilemma. And the
answer ultimately comes down to how reliable we think our
mesorah is.
The tendency of some to modify or disregard the mesorah
in light of firmly established scientific theory reminds
me of the tragic episode of Choni Hame'agel in Taanis
23a: He is troubled all his days over the first verse in
Shir Hama'alos (Tehillim 126). It describes
prophetically the return of the Jews from the seventy-year
Babylonian exile when they regarded themselves "as dreamers."
Choni Hame'agel is perplexed at the feat of such extended
somnolence. He sits down in a field to eat lunch, drifts off
— and bang! He wakes up seventy years later. After
reconfirming that he has actually been asleep for two
generations straight, he tries to reenter society and finds
himself misunderstood by all around him. Overcome with
feelings of total isolation, he prays for and is granted a
final end to his troubles. "O chavrusa, o misusah."
I derive a few important principles from this incident
regarding the subject we were discussing.
On the simplest of levels, Choni Hame'agel maybe was bothered
by the practical impossibility of sleeping for 70 years
without eating. An empirical problem: the human physiology
isn't designed to survive so long without nourishment. In any
case, he was able to maintain such a problem in his mind to
be bothered by it for his entire life, without
resorting to an obviously valid, alternative, metaphorical
understanding. (This was especially reasonable since even the
posuk on says, "as dreamers.")
Then Hakodosh Boruch Hu in His infinite wisdom enabled
him to experience the resolution of the problem firsthand,
which turned out to actually be a literal interpretation
contrary to scientific laws.
From the tragic conclusion, perhaps bederech drush, it
seems that sometimes it is in our own best interests to
remain with an empirical problem and not try to get it
resolved at any cost.
We should learn from this experience. Solutions offered by
great people of past generations have become obsolete due to
the relentless forward march of science. Solutions that
reconciled Judaism with the now-defunct Steady State theory
of the universe, and Haeckel's doctored embryological
evidence for evolution, are cases in point. Even now, the
most firmly established scientific theories of the previous
century are being considered for serious revision on an
ongoing basis.
By adjusting one's understanding of Judaism in order to adapt
to modern research, one runs the distinct risk of having to
update one's beliefs every 50-100 years.
We again conclude with the far-reaching vision of Rabbi
Shamshon Rafael Hirsch, applying his sage advice given on a
similar topic: (emphasis added)
"For thousands of years, Judaism waited calmly for the
closing of an even wider gap between itself and mankind, that
is, the disappearance of polytheism. So Judaism can certainly
await, with even more complete calm and assurance, the day in
which the thinking human mind will bridge a much narrower
gap. . . Judaism looks toward the time when science will have
attained a more thorough mastery of its subject matter, and
scientists will be able to overcome the intellectual
fragmentation caused by the division of labor in the
sciences, . . . Scientists will then escape the danger
inherent in any attempt to construct a whole world from the
study of a mere fraction of a fraction of the world's
totality. When that time comes, scientists will bow to a
world of spirit and of free-willed morality that cannot be
reached by microscopes or scalpels, by flasks or balances,
but that is nevertheless a reality which every man can
derive from within his own self" (Collected Writings,
Vol. VII, p. 259, "The Educational Value of Judaism").
