|Charles Darwin, 1809-1882|
And while it is true that there are some creationists among us Jews, they are in the minority. By and large, most Jews find no problem in reconciling scientific discoveries with religion. Even in the 12th century, Moses Maimonides (a major Jewish philosopher still studied today) wrote in his Guide for the Perplexed: "The account of Creation given in Scripture is not, as generally believed, intended to be literal in all its parts." (section 2:29)
In his introduction to the same work, Maimonides also said: ""Now, on the one hand, the subject of Creation is very important, but on the other hand, our ability to understand these concepts is very limited. Therefore, God described these profound concepts, which His divine wisdom found necessary to communicate to us, using allegories... It has been outlined in metaphors so that the masses can understand it according to their mental capacity, while the educated take it in a different sense."
One of my teachers, Rabbi Moshe Adler, once explained it this way: "God could have sent down Carl Sagan to explain how the universe was created, but the people of that time would not have understood him. So God gave them a story."
And indeed, the Genesis version of Creation does seem to follow the basic order of evolution: Light/energy; land & atmosphere; green plants; egg-laying animals; mammals; and finally, humans. The only part out of order is the creation of the heavenly bodies, which comes on the 4th day, right in the middle of the process. Some Jewish commentators have suggested that this was not a chronological statement, but, rather, a theological one: Putting the sun in the middle meant it was neither a solar god starting the process nor a deity finishing it. It was merely one more physical thing on the list of items being created. (See Slifkin, Nathan, The Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution, pp. 235-37.)
What Maimonides was saying is still true today, perhaps even more so in this age of quantum physics and string theory. Many scientific theories are very complex, and require a high degree of intelligence and many years of study to fully understand them. For the average person, a simpler explanation will often suffice. Given that the Bible was passed down orally at a time when science was in its infancy and most people were illiterate, it makes sense that many things were told in simple stories, without going into great detail about how the process actually worked.
|Moses Maimonides, 1138-1204|
Christianity, on the other hand, has often felt threatened by science. There was a period in medieval Europe when popes were forbidding Christians to go to Jewish doctors, condemning "Jewish medicine" as being from the devil. (On the other hand, church officials themselves often went to Jews for healing, because they had a better success rate than the Catholic priests who were offering chunks of the "true cross" and other holy relics for cures.) One might laugh at this, but, as noted above, Congressman Broun still believes modern science comes from the devil, although he is not so crass as to call it "Jewish." Even more scary, this is a man who sits on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology! How can you make legal decisions and policies on science when you don't even believe in it? (See Bill Nye: Paul Broun 'unqualified to make decisions about science, space and technology')
Among the theories denounced by Broun is embryology, a science that is pretty well established in the modern world, much to the benefit of human babies. Which raises the question: Does Broun still believe that the father plants a homunculus (fully-formed miniature adult) into the mother? Does he reject what we see on ultrasound tests? Tracking of genetic diseases through DNA? Effects of drugs on the development of the fetus? Surgical correction of birth defects while still in the womb?
If you reject embryology, how do you account for any of these things?
Years ago, I heard a Chabad Hasidic rabbi say that when scientists first looked through their early microscopes, they actually saw the homunculus, but later suppressed this knowledge. I find this absurd. What more likely happened is that they saw the nucleus of the sperm cell for the first time but, not understanding what it was, projected their beliefs onto that dark spot and thought they saw a tiny person. As microscopes improved, it became obvious that this early assumption was wrong. The vast majority of Jews today accept embryology as proven fact. Even very Orthodox Jews use in vitro fertilization to try and conceive when natural methods fail.
All of which brings me back to my original question: Why are Christian fundamentalists so threatened by evolution? I think the answer lies in how they construct their theologies. For them, it is absolutely essential for every single word of the Bible to be literally true. Why? Because they rely upon those words to prove that Jesus was their messiah. If you start questioning the literalness of Bible verses, you run the risk of the whole house of cards tumbling down. In Paul Broun's words, the so-called "lies" of science were intended to "keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior."
We Jews, on the other hand, do not believe we need a human sacrifice to be forgiven, nor do we rely upon the literalness of biblical stories as the foundation of our faith. We are more focused on actions rather than beliefs. A sin, in Judaism, is a specific negative act committed against Torah laws in the physical world, not merely a belief. Just thinking about something -- even a seemingly heretical idea -- does not make it a sin. (Although it could make you seem odd to your neighbors.)
So yes, we take the laws of Judaism literally -- a pig is a pig and must not be eaten, nor can it be allegorized away -- but when it comes to personal beliefs about God and religion in general, there is a great deal of latitude. Thus we find multiple interpretations of biblical stories in Judaism, existing side by side. We may argue and debate them (and how we do love to debate!), but in the end, what matters most is how we are living our lives. Two Jews may be equally strict in observing the Sabbath, but may also have very different interpretations as to why they are doing so. And both can be correct on some level.
So, for example, one can literally believe that the Noah Flood covered the entire planet, or that it was a more localized mid-east phenomenon as suggested by modern science. (See William Ryan and Walter Pitman, Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries about the Event that Changed History, which presents a very strong case for it taking place around the Black Sea.) Either way, the moral lessons of the story remain the same. It teaches us, among other things, that God values every species on our planet, and so should we. Similarly, we can say that whether or not the Exodus happened exactly as described in the Torah, it still contains valuable teachings about freedom that are relevant today. (There are also Christians who think this way. See The Bible and Congressman Broun by Adam Hamilton.)
In closing, I find myself still agreeing with Maimonides, again from Guide for the Perplexed:
When I have a difficult subject before me -- when I find the road narrow and can see no other way of teaching a well established truth except by pleasing one intelligent man and displeasing ten thousand fools -- I prefer to address myself to the one man, and to take no notice whatever of the condemnation of the multitude."