By the Grace of God
18 Tevet, 5722
Brooklyn, NY.
Greetings and blessings:
After not hearing from you for a long time, I was very pleased to receive your greetings through the Chabad youth who recently visited your community in connection with the public lecture. I was gratified to hear that you participated in the discussion, but it was a surprise to learn that you are still confused about the issue of the age of the world as suggested by various scientific theories that cannot be reconciled with the Torah's view that the world is 5,722 years old. I emphasize the word "theories" because it is necessary to keep in mind, first and foremost, that science formulates and deals with theories and hypotheses, while the Torah deals with absolute truths. These are two entirely different disciplines, where "reconciliation" is completely out of place.
I was particularly surprised to learn that, according to what I was told, this "problem" bothers him to the point that it has invaded his daily life as a Jew, interfering with his ability to fulfill daily mitzvot. I sincerely hope that the impression I received was mistaken.
As you know, the basic principle of Judaism, "na'aseh ve'nishma"—let us do first and understand later—makes it imperative for Jews to fulfill God's commandments even beyond their understanding, and obedience to Divine Law can never be contingent upon human approval. In other words, a lack of understanding, and even the existence of "legitimate" doubts, can never justify disobedience to Divine Commandments, especially when those doubts are illegitimate, meaning they lack a real or logical basis, as is the case with the "problem" in question.
Apparently, our discussion, which took place some time ago and which, as I was pleased to learn, you have not forgotten, did not, however, clarify this matter in your mind. I will attempt to do so now, in writing, which imposes brevity and other limitations. I trust, however, that the following points will serve our purpose.
Basically, the problem is rooted in a misconception of the scientific method, or simply, of what science is. We must differentiate between empirical or experimental science, which deals with, and is confined to, describing and classifying observable phenomena, versus speculative science, which deals with unknown phenomena—phenomena that sometimes cannot be replicated in the laboratory. "Scientific speculation" is currently a terminological incongruity, since "science," strictly speaking, means "knowledge," while no speculation can be called knowledge in the strict sense of the word. At its core, science can only speak in terms of theories inferred from certain known facts and applied to the domain of the unknown. Here, science has two methods of inference:
a) The interpolation method (different from extrapolation), in which, knowing the reaction under two extremes, we try to infer what the reaction would be at any intermediate point.
b) The extrapolation method, in which inferences are made beyond a known range, based on certain variables within the known range. For example, suppose we know the variables of a certain element within the temperature range of 0 to 100, and on this basis we estimate what the reaction would be at 101, 200, or 2000.
Of the two methods, the second is clearly less reliable. Moreover, the uncertainty increases with the distance from the known range and with the decrease of that range. Therefore, if the known range is between 0 and 100, our inference at 101 has a higher probability than at 1001.
Note that all speculation regarding the origin and age of the world relies on the second and weaker method: extrapolation. This weakness is even more evident when we consider that a generalization inferred from a known consequent to an unknown antecedent is more speculative than an inference from an antecedent to a consequent.
That an inference from a consequent to an antecedent is more speculative than an inference from an antecedent to a consequent can be shown very simply:
Four divided by two equals two. Here, the antecedent is represented by the dividend and the divisor, and the consequent by the quotient. Knowing the antecedent in this case gives us a possible result, the quotient (the number 2).
However, if we only know the final result, namely the number 2, and we ask ourselves "how do we get to the number 2?", the answer admits many possibilities, which are reached through different methods: a) 1+1=2 b) 4-2=2 c) 1x2=2 d) 4/2=2. Note that if other numbers enter the game, the number of possibilities giving the same result is infinite, since 5-3=2, 6-4=2, etc. to infinity.
Add to this another difficulty, one that is prevalent in all methods of induction. Conclusions based on certain known data, when they can be expanded upon in nature—that is, when they extend into unknown areas—can have any validity assuming that "all else being equal," meaning that the prevailing conditions, and their interactions and counter-interactions, remain the same. If we cannot be certain that the variations or changes will bear at least a close relationship to the existing variables in degree; if we cannot be certain that the changes will have some similarity in type; moreover, if we cannot be certain that there are no other factors involved; then such inferences are worthless.
To further illustrate, I will refer to one of the points I believe I mentioned in our conversation. In a chemical reaction, whether by fusion or fission, the introduction of a new catalyst into the process, no matter how minute the amount of this new catalyst, can completely change the timing and form of the chemical process, or even initiate an entirely new process.
We are not finished with the difficulties inherent in so-called "scientific theories" concerning the origin of the world. Let us remember that the entire structure of science is based on the observation of reactions and processes in the behavior of atoms in their present state, as they now exist in nature. Scientists deal with clusters of trillions of atoms as they are bound together, and as they relate to other existing clusters of atoms. Scientists know very little about atoms in their pristine state; how a single atom can react with another single atom in a state of separation; even less about how parts of a single atom can react with other parts of the same or other atoms. One thing that science considers certain, to the point that all science can be certain, is that the reactions of single atoms with others are entirely different from the reactions of one cluster of atoms with another.
We can now summarize the weaknesses, or rather the nullity, of the so-called scientific theories regarding the origin and age of our universe:
A) These theories have advanced on the basis of observable data over a relatively short time, only a number of decades, and at most a couple of centuries.
B) Based on a relatively small range of known (although not perfect) data, scientists venture to construct theories using the weak method of extrapolation, and from consequence to antecedent, extending to many thousands (according to them, millions and billions) of years!
C) In advancing these theories, they jubilantly disregard the facts universally admitted by all scientists, namely, that in the initial period of the "birth" of the universe, the conditions of temperature, atmospheric pressure, radioactivity, and a host of catalytic factors were totally different from those existing in the present state of the universe.
D) The consensus of scientific opinion is that there must have been many radioactive elements in the initial stages that no longer exist, or exist only in minimal quantities; some of them - elements whose catalytic power is known in minimal doses.
E) The formation of the world, if we are to accept these theories, began with a process of placing (joining) separate atoms or the elements of the atom and their conglomeration and consolidation, leading to totally unknown processes and variables.
In short, all the weak "theories," those that deal with the origin of the cosmos and are of an age, are (admitted by the scientists themselves) the weakest of the weak.
It is not surprising (and this is incidentally one of the obvious refutations of these theories) that the various scientific theories regarding the age of the universe not only contradict each other, but some of them are quite incompatible and mutually exclusive, since the maximum date of one theory is less than the minimum date of another.
If anyone accepts such a theory without question, it can only lead to fallacious and inconsistent reasoning. Consider, for example, the so-called theory of evolution, which is based on the assumption that the universe evolved from atomic and subatomic particles. These particles, through an evolutionary process, combined to form the physical universe and our planet, where organic life somehow developed, also through an evolutionary process, until Homo sapiens emerged. It is difficult to understand why one should accept the creation of atomic and subatomic particles in a state that is admittedly unknown and inconceivable, and yet be reluctant to accept the creation of planets, organisms, or human beings as we know them in their current existence.
The argument of fossil discovery is by no means conclusive evidence of its great antiquity on Earth, for the following reasons:
a) In view of the unknown conditions that existed in "prehistoric" times, atmospheric pressure, temperatures, radioactivity, unknown catalysts, etc., etc. as we mentioned, conditions that could have caused reactions and changes of a nature and times completely different from those known under the current processes ordered by nature, one cannot exclude the possibility that dinosaurs existed 5722 years ago, and were fossilized under terrible natural cataclysms in the course of a few years instead of millions of years, since we have no conceivable measurements or criteria for calculation under those unknown conditions.
b) Even assuming that the time period the Torah admits for the age of the world is definitely too short for fossilization (although I don't see why one should be so categorical), we can accept the possibility that God created fossils, bones, or skeletons (for reasons known only to Him), just as He could create living organisms, a complete man, and finished products like oil, coal, or diamonds, without any evolutionary process.
Regarding the question, if what we said above (b) were true, why would God create fossils in the first place? The answer is simple: We cannot know why God chose this form of creation over another, and whatever theory of creation is accepted, the question will remain unanswered. The question "Why create a fossil?" is no more valid than the question "Why create an atom?" Certainly, that question cannot serve as a valid argument, much less as a logical basis, for the theory of evolution.
What scientific basis is there for limiting the creative process to an evolutionary process alone, beginning with atomic and subatomic particles—a theory riddled with unexplained gaps and complications—while excluding the possibility of creation as presented in the biblical account? If the latter possibility were admitted, everything would neatly fall into place, and all speculation regarding the origin and age of the world would become unnecessary and irrelevant.
It is certainly not a valid argument to question this possibility by asking, "Why would God create a finished universe when it could have been enough for Him to create a suitable number of atoms or subatomic particles with the power of arrangement and evolution to develop into the present cosmic order?" The absurdity of this argument becomes even more obvious when it becomes the basis of a fragile theory, as if it were founded on solid and irrefutable arguments that supersede all other possibilities.
The question one might ask is, if the theories attempting to explain the origin and age of the world are so weak, how did they ever gain traction in the first place? The answer is simple. It's human nature to seek explanations for everything around us, and any theory, no matter how improbable, is better than nothing, at least until a more credible explanation emerges.
You might now ask, in the absence of a more credible theory, why then is the biblical account of creation not accepted by these scientists? The answer, again, lies in human nature. It is a naturally human ambition to be inventive and original. Accepting the biblical account deprives one of the opportunity to display our analytical and inductive ingenuity. Therefore, by not accepting the biblical account, scientists must invent reasons to "justify" their stance, and when they do, they take refuge in classifying it as ancient and primitive "mythology" and the like, since they cannot truly argue against it on scientific grounds.
If you still feel conflicted about the theory of evolution, I can tell you without fear of contradiction that it lacks the slightest evidence to support it. On the contrary, during the years of research and investigation since the theory was proposed, it has been possible to observe certain animal and short-lived plant species over thousands of generations, and no transmutation from one species to another has ever been established, much less the change from a plant to an animal. Therefore, a theory of this kind has no place in the arsenal of empirical science.
The theory of evolution, which has been referenced, has no basis in the Torah's account of Creation. Even if the theory of evolution could be substantiated today, and the mutation of species were proven in laboratory tests, this would still not contradict the possibility that the world was created, as the Torah states, through the evolutionary process. The purpose of citing the theory of evolution is to illustrate how a highly speculative and scientifically illogical theory can capture the imagination of those lacking critical thinking skills, to the point that it is offered as the scientific explanation for the mystery of Creation, despite the fact that the theory of evolution itself has not been scientifically substantiated and lacks a scientific foundation.
It goes without saying that it is not my intention to cast slander on science or discredit the scientific method. Science cannot operate except by accepting certain theories or hypotheses, even if they cannot be verified, although some theories persist even if they are scientifically refuted or discredited (the theory of evolution being one such case). No technical progress would be possible unless certain physical laws were accepted, although there is no guarantee that the law will be repeated. However, I wish to emphasize, as I have already mentioned, that science is concerned with theories and not with certainties. All scientific conclusions, or generalizations, can only be probable to a greater or lesser degree according to the precautions taken in the use of the obtainable evidence, and the level of probability necessarily decreases with distance from empirical facts, or with increasing variability.
unknown variables, etc., as already indicated. If you keep this in mind, you will soon understand that there is no real conflict between any scientific theory and the Torah.
My comments are longer than anticipated, but they remain brief in relation to the misconceptions and confusion prevalent in many minds. Furthermore, my comments have been confined to general observations, as this is hardly the appropriate medium for going into greater detail. If you have further questions, please feel free to write to me.
To conclude with a note we touched on in our conversation:
The mitzvah of putting on tefillin every day of the week, on the arm in front of the heart, and on the head, the seat of the intellect, indicates, among other things, the true Jewish approach: first action (hand), with sincerity and from the heart, followed by intellectual understanding (head); this is "na'aseh" first and then "nishma." May this spirit penetrate your intellect and awaken your emotional powers, and may they find expression in every aspect of daily life, for "action is the essence.".
With blessing.
(Signature)