avakesh

Abraham's DNA

Does the sun go around the earth?

For the past several weeks, as Birkat Hachama had approached,  I have been observing, with amusement, the ongoing debate in the Chareidi media about whether the sun goes around the earth or vice versa. Letters pro and con various positions, have appeared in Mishpacha, Hamodia and the Yated, while various articles on the topic of Birchat Hachama skirt, explain away or attempt to render this question irrelevant. I first noticed the preoccupation with geocentrilc versus non-geocentric positions when my son showed me an article in Yiddish in the Monsey Community Connection that explained Birchas Hachama and also said that "some people believe that the earth goes around the sun". Other expositions use euphemisms such as, "it doesn't really matter", or say things like, "it appears to an observer that the sun travels around the earth", or some other such expression.

The issue was finally tackled head on by this week's Hamodia, in an article by Harav Binyomin Lndau, the Tosher Dayan of Borough Park. He starts off by explaining the obvious: " As a young child, I remember knowing with certainty that the sun travels around the earth. This principle was a simple fact, universally accepted by Yidden, according to the poskim and woe to any Jew who dared to claim otherwise. He was immediately labeled an apikores, who had cut himself from Klal Yisrael. However, as one grows older and studies this astronomical issue extensively, it becomes clear that this topic is not so clear-cut or straightforward".

Copyright by Hamodia Download Tosher Dayan

Indeed, it is not.

It appears that Chareidi astronomers fall into one of three groups: those that know little astronomy and who are convinced that the Torah demands adherence to a geocentric position, as "codified by Rambam", those who have been touched by greater knowledge and accept the heliocentric explanations, and those who waffle. The Tosher Dayan afifirms at the end that it does not matter which theory one affirms because it all depends on the observer (I elaborate on this later).

While it is true that there were many contemporaries and authors in the generations after Copernicus who opposed him, there were also those who took his side, among them, R. Dovid Ganz and R. Yakov Emden. I find it remarakable that the Tosher Dayan while being unaware of the extensive literature on this topic, and citing only the opposition of R. Yonasan Eybeshutz, and Maase Toviah agaisnt the support of R. Y. Emden and the view of Chasam Sofer that Copernicus' theory is not heresy (but also not scientifically  supported) is still willing to consider the possibility the Copernics may have been right. This takes courage because Shvut Yakov (1:65, see note 246 to the Machon LaMaor edition of Pnei Yehoshusa R"H 20b) and, in out own day, R. Chaim Kanievsky pronounced those who follow Copernicus to be apikorsim. In Bircat Hachamah Betekufoseah, R. Genot brings (p.131) from R. Chaim Kanievseky who says:

כי הנוקט כך הריהו כמכחיש מסורת וכופר באמונתנו.

An excellent review of the entire topic, based on several academic works is found here. I can't resist quoting the following "geocentric" Zohar from this article:

 ובספרא דרב המנונא סבא, פריש יתיר דהא כל ישובא מתגלגלא בעיגולא ככדור אלין לתתא ואלין לעילא וכל אינון בריין משניין בחזווייהו משינויא דאוירא כפום כל אתר ואתר וקיימין בקיומייהו כשאר בני נשא, ועל דא אית אתר בישובא כד נהיר לאלין חשיך לאלין לאלין יממא ולאלין ליליא, ואית אתר דכוליה יממא ולא אשתכח ביה ליליא בר בשעתא חדא זעירא )זוהר, ויקרא, דף י ע"א).

R. Herzog writes about this (translated from English):

תיאוריה הקשורה לשמו של קופרניקוס... הענין מוזכר באופן לא מפורש במקורות התנאיים. ניסוח מלא ישנו בזוהר בפסקה המצוטטת משמו של רב במנונא סבא. שאלת ייחוסו של ספר הזוהר אינה נוגעת לעניין כי רבי משה די לאון שאליו מייחסים המבקרים את החיבור הנפלא נפטר זמן רב לפני קופרניקוס...  (יהדות חוק ומוסר, עמ' 102)

  R. Aron Marcus, writes about this:

יש לציין כי הזוהר מבטל את השיטה הפטולמאית, כבלתי מדעית ונוטה לצד השיטה הקופרניקאית, שהקדים אותה במאות שנים. נוסף על כך לפי דעתו של ר' שמעון בר יוחאי, הרי השקפות של בני דורו בשטח התכונה, אינן אלא סברות של הדיוטות... (החסידות, תל אביב תשיד, עמ' 78.).

Interestingly enough A. Neher claims in his Jewish Thought and the Scientific Revolution of the Sixteenth Century (pp. 104-05) that one could imagine that this was written by a pupil of Copernicus! The truth is that R. Yakov Emden on this Zohar writes:

כל ענין זה הולך על דרך חכמי מחקר לא על דרך רז"ל בתלמוד (מטפחת ספרים, עמ' לז).

However R. Moshe Kuntz (Ben Yochai, p. 81) does not have a problem with Chazal saying this including the Zohar as he has other indications from Chazal like this. But others show that there might be a contradiction in the Zohar about this [see: R. Shpitzer, Nevrashet, Vol.2, p.18a; R. M.M. Gerlitz, Bircas Hachamah KeHilchosah, pp.29-30 and Y. Bloch, Kuntres Hashemesh Begevorso, pp.21-22]. C. Solonski in his introduction to his Kochva Deshvet, (p.14) also brings this Zohar to show that Chazal held like Copenicus. R. P. Hurwitz in his Sefer Habris (p.99) brings the Zohar when dealing with Copernicus but after a lengthy discussion he concludes by disagreeing with Copernicus (pp.98-102). [About this Zohar, See also R. Schick, Seder Haminhaghim, 2:24b; Y. Levi, The Science in Torah, pp.115].

 

My objection to all this is that the Zohar appears to be speaking about the Earth's spherical nature, not its rotation around the sun. I would add that the commentary Nitsotsei Zohar discusses all these issues at length, including the statement of the Gro that the earth is really square, based on Chagigah, beginning of Ch.2. An interesting discussion as to why we are not choshesh to Tumah passing through the round earth from it's opposite side is found in Mahari Engel's Gilyonei Hashas to Shabbos 75.

 

Back to our topic. The Slifkin controversy has already exposed how people who live in the same communities, dress in the same manner, and send their children to the same insitutions, can have very divergent positions on the issues of Torah and science. What determines how one approaches such questions is the amount of secular education, whether one had gone to YU or to a "regular" yeshiva, and one's ability to think critically.

 

Some attempt to "straddle the fence" by claiming that everything is relative. Whether the earth goes around the sun, or the sun circles the earth depends on the position of the observer. For us, who live on earth, it is correct to say that the sun goes around the earth, because that is what we see. Often, Einstein's Theory of Relativity is adduced as supporting such a position. This approach is to my knowledge innovated in the Jewish world by the Lubavitcher Rebbe in a letter quoted on p.9 in the Gutnick Chumash on parshas Bareishis.

 

I recently discussed this letter with a prominent Chabad scientist, who did not agree. When the letter was published, he wrote a letter to the Rebbe making the following points:

1.The Theory of Relativity as described was only a preliminary stage in the development of the theory and was quickly abandoned. Current versions of the Theory do not claim that it is completely impossible to determine which observer is in motion and which is stationary and while for some purposes this is true, for others, there is a clearly defined body at rest and a clearly defined body which is in motion.

2.The Theory of Relativity only applies to two objects traveling past each other in a straight line but not to circular motion.

 

Without being a physicist I can add farther objections:

3.Even if true, this can be said when taking the earth and the sun in isolation. However when you consider the earth as a part of the Solar System, what will you say about the other planets? Is it possbile that they rotate around the earth too at the same time that the earth is rotating around the sun? How does an observer in spacesee the earth in relation to the other planets? Are the geocentric and heliocentric sustems completely equivalent when one  accounts for the relative motion of the sun, the earth and the planets around each other?

4. The results of the two systems are not the same- there is a host of observational, philosophical and theologic differences between the two, and the calculations are very different. In one, the earth is the center of the universe; in the other, it is a speck of dust, of little value in comparison to other celestial bodies, stars and galaxies.

 

Whether the heliocentric system is compatible with Torah is another discussion but I believe that it is, see the first Ibn Ezra on Chumash and this quote. "For Maimonides, this holistic cosmology also had direct metaphysical and ethical implications, for “the individuals of the human species, and all the more so the other species, are things of no value at all in comparison with the whole [of creation] that exists and endures” (3:13, 452). "

 

It certainly matters which system you elect to hold true.

 

The Rebbe referred these questions to Professor Herman Branover for response.

 

It is important to note that circular motion of the universe around the earth was predicated on the Aristotelean idea of eternal heavenly spheres being made of different material than the sublunar realm, which, unlike Heavens, is given to and degeneration and becoming. Being perfect, the upper spheres engage in perfect motion in their longing for the First Cause, perfect motion being a circle. The problem was that heavenly bodies did nto seem to travel across the sky in uniform speed, which the Rambam was already aware of in Ch. 11, of hilchos Kiddush Hachodesh. Whereas Copernicus kept circular motion and had the same difficulty in explaining the observed slowing and retrogression of the celestial bodies, and, therefore, was forced to conserve Ptolomian system of epicycles on top of epicycles. Keppler did away with all that nonsense. He posited that the orbits of the planets around the sun were elliptical. With that the heliocentric model "buried" the geocentric model in terms of simplicity, elegance and explanatory power. Yes, it really does matter which model one affirms, and, no, they are not interchageable at all.

 

Why did I write that I find this amusing? Because affirming Ptolomeic theories in the 21st century is amusing. At least the Tosher Dayan tackled the issue head on - more power to him. Attempts to skirt or finesse the central fact of astronomy tells us more about who we are than about the relative positions of the sun and the earth.

 

 

 

 

Rambam: The scientist

If the lung was pierced but the (inner) wall of the chest seals the hole, the animal is kosher. Ravina says, this is only true if the lung strongly (savich) to the (intercostal) muscle. (Chullin 47a)

Rashi: If it adheres to the rib, rather than muscle, it is NOT kosher.

What if it attaches to both the muscle and the rib?

Rambam (Shechita 11:10) quotes his father as ruling strictly, but he himself rules leniently.

Yam Shel Shlomo (Maharshal) 44:

"A great principle in areas of doubt that are not resolvable with Talmudic proofs, and must be resolved with logic, is that one must follow the decisions of the Rambam, especially in areas relating to nature, such as this one and others like it"

Comment: See the words of Raavad on Hilchos Kiddush Hachodesh 7:7

 

History of Halacha and the non-Jewish systems of Law

I have been recently exchanging emails with a bright young man, who now is studying law. Among other issues that we discussed was theinteraction and mutual influence of Jewish and secular law on one another.

It is popular among academic scholars to maintain that developments in the manner of organization, study andapplication of Jewish Law follow the developments in the world outside. The periods for which such claims have been made are the Mosaic period and the Code of Hammurabi, the period of Baalei Hatosafos and contemporary legal schools, and the talmudic halacha and its Persian correlates (also here).

Such claims diminish the Divinity and uniqueness of Halacha and demand a response.

The arguments about the parallels between the Hammurabi's Code and Parshas Mishpatim was the first instance and it had been addressed to some degree. R. Samson Raphael Hirsch in his commentary to Mishpatim argued that the laws listed in the Chumash are a collection of notes that are meantto be accompanied for interpetation by Oral Law. Others,have suggested that they are,in fact, a response to Hammurabi's laws, in that these specific instances were specifically chosen to highlight the difference between the compassion and morality of Mosaic legislation andthe class-conscious and authoritarian legalism of Hammurabi.

In regard to theAmoraic period and the Baalei Hatosafos, I suggest that on the contrary, secular law followed the forms and developments in the Jewish legal system.

I think that it had a lot to do with the popular understanding of Justice. I think that until Justinian, they used to see the purpose of a lawsuit as resolving the specific case in litigation based on common sense and the inborn sense fairness, and precedents were only seen a guide to what other people thought in similar situations.  It was not until fairly late, in the time of theemperor Justinian that Byzantine jurors compiled, and more importantly reconciled various precedent decisions, so that they they could be understood within a framework of principles, rather than disconnected rules.In addition to compiling precedents, they offered a rudimentary outline of laws on every legal subject. The paradigm shift to defining the "Law", was probably much influenced by the Jewish idea of Halacha, as an independent legal Truth that exists in its own space, up there. This slowly sipped over to the Gentile world and led to the attempts to define "pure" Law, for application in specific cases. The same is true of medieval Ashkenaz. It is not the the Jewish world of BaaleiHatosafos was influenced by legal developments outside of it, as Ta Shma and others claim, but in reverse.

It is trendy among academicians to assume that influence flows one way, from thelarger and wealthier Gentile world to the poorer, scattered and disadvanteged Jewish world. However, in numerous other instances, this is simply not so. Judaism has impacted on theworld to great, almost formative degree in many areas that are remote form "pure" religion. It is not only in religion that Judaism determined and shaped the face of Gentile society, but even, for example,  in science. To the pagans, nature was a field of competition and strife by opposing and disparate forces. The idea of universal principles established by one God, transmitted via a return of Protestanism to the "Hebrew Truth", gave birth to the scientific method.

Similarly, Gentile jurists were undoubtedly affected by the Jewish system of courts that existed and functioned alongside theirs. Udoubtedly, they were exposed to cases that had already been litigated in Beis Din, or they had an opportunity to send cases back to the Jewish courts and followed their outcomes. In this fashion, the idea that Law is an independent and self-referring system, not only a collection of precedents to serve as a gudie to an individual jurist, had ample opportunity to penetrate and become established among non-Jewish legal theoriticians.

An interview with Wolfgang Smith: Science and Philosophy

Wolfgang Smith graduated at age 18 from Cornell University with a B.A. in mathematics, physics, and philosophy. Two years later he took an M.S. in theoretical physics at Purdue University, following which he joined the aerodynamics group at Bell Aircraft Corporation. He was the first to investigate the effect of a foreign gas on aerodynamic heating, and his papers on the effect of diffusion fields provided the key to the solution of the re-entry problem for space flight. After receiving a Ph.D. in mathematics from Columbia University, Dr. Smith held professorial positions at M.I.T., U.C.L.A., and Oregon State University till his retirement in 1992. He has published extensively on mathematical topics relating to algebraic and differential topology.

From the start, however, Smith has evinced a dominant interest in metaphysics and theology. Early in life he acquired a taste for Plato and the Neoplatonists, and sojourned in India to gain acquaintance with the Vedantic tradition. Later he devoted himself to the study of theology, and began his career as a Catholic metaphysical author. Besides contributing numerous articles to scholarly journals, Dr. Smith has authored three books: Cosmos and Transcendence (1984), Teilhardism and the New Religion (1988), and The Quantum Enigma (1995).

Inner Explorations: Tell us what motivated you to write on philosophical subjects.

Wolfgang Smith:

More than anything else, it was the recognition that science is a doubled-edged sword. On the one hand there is scientific truth, a bona fide knowledge of a special kind; but that knowledge is accompanied in practice by a syndrome of philosophic assumptions which are generally mistaken for scientific truths. It became clear to me, moreover, in light of the metaphysical traditions, that these scientistic beliefs (as I call them) tend to be spurious, and deleterious to our spiritual well-being. I became convinced, in fact, that the spiritual and moral decline of modern civilization--our estrangement from spiritual reality--is due in no small measure to the scientistic world-view which has been foisted upon us in the name of science. I therefore made it my business to detect and expose the principal scientistic dogmas affecting contemporary civilization.

IE: Can you give an example of a prominent scientistic belief?

WS:

As a major example I would mention the Darwinian theory of evolution, which (contrary to official belief) is not in fact a scientific hypothesis corroborated by empirical facts, but a philosophic tenet masquerading in scientific garb. As one molecular biologist has put it, Darwinism is ultimately "no more and no less than the great cosmogenetic myth of the twentieth century." The genre of scientistic myth, however, is not limited to the sphere of biology; it is to be found even in the physical domain. When it comes to psychology and the social sciences, moreover, it appears that myth actually predominates. I have explained and documented these contentions in my first book.

IE: You allude to the philosophic traditions; could you tell us more about that.

WS:

Early in life I came to the conclusion that the major pre-modern schools of philosophy exhibit a remarkable unity. It is almost as if they were dialects of a single primordial tongue, or pictures of a single subject taken from different points of vantage. One needs of course to get beyond the surface, beyond the outer forms, to detect that kinship and compatibility. And so I discovered, in what I term the great traditions, a standard of philosophic truth. There are truths about God, man, and the universe, I found, which have been known since the dawn of human history. It is we, generally speaking, who have forgotten these truths! My writing, thus, has a double thrust: the conquest, first of all, of scientistic illusions, complemented by a recovery of metaphysical truth--a glimpse into this forgotten realm.

IE: In your most recent book you deal with the enigmas of quantum theory. Can you tell us what you have done?

WS:

Since 1927 physicists and philosophers have debated the nature of physical reality on the quantum level in an effort to resolve certain apparent paradoxes. The latest physics seems not to fit the accustomed world picture. From the outset I suspected that the problem lies in a deviation from the perennial philosophic norm; but what precisely was the offending postulate? And by what tenet must it be replaced? And how can physics be re-interpreted, following upon such metaphysical rectification? These are the questions which intrigued me; and the answers presented themselves in due course. The offending dogma, I found, is an assumption, introduced by René Descartes, which underlies our customary interpretation of physics. That postulate, however, has become so ingrained in the contemporary scientific mentality that it has been consistently overlooked even by theorists intent upon the resolution of the quantum enigma. Yet it turns out (as I have shown) that the paradoxes in question disappear of their own accord the moment physics is re-interpreted on a traditional metaphysical basis.

IE: Is this book accessible to the general reader, and how has it been received in the scholarly world?

WS:

Yes, like all my books, The Quantum Enigma is indeed accessible to the general educated reader. I have made sure of that. As to its reception so far, I am pleased to note that the book has sparked considerable interest in philosophic circles, for example, among Thomists, who are very pleased. There are signs today of a reaction, not only to scientistic dogmatism, but to postmodernist deconstruction as well. The time is ripe for a return to the metaphysical traditions, even though the mainstream institutions of learning will presumably continue to pursue their anti-traditional course for some time to come. The advantage today lies with small as opposed to large-scale intellectual communities.

IE: What advice do you have for the seeker of truth?

WS:

Know from the start that all truth derives from the Word of God and thus partakes of the sacred. Cultivate purity, knowing that this constitutes a precondition to the reception of truth. Learn once more to revere what is worthy of reverence. Cast off the profane and irreverent persona of the modern intellectual, and cultivate the spirit of discipleship. Learn to receive the gift of faith; know that faith is the seed of wisdom.

From here

Kuzari 2: Relating to Philosophy and Science

Download kuzari_relating_to_philosophy.mp3

Historical approaches to the Theory of Evolution.

Responses to the theory of evolution among Jewish thinkers are only now beginning to be heard. Sure, there has been some polemical writing against this theory in the Orthodox media but a serious non-polemical and considered evaluation has not  been offered until Slifkin has done so, drawing greatly on Christian sources ... and we all know the rest of the story! The fact that thinkers such as R. Hirsch and R. Kook were at least in theory willing to accept certain evolutionary premises came as a surprise to many people who assumed Jews must reject Darwin's ideas as a matter of religious principle. I hope to show that Evolution, with, of course, modifications, was not as nearly universally rejected by religious thinkers as it now seems.

It is instructive to realize that at the same time as R. Hirsch was expressing his position, non-Jewish religious thinkers were grappling with Darwin's ideas. Their reception has not been uniformly negative.

Of course, evolutionary ideas presented problems. The argument from design on which much of natural theology was built was severely undermined by Darwinism for it offered an alternative to design as an explanation for the development of species. Darwin himself realized that his opinions were destructive of religious faith and while he could not say so publicly, he wrote of it in his letters. So also "lower origins" of man were felt by many to be undignified and impossible to reconcile with the Biblical image of man as the pinnacle of Creation. Yet A. H. Strong (1836-1921) ,a biblical conservative, argued that humans are no less human even if evolved from beasts.

Many religious thinkers thought that evolution was compatible with Bible and religious perspective. Richard Chamber wrote the Vestiges of a Natural History of Creation in 1844, in which he argued that creation was programmed to evolve by God from the beginning. Many were prepared to accept evolution as the explanation for the diversity of species but argued against the natural selection as its driving force. Some anti-religionists, in fact, expressed reservations about evolution as suggesting a purposefulness that hinted at a Higher Being, Thomas Henry Huxley ("Darwin's bulldog"), for example. thus, some form of evolution was thought to be in no way necessarily incompatible with the Biblical account.

Liberal Protestants were all too willing to reinterpret the Bible so as to allow evolution and Catholics followed. St. George Mivatt 91827-1900) upheld "theistic", that is, guided evolution. In 1950 Pope Pius XII gave conditional support to the theory of evolution. IN 1966, Pope Pius XII called evolution, "more than a hypothesis". This means that under St. Augustine's four principles, the way was now open to accommodating Catholicism to Evolution.

Most accommodators preferred the Day-Age Theory of Genesis, in which each day of creation corresponded to a geological epoch. According t the alternative Gap theory, there was a vast period of time between the creation of Heaven and Earth and the rest of Creation, accounting for the discrepancy between the Biblical and evolutionary chronology. Many religious scientists embraced theistic evolution. They included the biologist Asa Grey and Alfred Russel Wallace, the independent originator of the idea of natural selection.

Thus, history shows us that at the first appearance of the Theory of Evolution the impulse among the theologians was to understand and adapt it to the religious framework. This was also true among those Jews who had the time and inclination to concern themselves with science. During this period of time, the Jewish nation was confronting much more pressing issues. Jews encountered Evolution much later, only as they began to recover from the challenges of surviving World Wars I and II and rebuilding their devastated communities. Nevertheless, in the beginning, they also approached this task with a measure of tolerance and patience. This was not destined to persist either among Christians or Jews.

For both the Christians and much later the Jews, the landscape was transformed by the rise of Fundamentalism.   

Fundamentalism is not a curse word. It is a technical term that is applied to the followers of a set of 12 tracts, The Fundamentalist, published in 1910-1915 in the Untied Sates. These tracts set out the purported 12 fundamentals of Christan belief, that its authors considered basic to Biblical teaching. They included literalism, biblical inerrant and a strong admixture of millenarianism, a a belief in the imminent second coming. The Scopes "monkey trials quickly followed in 1925, marking a watershed in the transformation of American Protestantism from a  theologically focused, philosophically based, "cerebral" religion to the shrill, emotional concoction of elemental Christianity that we encounter today. The tide did not carry away the historic inheritance of centuries of theological discussion but it certainly submerged it, so much so that an average evangelical is not aware of (and does not care about) the enormous philosophical and theological tradition that preceded it.

For the Jews, Slifkins banning and the tide of literalist rhetoric that followed it,was a similar watershed event. Here also we find rejection of the complexity of preceding thought, focus on the fundamentals, messianic agitation, and strong emphasis on belief (hashkofa) as opposed to reason and reflection.

A disclaimer. I myself identify with the chareidi approach for a variety of reasons, some of which I might discuss later on and some that I will not.  This analysis deliberately adopts an outsider's" approach in order  to point out the similarities between how the two faith-communities handled the same issues, sometimes in ways that were similar and sometimes in ways that were different, which we will, please G-d,  discuss as we go through this series.

Science and Religion: Slifkin from 1600-1900

The Slifkin controversy simmered down but did not disappear. The issues that it raised remain alive and will continue to be debated for a very long time. A bit of historical perspective will show that these issues were raised before in a different time and place. A brief look at how the Christian world handled them centuries ago may prove to be instructive.

Until two hundred years ago there was little reason to question the Biblical account of Earth's origins. The Bible was the oldest existing text known and it was shrouded in sanctity and held to be infallible. In addition, there was little else to cast doubt on its account. Furthermore, the entire homocentric mindset of the religious society made a differing sensibility nigh inconceivable. Of course, ancient Aristotelean philosophy with its assertion of the eternal universe and its occasional voice (see Ibn Ezra to Genesis 1:1) against man's centrality in the order of the universe continued to be heard along the periphery of the educated man's awareness - but it was not what ruled in the Middle Ages. The first step away from the centrality of the Bible was in Renaissance when humanists such as J.J. Scaliger, and among the Jews Azaria DeRossi, compiled chronologies based on both Biblical and classical sources. For the next several hundred years, the Bible continued to exert a strong influence on the interpretation of the new geological and cosmological data. The final break with this approach did not come until about a 100 years ago.

Nicholas Steno in the 17th century developed a theory of geology that was to become the basis for the new science. His observations of the Tuscan countryside led him to four conclusions.

1.Fossils are the remains of living creatures and not a type of rocks

2.Rock strata are sedimentary deposits.

3.As such, they must have been laid down horizontally. This means that whenever they are found at angles to one another, there must have been a shift subsequent to their formation.

4. Lower strata are older than higher ones.

For Steno as for those who followed him, Thomas Burnett, Edmund Haley, John Woodward the cause of strata shifting was biblical Flood.

It wasn't until the higher criticism" began to detract from the universal belief in the authenticity of the Biblical record that a group of geologists was emboldened to propose theories of the Earth's development that did not draw or incorporate Biblical evidence. Geologists as well as theologians split into two groups. Some, the so-called Mosaical geologists did not accept the findings of "higher criticism" and continued toe explain geological evidence based on the Biblical accounts. Others, the so called philosophical geologists,  drew upon it and reinterpret the Biblical text to conform to the new theories. Thus, from the very beginning the reinterpretation of the Biblical text and the new science walked hand in hand. True, there were people who accepted the new geology and not Biblical criticism and vice-versa - but the general trend was as I stated it.

At the same time, both criticism and geology were becoming  highly technical disciplines. An average educated person could no longer follow the intricacies of comparative linguistics, structural analysis or chemical and biological arguments that these fields now required. The public became alienated from the complexity and sophistication of professional scientists and theologians. This led to the emergence of fundamentalism - a reaction to complexity in which the surface meaning of Scripture acquired sanctity that it did not possess before.

Now, over time these developments led to the emergence of liberal denominations. Both Catholics and Protestants gradually accepted both the scientific viewpoint and higher criticism". Opposing them stood the fundamentalist camp that accepted neither and insisted on the absolute literalness of Scripture.

Among the Jews, the process of confronting science and the critical Bible study is only now beginning. This is both because we have principles of faith that Christians do not possess, such as Divine Origin of the Torah and it having been, in a manner of speech, dictated by God (language of Rambam in the 8th ikkar) and because for Jews science and religion never walked hand in hand as it did among the Gentiles. Slifkin provoked a controversy for many reasons. There was the manner and tone, there was overreaction to the manner and tone, there were specific statements. However, to me one of his major failings was taking on only the science and leaving  unexplored the closely related question of the divine origin and veracity of Scriptural test. Talking about science is fine but many people hear a disrespect for the veracity of Scripture within the discussion of science. One cannot be discussed without the other and one's position vis-a-vis literal truth of Chazal and Genesis needs to be clearly stated before the scientific notions themselves begin to be invoked.

Science and Religion: Intelligent Design

We have briefly reviewed the history of science and religion interaction until the modern times. Let us now use this knowledge to move into the present.

Although limited theological reading of the book of nature, that is use of natural theology to make theological points,  has been attempted since antiquity, there has been no comprehensive effort to develop a "theology of science" until the 19th  century. This was so simply because theology did not need science as a basis for authority. It had Scripture, it had reason. Once science began to accrue authority though success, it also became a fodder for theological inquiry.

Natural theology was developed and popularized especially in England with works such as: The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of Creation by John Ray, Natural Theology by William Payne, the Bridgewater Treatises,  and the Boyle lectures mentioned previously. Most of this works employed the argument from design, that is the contention that the wonderful and intricate interdependence of nature reveals the existence and benevolence of the Creator.

The argument from design suffers from inherent limitations. First of all, it relies on ignorance, the God of the gaps. Just because we cannot imagine an alternative explanation of what we see , does not mean that such an explanation cannot be offered. Darwinism, with all its difficulties, was so successful and hit so hard precisely because it offered an explanation of this sort. Furthermore, it is essentially agnostic; it can prove that there is a God but nothing about His nature. Finally and crucially, it is extra-scientific. Thus, even while attempting to accrue scientific authority, it does so only by association. Thus, over time it deteriorates into fairly transparent apologetics and declares itself as coming from the side of religion side rather than science.

A recent attempt to restate the argument from design for the modern man is called Intelligent design. It holds two principles:

1.Intelligent causes are inferable from the design of the universe. The argument is usually presented so: Look at the complexity of the eye, universe, man - how everything works together and is intricately woven together. Evolution cannot explain this - only intelligent design can explain it.

2.Intelligent causes can be used a scientific principle in formulating scientific hypotheses. God, or, as some proponents have  argued, aliens or whatever, have placed a tendency to purposeful aggregation into inanimate and animate matter, such that it leads, by a pre-existent design to purposeful results that otherwise cannot be easily explained.

These two points are quire different. The former in a variation on Natural Theology. The latter is a bona-fide philosophic argument that science need not exclude intelligent guidance from its scientific underpinnings.  Stripped from its religious origins this is an argument that everyone, theist, agnostics ,even atheist can agree to accept as a purely scientific principle. In fact, it holds potential promise in explaining the tendency of matter and information to aggregate into clusters of higher order.

Related to the the latter principle is the Anthropic principle. I will not discuss it here but it is of great importance in potentially bringing scientific an religious thinking together.

God the watchmaker

Technology serves as a model for the conceptual frameworks that have always helped man grasp his world. In antiquity, for example, the furnace explained how the body works. For Aristotle and Galen, the heart was the furnace which generated the heat and the lungs the bellows that then distributed it around the body. In the same fashion, as the distinction between science and religion began to come into focus in the 17th century, the model of the then popular technological marvel, the mechanical clock, with its hidden wheels and pulleys, multiple hands, appearing and disappearing bird and human figures, ticking and melodies,  gained prominence and began to function as an explanation for the world and how it worked.  It drew on the discussions of machina mundi that have been conducted since the late Middle Ages, coupled itself to the revival of ancient Epicurean ideas of atomism and created widespread anxiety about the spread and eventual triumph of Atheism - a view of the world without God. Deists, while not ready to abandon the idea of a Creator, made this Creator an essentially absent being, who created the universe and then walked away form it. The world runs itself!

At the same time, the clock model reinforced the necessity of a watchmaker, and made plausible the supposition that behind the regular and apparently independent motion of the clock-hands, there hid an autonomous Being, who intervened and repaired and made the clock run smoothly and, apparently, effortlessly. This fed into the argument between occasionalists and naturalists in the Middle Ages, which farther confused the issues. Numerous thinkers, Mersenne, Gassendi, Robert Boyle (the famous chemist but also a theologian of renown), busied themselves with reconciling this view of Nature with the existence of God, possibility of miracles and denial of determinism (that all human action is predetermined). Boyle, in particular, attempted to use scientific discoveries to support received Truth, setting the stage for much of the apologetic approaches we encounter on this topic today. Boyle''s Lectures, an annual event that was funded by Boyle's inheritance and aimed to combat Atheism (while there were few avowed atheists around at that time, they were suspected and seen everywhere - such were the insecurities of the age). Among arguments used to support religion were discoveries of Newton, himself an intensely religious man, who hinted that gravity was an incorporeal force that proved the existence of the spiritual world. Others became interested in occultism, witchcraft and divination - all to show that behind the mechanical world there stands the world of spirit.

Ultimately, such attempts are unsuccessful, for they are reactive, rather than proactive. One must not infer God out of the gaps in current scientific knowledge. Science marches one, and often fills in the gaps that were previously evoked as evidence of the supernatural. The experience of 17th and 18th century teaches us that we must not stand within science to prove Spirit, but that we must understand each world, the physical, and the spiritual on its own terms and within its own framework. One needs to remember that in practice science is still devoted to the mechanical model as the explanation for the world. But, this model is disintegrating as the computer, not the clock, becomes the regnant technology, and as quantum thinking, chaos theories and Relativity undermine the conviction that everything can be predicted and explained. It is not in the gaps that we might find God but in His rightful space as the power that moves and infuses all things.