A few weeks ago, I finally read The Challenge of Creation, by Rabbi Natan Slifkin. I plan on discussing some of the ideas in the book on my blog. But first, some general comments about the book:
The book consists of 3 parts: Science, Cosmology and Evolution:
- In the first part, Slifkin presents evidence for G-d’s existence from the laws of the Universe. He then discusses miracles, providence and natural law. Finally he shows how to resolve conflicts of Science with Torah by reinterpreting things not-literally.
- In the second part, Slifkin presents evidence for the age of the Universe. He then discusses different approaches of reconciling the science with the Torah. He rejects these approaches and concludes that Genesis is a theological text, not a scientific one.
- In the third part, Slifkin presents evidence for Common Ancestry, Evolution and Natural Selection. He discusses Intelligent Design, but rejects it for religious reasons. He then tries to reconcile Darwinian Evolution with Judaism. Finally, he tries to resolve the contradiction between the scientific explanation of man’s existence and the account in Genesis.
The book is filled with many quotes to give authority to the views presented. Quoting someone doesn’t prove it is true and it makes the book a slightly choppy read, but I guess it is necessary. The book is filled with controversial and sometimes irrelevant footnotes, which often raise issues without discussing them well. I thing some of them should be expanded, and others deleted. The book is overall well-written, though some phrases sound like the writing of a 17-year old. The book often gave me a déjà vu feeling because of its redundancies. The same quotes appear in multiple places in the book. Besides these minor flaws, The Challenge of Creation is an excellent discussion of critically important, but often ignored, issues.
On most issues, I probably would agree with Slifkin. I may disagree somewhat about ID or some of the book’s implications, but I’m not 100% sure about all my views. The posts to come will be discuss the actual issues.
3 comments:
Good, looking forward.
>"The book often gave me a déjà vu feeling because of its redundancies. The same quotes appear in multiple places in the book."<
In one key area, the multiple quoting is simply mutuallt exclusive or incompatible.
Towards the end of the first section he quoted Rav Hirsch in giving theological basis in Judaism for God to create a rigid structure of natural law which re-inforces the concept of cause-and-effect.
This impresses upon us that we are morally responsible for the effects of our actions as well:
"Judaism considers it vitally important for its adherents to become aware that their entire universe is governed by well defined laws, that every creature on earth becomes what it is only within the framework of fixed laws (emphasis added), and that every force in nature can operate only within specified limits..."
This is the messege of CURRENT physical causality in nature.
But then 150 pages later (around paga 262?) Slifkin quotes this very same passage of Rav Hirsch to be saying something entirely different:
"Even from a religious perspective, there are strong grounds for arguing that it is most reasonable that God created new creatures - somehow - from the already existing creatures, rather than zapping them into existence out of thin air, as making them from existing creatures is much more within the realm of natural law. God chooses to work within the system of natural law- not because He has to, but because He wants to. As Rabbi Hirsch states: 'Judaism considers it vitally important for its adherents to become aware that their entire universe is governed by well defined laws, that every creature on earth becomes what it is only within the framework of fixed laws (emphasis added), and that every force in nature can operate only within specified limits...'"
This is either blatant trickery or extremely sloppy. Either way, it's not a way to construct a consistent theology of Judaism claiming to be built on Rav Hirsch's ideas.
This mistake gave me the feeling that I was being had.
I'm not sure what the contradiction is. Isn't he just saying nature follows laws?
Post a Comment