9

A member of my shul, scientist who was on the short-list to win a Nobel a couple of years ago, made an interesting point about his own ethical issue. As a scientist involved in biology, professionally, he must assume the existence of biological evolution, and this conclusion is apparent in the papers he writes which discuss how cell biology and behavior evolve over an observable amount of time. On the other hand, he religiously believes that the Torah's account of creation is the truth, although perhaps not literal in all respects. He wonders whether by adopting as true previous science concerning evolutionary biological development, his work directly conflicts with Judaism's fundamental tenets. He has his own rationale, but are there responsas that address this issue for scientists? I note that there have been some pretty amazing rabbinic scholars who were also scientists, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (a physicist), for one. So I would imagine there must be something. Among the issues I wonder about is whether the rabbis would consider this scientists' representations as being ganeives daas (improper deception).

Loewian
  • 17,746
  • 2
  • 29
  • 60
Bruce James
  • 15,960
  • 2
  • 49
  • 105
  • Some big names have said there is no problem: http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/102463/orthodox-anger-over-plan-compulsory-evolution-lessons last 3 paragraphs – rosends Dec 31 '14 at 17:38
  • Is this question trying to be different from this one? If so, I don't quite see the distinction. – Daniel Dec 31 '14 at 17:47
  • Does this work for you? http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/15650/21 – Shalom Dec 31 '14 at 17:48
  • Also, even if the answer is that it contradicts tenets of Judaism, I doubt that anyone would say that those tenets are "fundamental" such that without them, there is nothing left. – Daniel Dec 31 '14 at 17:49
  • 2
    This is very close to being a dupe. We have had a few questions before on reconciling Science with Biblical Creation. Can you clarify how this is not the same as those? – Seth J Dec 31 '14 at 17:52
  • 2
    @SethJ It may not be a dupe. It could be that even if one doesn't believe in evolution one may be permitted to "play along" with scientists who do, or it could (though unlikely) be like "Abizraihu DeAvoda Zara" and a Yehareg Ve'Al Yaavor. I think a better form of this question would be about a researcher writing something outright Kefirahdik, such as a frum archeologist writing about the lack of evidence of a "Yetziyas Mitzrayim" – ertert3terte Dec 31 '14 at 18:00
  • @Shalom ping... – ertert3terte Dec 31 '14 at 18:01
  • @Daniel ping...... – ertert3terte Dec 31 '14 at 18:01
  • @SethJ I tried to preview this question on Meta first. What I think is unique about this question is that the assumption of evoluationary theories by the scientist could be ganeves daas. – Bruce James Dec 31 '14 at 19:17
  • Tell me if I'm understanding this question correctly: A prominent biochemist and Nobel Prize nominee operationally accepts mainstream academia's view on the evolutionary development of species. In his opinion, this is a flawed approach, but he knows that he must tow the line in his work for the sake of his career and for the positive advances in (non-evolutionary) science he can effect thereby. Thus, he believes he is being intellectually dishonest by propagating the mainstream approach in his field, but he believes he has just cause. Is this deception halachically permissible? – Fred Dec 31 '14 at 20:23
  • I have spoken to great rabbis about this before, and here's the picture I got: I don't see any dishonesty involved here, because I can say that while the scientific evidence supports evolution, and so scientific inquiry should therefore proceed according to those assumptions, the biblical/rabbinic evidence might not support such a theory. As to what actually happened, I have no idea, so I work with whichever theory serves my need for the task at hand- I don't need to actually decide on whether evolution happened, just see how it works out with the way things seem to work for now. – הנער הזה Dec 31 '14 at 23:04
  • 1
    Is the question about the deception, or is the question about propagating heresy (assuming, for the moment that it's both deceptive and heretical)? – Seth J Jan 01 '15 at 01:34
  • Pinging @Fred ^^^^^ – Seth J Jan 01 '15 at 01:35
  • @SethJ both really. – Bruce James Jan 01 '15 at 04:29
  • 3
    I assume the evolution he directly deals with is microevolution. I believe the evolution which caries particular religous ramifications is macroevolution. – mevaqesh Jan 28 '15 at 01:20
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution#Moshe_Feinstein – ray Dec 23 '15 at 18:40

1 Answers1

2

Torah and religion teach of the world as it is (assuming that we know to understand the teaching correctly) while science deals with the world as we see it. There cannot be any religious problem to speak of the world as God has shown it to us, as long as we recognize that our perception of the world should not be taken as the ultimate true description of the world. (As an aside, this is something which should also be recognized from a purely secular viewpoint.)

Therefore, a religious scientist should not have any problem professionally speaking of the world as it is seen from a scientific perspective, while personally believing that that is not actually the true account of reality.

DanielEvalUlai
  • 179
  • 2