later chapters Instant universe

The Evolution of Adam

Part I:

Scientific Monogenesis1

It has long been recognized by many evolutionary biologists that all life emanates from a common source. The famous mathematical-physicist Hermann Weyl writes as follows2:

"Considerations of evolution in the large will of necessity lead to the question of the origin of life. The evidence of genetics makes one incline to see in life the chance success of a play of creative accidents. Not some predictable macrophysical or macrochemical process, that with a certain natural necessity came to pass at a certain stage of evolution - and would repeat itself wherever the appropriate conditions prevailed - seems responsible for the historic beginnings of life, but a molecular event of singular character, occurring once by accident, and then starting an avalanche by autocatalytic multiplication (P. Jordan). Jordan adduces as a strong argument for this opinion "the fact that all the more complicated molecules found in plants and animals, especially the protein molecules, are stereochemically different from their mirror images". Indeed had they an independent origin at many places and many times their levo- and dextro-varieties should show nearly the same abundance. Thus it looks as if there is some truth in the story of Adam and Eve, if not for the origin of mankind then for that of the most primitive forms of life."

It is now becoming evident however, that there is yet more truth to the story of Adam and Eve: a specific gene has been traced in the various races of Man which indicates that it derives from a common ancestress who lived about 100,000 years ago.

In this way comparative genetics indicates that all mankind existing today is descended from one genetic line, which mutated from the parent line about 100,000 years ago 3. Thus even according to evolutionary theory, all humankind is descended from one original progenitor just as in Genesis. Fittingly, evolutionary geneticists have dubbed her "Eve" 4.

Genesis and scientific theory are therefore in agreement that the universe emerged out of nothing, and is not eternal; that all life is descended from a single original life form; and that all Mankind is descended from one unique ancestral human being.

The Emergence of Moral Man

Physical science does not generally recognize free will as a qualitatively unique physical phenomenon, but rather as a psychological phenomenon, and therefore evolutionary genetics can consider an intelligent conscious being with free will as genetically identical to one lacking free will. Therefore fossils and skulls may not be relevant as indicators of whether or not their owners were free-willed.

It is also not clear if one can ascribe different types of behaviour to true moral beings and to non-moral beings who imagine themselves to have free will, and therefore it is not clear if archaeological evidence can ever be used to distinguish between the remains of a civilization of moral beings and those of non-free-willed beings. Therefore although there are various theories and pieces of evidence which help determine when humans of one type or another emerged, it is not clear when free-willed moral beings first emerged.

One can suppose however that since moral beinghood requires intelligence and foresight in addition to free will, that the emergence of moral beings was somewhat after the emergence of ordinary Homo Sapiens. Indeed, as we saw in a previous chapter, it may perhaps have been relatively recently - about ten thousand years ago.

One could consider Cro-Magnon Man as the first to have been capable of free will, and perhaps it was a genius from this stock who first formulated a moral code, and who taught morality to his contemporary latent moral beings. Alternatively, it may be that an additional mutation was responsible for the aquisition of free will, and the first such mutant descendant of Cro-Magnon Man was the first moral being and the father of a new race of moral beings.

The emergence of the first moral being or society may be the event which is referred to in Genesis, in the allegory of the eating of the Tree of Knowledge and the consequent understanding of the concepts of good and evil.

Adam's Birthdate

The date of the creation and of the emergence of Adam - the first moral being - is not given explicitly in the Bible and is not referred to anywhere else in the Bible. A putative date can be computed via the geneology given after the creation account, however in it we are told of life-spans of almost a thousand years, so that the geneology is apparently not refering to ordinary physical ages and dates, leaving the date of the emergence of Adam unspecified.

Genetics does not deal in categories of purpose, and therefore the ability to exercize free will and become a moral being is not considered genetically significant. Genetically speaking, the first human may have lived long ago, however with respect to the category of purpose relevant in the Bible, the first true human was the first moral being, and we - who are moral beings - are its children.

In the terms of reference of the purpose of the human race in the Biblical context, it was the emergence of Moral Man which allowed the onset of purpose.

Biblical perspective classifies beings according to categories relating to purpose rather than to evolutionary-genetic development. From this perspective, the predecessors of the first moral man are classified with the animals since they lacked intelligent free willed consciousness. Only the moral being is a 'human' being, and can be classified as being 'in the image of Gd', so that the title of ‘first human being’ is bestowed on the first of ‘Moral Man’. The Bible essentially begins with the emergence and moral development of the first such beings since their prior evolutionary development is not of direct relevance from the perspective of the category of purpose.

Genesis and the origin theories agree that the race of modern man 'began' at some point, that there was a 'first man'. However from the categories of science and of religion 'human' is defined differently, and therefore the date of emergence of the 'first human' is different. Although Cro-Magnon Man may have existed for about 90,000 years before Adam, we are told that it was Adam who was the first human, and the only human of his time, since he was the first Moral man, and for a while, the only one.

Part II: Adam’s Predecessors as Inhabitants of the ‘Prior Worlds’

There are statements in the Talmud and Midrash to the effect that "Gd created and destroyed worlds" prior to the creation detailed in Genesis5. It is not clear however whether this implies the creation of worlds prior to the very creation of heaven and earth - that is, the creation of prior universes - or if it is referring to the creation of planets within the universe whose creation is described in Genesis. And, if it refers to the creation of planets within the universe of Genesis, it is not clear whether the reference is to planets other than earth, or to the planet earth prior to the creation of Adam.

Indeed, another Talmudic statement declares that the destruction of an individual is considered as the destruction of a world. Thus, if God ‘created and destroyed worlds’ on planet earth prior to the emergence of Adam, this would mean that Adam was not necessarily the first human on our planet. Indeed, the Tifferet Yisrael6 stated that fossil remains may bear witness to such pre-Adamic man. Similarly, according to R. Shimon Schwab, Adam was not necessarily the first human-like being7 - there may have existed beings without free will, beings not created ‘in the image of God’.

We can perhaps interpret the "creation of worlds" as taking place via a divinely instituted natural law - via an evolutionary process. One could then say that life - and man - originally arose on Earth via evolution. Then at some stage Gd "destroyed the world" which arose this way - that is, caused an evolutionary or climactic change such as for example caused the disappearance of the dinosaurs and later of Neanderthal Man, the ice ages and so on - and created Adam as described in Genesis - that is, caused the emergence of the first moral being.

Part III: The origin of the soul, and its transmission

According to religious philosophy, Man is connected to the spiritual realm and posseses a non-physical aspect - a 'soul'- as distinguished from the animals. Since the soul is by definition a spiritual entity, not a physical one, we encounter the age-old philosophical problems relating to the difficulty of a purely spiritual entity interacting with a purely physical entity - a form of the mind-body problem.

In Genesis, the soul-body issue is referred to in the phrase Òand the spirit of God hovered above the watersÓ, where it was from the waters that life emerged, and especially in the almost shocking statement that after causing man to emerge from the physical elements at hand, ÒGod breathed into him the living spirit.... creating him in the image of GodÓ.

The genetics of soul

In order to listen to the radio, one must have, as a necessary condition, a functioning, powered radio. However, this is not a sufficient condition. There must also be a transmitter which is broadcasting, and among other things, the radio must be tuned to the same frequency as the transmitter. Similarly, one can distinguish between the necessary and sufficient conditions to be fulfilled in order for a being to possess a soul.

In order for the spiritual realm to interact with a physical being as a soul does, it is necessary that the being be of a highly developed type with a certain genetic structure. This however is not a sufficient condition, as it is also necessary that there be the transmitter, in this case the spiritual realm reaching out to the physical being. In addition, the being must 'tune' its consciousness to the proper channel.

This genetic potential to tune in to the spiritual can be inherited genetically. The spiritual realm is constantly reaching out to man, and anyone with the potential8 can tune in if they choose to do so. Thus, a 'soul' is more of an interaction, a reception, than an entity by itself. It is not a 'thing' that can be inherited or given. Rather, it is 'a phenomenon' available to all beings with the requisite genetic structure.

Thus physical birth can allow transmission of a transcendant 'soul' from a mother, and the origin of a transcendant soul can coincide with a particular physical genetic development, so that the first being to evolve with sufficiently 'advanced' genes would possess a soul , and pass it on genetically to its progeny.

Summary

Genesis relates those points most relevant to the category of purpose: the universe is a purposive creation; God is involved in the universe, intervening in affairs in order to further a divine plan, including the evolution of moral man; humanity is imbued with a spiritual nature in addition to its physical, evolved, animal nature; and mankind possesses the ability to distinguish good from evil, and the moral responsibility to choose the good.

After presenting these ideas in the metaphorical language of the creation and Garden of Eden accounts, the Bible goes on to relate the history of the first individuals to encounter the divine, and continues with the revelation achieved by their descendants, and the commandments to all humanity - all within the context provided by Genesis of a purposive universe directed towards moral activity.

Part IV: Adam:An Individual

or a Race?

Due to the ambiguity of the term ÒmanÓ in the creation account, one can read Genesis as describing the creation of an entire race of Homo Voluntas, so that Adam had contemporaries of his own type. The creation of 'Adam' at the moral stage as related in Genesis would then be understood as the emergence/creation of a race of potentially-moral beings at the stage of the emergence of the first moral action by a member of that race9.

Rav Shimon Schwab notes that the first and second creation account differ in the term used for the beings created prior to the creation of Adam. In the first account, the Torah speaks of "kol khayat ha'sadeh" ["all the animals of the field"] whereas the second speaks of "khayat ha'aretz" [the animals of the land"]. Furthermore, he points out that the word "kol" means "the rest of" as in Leviticus [Vayikra] 4:7, and that the Talmud speaks of a man-like being called the "adnei ha'sadeh" ["the masters(?) of the field"]. Thus, the phrase "kol khayat ha'sadeh" in the first creation account may be referring to the creation of a race of man-like beings prior to the creation of Man.

According to Ibn Ezra [1089-1164], there is a secret hidden in the word "Ha'Adam". The Bible uses the term "Ha'Adam" rather than " Adam" and Ibn Ezra calls this distinction a "secret" of the Torah10. Ibn Ezra may be hinting that an entire race of humans was created at the time of Adam, and that this is why the Torah calls it "Ha'Adam" - "the species Man" - rather than "Adam" - the individual named "Man":

However, some commentators on Ibn Ezra disagree11.

Sforno12 indicates the same point, that a species called "Man" was created. [Translation and commentary taken from "Artscroll Sforno"13:]

It is only the the Garden of Eden account which speaks unambiguously of two individuals, Adam and Eve. Even there, the language used implies a generic 'man' and 'woman' rather than a specific man and woman (Ha'adam and Ha'isha). It is only after the Tree of Knowledge incident, when Gd is describing the limitations of the new reality they have entered, that language is used which indicates reference to particular people - to a man named "Adam" and his "wife" named "Eve"14 - and even so, the events related there clearly point to their allegorical nature. There is thus ample evidence from the terminology and context that the Adam and Eve of the creation account represent a race or society rather than individuals.

In speaking of creation in general, we are told of the creation of the race of man; then, afterwards, we are told of the emergence [mutation or genius] of the first moral man. Obviously the first moral man must have been an individual, and just as obviously he must have emerged from within an entire race of human beings [via mutation, or as a genius], and thus the two accounts refer one to a race, and the other to an individual.

In the Biblical context, Adam can be considered as a mutation whose descendants we are - via Noah - and thus Adam was unique, the first true human being, as tradition states. Alternatively, if one considers Adam not as a mutation, but rather as a genius who arose from within Cro Magnon Man, the Òcreation of manÓ can be understood asreferring to the creation of a race of moral beings.

Traditional Monogenesis

The source available to us for the tradition that Adam was the only created man is the Mishnah in Sanhedrin (Talmud: San. 37A), and the Midrash:

"AND GD CREATED MAN. Gd created only one man at first. Why? Lest the righteous boast that they are the descendants of a righteous first man, whilst the wicked plead that their first progenitor was evil. Another reason: So that families should not quarrel with each other. For if now, when man was created alone (and all have one common ancestor), there is strife, how much more so had two men been created! A further reason: On account of robbers and men of violence. If such exist even now that man was created alone (and they really rob their own kith and kin), how much more so if two had been created! Yet another explanation is this: Man was created alone to demonstrate Gd's greatness, that with a single die He created the entire world."

Also: "lest people say "there are many creators because there were many created beings in the image of Gd""[i.e. each god created a man in its image] 15.

It seems clear from this Mishna that the reason one should not kill or rob and so on is not simply because all Man is descended from one ancestor, but rather that even were we to be descended from many, killing and robbing would be just as forbidden. It is only the pedagogical lesson which differs in the two instances: it is easier to teach morality when one can say that all Mankind are brothers.

Certainly of course Gd could have created many humans simultaneously, and this would be perfectly in consonance with the rest of the Torah. Certainly it would make no difference whatsoever to the immorality of killing and robbing. The important thing would be for the Torah to state that one Man was created in order that people learn a moral lesson from this. However, it may well be that in actuality many were created, and that the ambiguity in the Torah whether "Adam" means "one man named Man" or "a race called Man" was deliberate, for the pedagogical reasons explored in the mishna above..

Furthermore, evolutionary theory agrees with the mishna that all mankind is descended from one individual, and one can accept the description of creation of Adam as representing both the creation of the first human, and the eventual emergence of an entire race from this individual.

Therefore, it may not be necessarily a point of dogma to insist that "Adam" meant an individual as opposed to a race.

Creation of a Race Rather Than an Individual: Biblical Indications

The Bible itself can perhaps lend additional support for the idea that there were human contemporaries of Adam from the Bible itself. A reading of the three creation accounts--the first five chapters of Genesis--reveals the following details.

One hundred thirty years after creation a son was born to Adam [5:3]. Adam declares that this son is a gift of Gd to replace Hevel who had been killed by Kayin16.

From this we see that no male children had been born to Adam since the births of Kayin and Hevel, and also that Hevel had been killed within the first 130 years after creation. Nevertheless, Kayin, when cursed by Gd to wander the Earth, expresses the fear that "anyone that finds me will slay me". Of whom was he afraid?

Hevel died childless, Adam would not kill his own son, and surely Kayin was not afraid of his own children, especially as he didn't have any yet! If there were no other male humans about, of whom was he afraid?

We are also told [4:17] that Kayin built a city in the land of Nod. If there were no other people about, why was there a name to the land before Kayin arrived, and for whom did he build his city? Another problem is presented by the question of whom Kayin and Lamekh and so on married. One can say that the births of female children were simply not recorded, however we have seen that only three male children were born to Adam over a period of hundreds of years. It is therefore quite possible that no daughters at all were born to Adam. We see also that the wives of Lamekh are mentioned by name, and so one cannot presume that women were simply ignored by the Bible. Indeed, the geneologies of Sarah, Rivka, Rachel and Leah are recorded, and one might expect that the geneologies of the first few matriarchs of the human race would be recorded as well.

Further, regarding the birth of Sheth, we are told "Adam again knew his wife", implying that he had not done so since the births of Kayin and Hevel - so that no daughters could have been born. In fact, had there not been any other human contemporaries of Adam, then Kayin could only have married his mother or his sister. Surely this detail is significant, and would be mentioned by the Bible17. Instead, the Bible tells us that "Kayin knew his wife" [4:17] rather than "Kayin knew his sister".

In addition, it is clear that there were other types of beings present on the Earth at least at a later stage - the mysterious "Nefilim", and "bnei Elohim" [6:1-6:7] who interbred with the female children of Adam's line. When were these daughters of Adam born? After Noah had reached the age of 500 years, we are told "And it came to pass, when Adam's line began to multiply on the face of the Earth, and daughters were born to them, and the 'distinguished men' saw the daughters of Adam's line. . . and took of them wives. . . "

This seems to imply that daughters were not born to Adam's line for a few generations, until after they had spread out across the face of the Earth. Who then were the wives and mothers of all these people? Surely Eve was not the wife of all her male children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren!

And who were these "distinguished men" - "bnei haElohim" - who were not of Adam's line? Man, and the Jewish people, are called "my sons" by Gd in the Bible. In the third person, this is equivalent to 'the sons of Gd'. In fact, the wording, "I will erase the Adam which I have created" indicates the existence of two races named 'Adam' [6:7]: the "Adam which I created" as opposed to another Adam - perhaps one which arose evolutionarilywithin the created universe rather than as a direct creation. That is, non-Moral-Man.

Perhaps they were the non-mutated, non-moral-man, Homo Sapiens Sapiens rather than the Adamite Homo Sapiens Sapiens Voluntas. Perhaps they are called "bnei Elohim" to tell us that they were the "prior creation" of Elohim, creations not possessed of moral consciousness and therefore not capable of good or evil, and therefore not requiring the Divine aspect of mercy called "Hashem" - but capable of being ruled by Midat Ha'din - by "Elohim".

Then perhaps, it was when non-Moral-Man males took Moral-Man-females that problems began, with a corruption of the Adamite line, leading to the necessity of a new beginning, from Noah, the direct descendent of Adam.

‘ALSO FROM THE PASSAGE’ : MISSING: SO IS NOT LATEST VERSION

"from the day that God created man on the face of the earth, has any nation seen..": the implication is that there were nations existing at the time that man was created - that is, that mankind was created as a race rather than as an individual.

Of course there are answers to all these questions given by the Midrash, consistent with the picture of Adam as sole human. However, from P'shat - the direct meaning of the words - it would seem that there were other humans. And in actuality it can be seen that this reading is not in conflict with the traditional interpretation since these contemporaries of Adam were not moral-man, and were not truly human in the sense meant by the Bible. Instead, they were the evolutionary predecessors of the first moral being, Adam, or alternatively they were seperate and prior creations.

Indeed, according to Rambam (Guide I:7):

"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat (va-yoled) a son in his own likeness, in his form" (Gen. v. 3). As regards the words, "the form of Adam, and his likeness," we have already stated (ch. i.) their meaning. Those sons of Adam who were born before that time were not human in the true sense of the word, they had not "the form of man." With reference to Seth who had been instructed, enlightened and brought to human perfection, it could rightly be said, "he (Adam) begat a son in his likeness, in his form." It is acknowledged that a man who does not possess this "form" (the nature of which has just been explained) is not human, but a mere animal in human shape and form."

"Adam" - Individual or Race?

As we havew seen above, indications of the possible existence of a human race at the time of Adam can be found in the ambiguity of the term Adam itself. We can also analyze the intent of Genesis in employing language which implies that only an individual rather than a race was created. A possible flexibility in the intended understanding of the situation can possibly be implied by similar flexibility in other instances, specifically regarding the survivors of the Flood.

The Bible makes the point very clearly, and repeatedly, that Gd destroyed all man and beast in the whole world expect for Noakh and those in the ark. Nevertheless, one of the Rabbis of the Talmud tells us that Og, King of Bashan, survived the flood!18 Also, that the Amalekites predated and survived the flood is taught by the Zohar [Gen:25a {Hebrew insert}].

Ramban quotes as acceptable the belief that others escaped the flood along with Og [see Ramban on "Bnei ha'elohim"].

Thus, the surface implication in the language of Genesis that an individual rather than a race was created may not reflect the intended understanding.

A similar ambiguity can be found in the words of the prophets.

According to Rambam, the prophet may use the word "Mankind" when "a nation" is what is actually meant. In addition, a severe Divine punishment can be described as though it were complete annihilation19.

This may aid us in understanding the statements of the Midrash and Zohar brought above. That is, perhaps a description of the complete annihilation of Mankind in the flood account can in actuality be referring to the severe punishment of one particular nation . However, applying this to an interpretation of the Flood is perhaps inappropriate: Rambam is speaking only of the words of the prophets, whereas the account of the Flood was dictated by Gd , and that to Moshe - who received a higher form of prophecy than that of any other prophet Nevertheless, it may perhaps be partially applicable in conjunction with the evidence given above that indeed according to Jewish tradition the Flood did not wipe out all Mankind outside the Ark.

Further, according to Maharal20, the Torah is written from the perspective of the reality as perceived by human beings. Indeed, according to Malbim, passages in the Torah relating a seeming fact, may actually be relating a perception of human beings - even erroneous perceptions21. We can therefore perhaps suggest that if humans at the time of the Flood considered the reality to have been that all life had been eradicated other than their own family - a delusion which we are told was thye case with the daughter of Lot after the great destruction of 'the cities of the plain' [Soddom and Gomorrah etc.] - then perhaps this is why the Flood is so described in the Torah. And that is why it is possible for Genesis to state that the entire Earth was covered by the Flood, and all Mankind was destroyed, while tradition tells us that the Land of Israel was not covered, and that various people did survive the flood.

Just as the implications generated by a surface understanding of the Flood account in Genesis can be misleading as to its true intent, and 'the destruction of all mankind' was not meant in its strict sense, so too perhaps with the account in Genesis as regards the implication that 'all Mankind' descended from Adam and Eve. In fact Eve is so named Genesis tells us, becuse she was 'the mother of all life' which is not the case according to Genesis itself, which does not claim that all living beings emerged from Eve!

II) There is an alternate way of resolving the contradiction between the survival of Og and Amalek and the passage which states that "all Mankind" was destroyed. One can perhaps distinguish between humanity as represented by Noakh and that represented by the giant Og. According to Midrash, Og was 15 feet tall, and thus was possibly not of original human stock, but of a priorly evolved race. Similarly, Amalek is the only group which it is incumbent on the children of Israel to fight, and it is a group which is genetically rather than culturally determined. Perhaps they are the perennial arch-enemies of the Jewish people because genetically they represent a different, non-moral, strain of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.22

If this is so, then we can conclude that only Homo Sapiens Sapiens Voluntas was destroyed in the flood, and thus that when the Bible tells us that all mankind was destroyed, it means all of Homo Sapiens Sapiens Voluntas and not necessarily all of everyone else.

This would explain the widespread evidence uncovered by archaeologists that there were civilizations which were seemingly not destroyed in a flood 4,000 years ago.

It would also strengthen the case for there being non-Homo Sapiens Sapiens Voluntas present at the time of the creation of Adam - just as "all mankind" clearly refers only to a certain portion of Homo Sapiens Sapiens in the flood account since we are told that at least one survived, so too the creation of mankind in the creation account possibly refers only to the creation of Homo Sapiens Sapiens Voluntas.

One can perhaps also adapt the remarks above regarding the interchangeability of "Mankind" with "a nation", and "total annihilation" with "local diaster", as indicating the possibility that the implication that Genesis is relating the creation of all Mankind is erroneous - it is instead perhaps relating not the creation of all Mankind, but rather the emergence of Homo Voluntas.

Monogenesis23 and Genesis

The creation accounts are somewhat ambiguous as regards the number of humans created. In the first account, humans are created in male and female form in unspecified numbers, and even the second account deals mostly with a generic 'man' and 'woman' - Ha'adam and Ha'isha - rather than an individual named 'Adam' and his mate.

The accounts in Genesis do not state explicitly that a race of humans was not created. The first account can easily be understood as seems to be taught by Ibn Ezra, that is that a race of humans was created. The second account - that of the Garden of Eden seems to speak of one couple, but its connection to the first account is far from clear at the level of surface interpretation since much of it seems to contradict the first account.

It certainly seems possible at the surface level of interpretation to understand the Garden of Eden account as referring for example to a couple inhabiting a world already populated by the humans of the first account. Indeed, the Adam of the Garden of Eden account is not 'created' as is the case in the (first) creation account - instead he is 'formed from the dust of the earth'24. That is, the first account may perhaps be understood as relating the creation of a race of humans, and the Garden of Eden account relates the story of one couple within that populated world.

Rambam and Monogenesis

According to the Rambam "it is one of the fundamental principles of the Law that the Universe has been created ex nihilo, and that of the human race, one individual being, Adam, was created"25.

Here the Rambam links two seemingly unrelated conflicts. One conflict is between the idea that Adam was created alone vs. the hypothesis that an entire race being created. The second conflict is that between the idea of creation vs. the idea of the eternity of the universe. Rambam connects the two because he fels that one implies the other, as follows: If the universe is eternal, there was no creation of man, and therefore there was always a human race . Therefore Adam was not the only human existing at the time of the events related in Genesis.

However, Rambam himself admits that if there was a convincing proof of the eternity of the universe, he would accept it and interpret the creation idea as 'allegory' just as he did with anthropomorphisms. Therefore, that Adam was the only Human is as much - and as little - dogma as that creation occurred . That is, if there is convincing proof to the contrary, we can accept it.

One can perhaps assume that Rambam's elevation to the status of dogma of the idea of individual creation (vs. race creation ) was due to his apprehension that belief in race creation would be within the context of belief in an eternal universe. However, it is clear that although the eternity of the universe might imply the existence of a race "Adam" rather than an individual "Adam", the opposite is not the case. Thus, in our case where they are unrelated, perhaps we can assume that Rambam would not consider individual creation as dogma.

If individual creation is not necessarily dogma - even Rambam agrees its acceptance is contingent on their not being any proof to the contrary,i.e. that such proof is theoretically possible - it would seem that the reason we are told that only one man was created is to make the moral/pedagogical points related by the Mishnah and Tosefta of Sanhedrin. That is, it is quite possible that in actuality more than one man was created, but we are told not to derive sanctions for antisocial behaviour from this fact.

The Rambam however states in strong form that only one human was created. Therefore, we could perhaps be safer in saying that indeed only one human being was created; i.e. only one moral being was created, the rest were not moral beings and thus do not count fully as "human beings".

In any case, even in the evolutionary theory, all humans stem from one original human being; thus the Midrash and the Rambam can be interpreted literally26. For example, the "Ha'adam" of the first account could be the first human, and the Adam of the second account is the first human to exercise free willed choice, who lived much later.

Summary

If we interpret both creation accounts strictly literally, they contradict each other as to the order of creation of man, woman, and animals; as to the purpose and role of the animals; and as to the days on which all was created. Therefore part of the creation account is necessarilly non-purely-literal: that is, it is allegorical. Within this partial allegory, partial literalness, we can say that the very wording of the Torah implies that a complete human race was created, and that the Tree of Knowledge incident is an allegory for a process which involved man as a species - and that is why even the second account speaks in terms of a generic 'man' and 'woman'.

The first two passages of the fifth chapter of Genesis states:

"This is the book of the descendants of Adam: In the day Gd created Adam , He created them as male and female:and Adam bagat Shem.....[Gen.5:12].

The Midrash on this passage tells us that everything in the Torah until this point belongs to the "toldot shamayim va'aretz" - the generations of heaven and earth - rather than to "toldot Adam" - the generations of man. That is, the story of the Garden of Eden is not a description of actual events ocurring to man, but is rather part of the description of the process whereby Gd created the heavens and the earth

Malbim quotes a Midrash to the effect that the Torah itself really begins at Genesis 5:1 with the words "This is the book of the generations... ". Certainly however, the entire account up until the fifth chapter is an account of creation, and thus of events beyond human comprehension. The beginning of actual events commences with the birth of Shem as related in the fifth chapter. That is, the first and second creation accounts are not the record of actual events as implied in a literal reading, but are rather descriptions of mysteries as told in language comprehensible to man.

According to the Sforno, at this juncture the Torah begins to detail for us the history of the human race - that is, on the day Adam was created, there was already a human race .

The Torah begins with a description of the creation of the physical elements of the universe (the first creation account), and then the Torah describes the onset of free-will, morality, etc (the second account). It is only then that the Torah begins the tale of actual history - dealing with a specific couple, Adam and Eve, and their descendents. [This history is meant literally, and is an account of actual historical events.]

Thus, according to this 'partially allegorical' interpretation, there is no problem concerning the creation of woman separately from man, or of the contemporaries of Adam and Eve: the first account tells us that man and woman were created simultaneously in unspecified number.

The idea of the separate creation was given as an allegory for man's existential loneliness, his search to give and receive love and companionship, and so on. The idea of the uniqueness of the Adam/Eve pair is to teach mankind that all men are equal since they originate from one pair, and all are truly brothers since they derive from the same parents

Appendix: Adam as Mutation Vs. Adam as Genius

What does it mean to say that Adam was the first moral being? Certainly amoebas are not moral beings. However, would it be true to say that no evolved being prior to Adam was a moral being? Was Adam a mutation, and thus uniquely the first being capable of moral consciousness and free will? Or was he a genius, but not a mutant?

If he was a mutation, then he was indeed the unique physical progenitor of our race; if he was not a mutation but rather a genius, he was the spiritual progenitor.

Although a mutant, Adam would posses almost all his genes in common with the non-Voluntas species, and some of his offspring would not carry his mutant gene. Indeed, according to Rambam, some of the descendents of Adam did not have his special characteristic - the Divine "form". Rambam states that as a result these offspring were not "human"27.

Thus, from the Biblical perspective, neither the ancestors nor the contemporaries of the first moral being are considered human. Therefore, in Genesis we are told that the first human had no human ancestors, nor did he have human contemporaries.

All the ancestors of this first free-willed human were of the animal kingdom, whereas he was the first true human. Thus Genesis tells of the emergence of the first true human, after the emergence of the animals.

That is, both Genesis and the origin theory agree that the first human had predecessors, and both agree that these predecessors were not human in the way we are.

Sources indicating that Adam was a mutation and not merely a genius with the same genes as his contemporaries:

In the third and last recounting of events at the creation (Gen: 5:1), we are told that on the day man - Adam - was created, he was created in the image of Gd ... [Gen: 5:1-3].

As we can see, we are told only of the birth of Sheth, not of the birth of Kayin ("Cain") and Hevel ("Abel"). Sheth was born to Adam, "in his likeness, in his image" whereas Kayin and Hevel were born to Chava (Eve) [Gen 4:1-2]28.

After telling of the birth of Sheth, the Torah tells us of his line of descendants: Adam; Sheth; Enosh; Kenan; Mehalalel; Yered; Chanoch ["Enoch"]; Methushelach; Lemech; Noach.

Chanoch ["Enoch"] was so righteous the Torah says of him that he "walked with Gd" and did not die but rather " and he was no more, for he was taken away by Gd"... [Gen: 4:25].

Noach was of course the Righteous man of his generation, and the progenitor of all post-flood humanity. Thus, only the descendants of Adam through Sheth were truly righteous, and only they survived the flood. The other children of Adam were seemingly not quite so righteous: Kayin was the first murderer, and his victim Hevel (Abel) was the first person mentioned to kill at all, in this case an animal, albeit to sacrifice to Gd. Of the descendants of Hevel we are told not of spiritual accomplishments but that they initiated cities, cattle farming, music and metal instruments - all of which could be used both for good and for bad.

Perhaps we can now understand why the Torah tells us that only Sheth was born of Adam "in his likeness in his image": just as Adam was created "in the image of Gd" by virtue of his ability to use free willed choice, perhaps only Sheth of all his children was sufficiently advanced to become capable of moral choice and spirituality, while the others possessed only the creative instinct without a refined moral sense29. If this were the case, we can understand why they are not called children of Adam, but rather children of Chava, why they are not "in the image of Adam", why they created art and technology, rather than spirituality, why their descendants did not survive the flood.

In terms of our thesis, one can say that the mutation which made Adam special was not passed on totally to all of his children: only Sheth inherited that physical complexity which enabled him to respond to the divine and to develop a moral sense: the others were different from Adam's predecessors in their advanced intellectual and creative ability, but not in the realm of the spiritual30.

The "selection" provided by the flood weeded out those morally unfit, and allowed only the Righteous Noach of the line of Chanoch and Sheth to repopulate the world31.

Appendix: Adam as Mutation Vs. Adam as Genius

What does it mean to say that Adam was the first moral being? Certainly amoebas are not moral beings. However, would it be true to say that no evolved being prior to Adam was a moral being? Was Adam a mutation, and thus uniquely the first being capable of moral consciousness and free will? Or was he a genius, but not a mutant?

If he was a mutation, then he was indeed the unique physical progenitor of our race; if he was not a mutation but rather a genius, he was the spiritual progenitor.

Although a mutant, Adam would posses almost all his genes in common with the non-Voluntas species, and some of his offspring would not carry his mutant gene. Indeed, according to Rambam, some of the descendents of Adam did not have his special characteristic - the Divine "form". Rambam states that as a result these offspring were not "human"32.

Thus, from the Biblical perspective, neither the ancestors nor the contemporaries of the first moral being are considered human. Therefore, in Genesis we are told that the first human had no human ancestors, nor did he have human contemporaries.

All the ancestors of this first free-willed human were of the animal kingdom, whereas he was the first true human. Thus Genesis tells of the emergence of the first true human, after the emergence of the animals.

That is, both Genesis and the origin theory agree that the first human had predecessors, and both agree that these predecessors were not human in the way we are.

Sources indicating that Adam was a mutation and not merely a genius with the same genes as his contemporaries:

In the third and last recounting of events at the creation (Gen: 5:1), we are told that on the day man - Adam - was created, he was created in the image of Gd ... [Gen: 5:1-3].

As we can see, we are told only of the birth of Sheth, not of the birth of Kayin ("Cain") and Hevel ("Abel"). Sheth was born to Adam, "in his likeness, in his image" whereas Kayin and Hevel were born to Chava (Eve) [Gen 4:1-2]33.

After telling of the birth of Sheth, the Torah tells us of his line of descendants: Adam; Sheth; Enosh; Kenan; Mehalalel; Yered; Chanoch ["Enoch"]; Methushelach; Lemech; Noach.

Chanoch ["Enoch"] was so righteous the Torah says of him that he "walked with Gd" and did not die but rather " and he was no more, for he was taken away by Gd"... [Gen: 4:25].

Noach was of course the Righteous man of his generation, and the progenitor of all post-flood humanity. Thus, only the descendants of Adam through Sheth were truly righteous, and only they survived the flood. The other children of Adam were seemingly not quite so righteous: Kayin was the first murderer, and his victim Hevel (Abel) was the first person mentioned to kill at all, in this case an animal, albeit to sacrifice to Gd. Of the descendants of Kayin we are told not of spiritual accomplishments but that they initiated cities, cattle farming, music and metal instruments - all of which could be used both for good and for bad.

Perhaps we can now understand why the Torah tells us that only Sheth was born of Adam "in his likeness in his image": just as Adam was created "in the image of Gd" by virtue of his ability to use free willed choice, perhaps only Sheth of all his children was sufficiently advanced to become capable of moral choice and spirituality, while the others possessed only the creative instinct without a refined moral sense34. If this were the case, we can understand why they are not called children of Adam, but rather children of Chava, why they are not "in the image of Adam", why they created art and technology, rather than spirituality, why their descendants did not survive the flood.

In terms of our thesis, one can say that the mutation which made Adam special was not passed on totally to all of his children: only Sheth inherited that physical complexity which enabled him to respond to the divine and to develop a moral sense: the others were different from Adam's predecessors in their advanced intellectual and creative ability, but not in the realm of the spiritual35.

The "selection" provided by the flood weeded out those morally unfit, and allowed only the Righteous Noach of the line of Chanoch and Sheth to repopulate the world36.

Ha'adam: 'Man' the Species vs. 'the man', an Individual

According to the creation account as remembered by most people, man was created alone, a single male individual without any contemporaries. From this man, a woman was later created. However, careful reading of the Torah will show that this is inexact.

In the first creation account, the species 'man' is created in male and female types from the very outset. The idea that the male, Adam, preceded the female, Eve, is only developed in the second account. It is difficult to imagine that a male human would be created if no female were existent or planned. The second account, however, is quite possibly meant allegorically, as Rambam states37. However, one can attempt an interpretation which stays close to the literal meaning.

The very factors which define a male as such, would be meaningless and superfluous in the absence of a female, and even undefined before the idea of a female human was created. Thus it would seem most logical to assume that, as indeed stated by the Midrash, the Adam which preceded Eve was not male, but was rather either a neuter or a combination of what was later separated into male and female 38 39.

Indeed, since no command was given to the original Human to multiply until after woman was created, there was no need for any reproduction mechanism at all in the original Human. Thus, this Human (Ha'adam) was probably not 'male', and perhaps without gender at all. Therefore, since there could be no 'man' without 'woman', 'man' was created only when woman was produced out of Ha'adam. That is, man and woman as such were created simultaneously out of Ha'adam.

Thus "Ha'adam" is the evolutionary predecessor of the first true human beings, male and female . And as in the origin theory, man and woman emerged separately but from a common source.

Appendix: Scientific Monogenesis

According to the theory of evolution and modern genetic knowledge, all mankind stems from one ancestor, one original prototype human being who emerged where no true human had existed previously. This of course agrees with the teaching of Genesis on this matter.

We will now briefly sketch the reasons why geneticists have reached this conclusion.

Genetic differences between man and ape and between man and man

1 gene

Chromosome

DRAWINGOfChromosome

1 gene pairs of nucleotides

All the physical characteristics of a person or an animal are determined by their genes and their environment. The genetic constitution of a being is determined by the type and order of its DNA nucleotide chain [see end of chapter C for more detail.].

When comparing two beings, one cannot necessarily make a linear correlation between the percentage difference in their nucleotide-pairs and the percentage difference in their proteins, nor between these and vital qualities such as intelligence, creativity etc. Nevertheless, one can take these measures as rough guides to the 'similarity' or 'dissimilarity' of the two beings.

Human beings and chimpanzees have approximately 5 billion nucleotide pairs in their chromosomes. The vast majority of these nucleotide pairs - 99% of them - are identical, so that the proteins of humans and chimpanzees are largely alike, as are their resulting genetic traits: both have two arms with 4 fingers and a thumb each, 2 legs with 5 toes, similar face, similar skeletal structure, similar blood etc. The physical differences between man and chimp are due to the 1% difference, i.e. the approximately 50 million out of 5 billion nucleotide pairs which are different in the two species.

The genetic differences between even the most widely disparate humans is very small in comparison with the genetic difference between any human and a chimpanzee. The difference between two people of the same 'racial/ethnic' origin40 is approximately 200,000 nucleotide pairs, i.e. 0.4% of 1% of the total. It is this difference which causes the physical differences between any two people of the same 'race'. People of the same general 'racial' origin but from geographically divided points will differ by very slightly more, and people from differing 'races' will differ by yet a slight bit more. The difference between two people of different 'races' is not significantly more than the difference between two people of the same 'race'. The reason that people of different 'races' seem so different is that the few actual genetic differences that do exist between them are the easily discernable differences of external features such as skin colour, hair type, nose width etc.

The reason that people of different 'races' differ so much in external features is that it is precisely these external features which make the difference in differing climates (Skin colour determines sunburn, absorption of ultraviolet for the synthesis of vital vitamin D; nose width for staying cool in heat etc.. Thus these features will be selected for in different ways among different populations depending on their environment). However, the number of genes necessary to govern these is quite small - the vast majority of genes are the same for all humans. [It is ironic and perhaps unfortunate that the extremely tiny differences between people of different 'races' cause exactly those changes which are visible to the eye.]

The tiny differences between people of different 'races' shows that all the 'races' originated from the same group of people, and that the differences between them arose when various individual families migrated to distant areas, over thousands of years, and slowly the changes solidified into clearly visible changes. [Among those who migrated to Africa, and other tropical climates, those with darker skins were healthier than light-skinned people: dark skinned people had stronger, and more living, children - intermarriage darkened the skin more, these were ever more survival-successful: and therefore dark skins eventually dominated and v.v. in colder areas, etc.)

Clearly, since the difference between man and chimp is 250 times that of the difference between people of different 'races', and people of different 'races' have no significantly greater genetic differences than people of the same 'race', it would be absurd to say that the different 'races' arose from different mutations from the apes.

There are approximately five 'racial' groupings, each differing from the closest type of ape by 1% of their genetic material, yet all sharing 99.995% of genetic material with each other. For each of the five racial types to have evolved separately from the apes is so improbable as to be quite impososible since it would mean that 5 separate mutations occurred during a very short while (20,000 years), all 99.995% identical to each other, yet all differing by 1% - the same 1% - from their pre-mutated form! The mutation from ape to human is highly unlikely and took millions of years - for it to happen 5 times within a few thousand years and result in individuals identical in 99.99% of their nucleotide pairs would be absurdly improbable. Thus, all men of all 'races' must have originated from one original mutation of 1% and then these mutated in 5 different ways, each of approximately ~0.5% relative variation. Since Homo Sapiens Sapiens arose only about 60,000 years ago (40,000-100,000) and all today's 'races' are Homo Sapiens, the split into different 'races' must have occurred some time after this.

Thus, according to the theory of evolution and modern genetic knowledge, all mankind stems from one ancestor, one original prototype human being who emerged where no true human had been previously.

Deleted From ch 11

..........................................................................

The creation accounts as they relate to man41 will then be interpreted as describing not the entire evolution of man from ape, and ape from earlier forms, but rather as dealing with the emergence of the first moral being 42.

1 Monogenesis: the doctrine that only one individual was created, and that the entire human race descends from this one individual.

2 Weyl p299.

3 [Such mutations are exceedingly rare and would not occur twice in exactly the same way and thus it is quite certain that there was only one such mutation, and we are all descended from that one mutant.

See also Appendix: "All Men are Brothers".]

4 See "In Search of Eve" by Rebecca L. Cann in "The Sciences": Sept/Oct. 1987 and "The Search for Adam and Eve" "Newsweek" Jan 11, 1988. See also Appendix at the end of this chapter.

5The creation and destruction is not necessarily total. 'Creation of worlds' may refer to major changes in existing entities, rather than creation where nothing was before, and 'destruction of worlds' may refer to major surgery rather than to total annihilation. See for example Rambam (ÒGuideÓ) regarding the hyperbolic language occaisionally employed by the prophets.

6 [Rabbi I. Lifchitz] "Drush Or Ha'chaim", 3: about one third from the beginning: "mikol he'amur": found in "Yakhin U'boaz" mishnayot, after Sanhedrin.

7 See discussion in next chapter.

8 All mankind, and perhaps to a certain degree all living beings since they, as man, are called "ruakh" and "nefesh" in the Bible.

9 August Comte, founder of sociology, considered a human society as an organism, and saw the society rather than the individual man as the basic unit of Mankind. Some scientists studying 'emergent properties' such as mind and consciousness also consider the possibility thnat a new emergent level can arise when a sufficient number of individuals combine to form a society.[See section XX re Nouy etc.] Thus, it is possible that a moral being might only be possible as part of a race of moral beings. Alternatively, it might be that although one moral being could be created, a race of moral beings was created in order that there exist a higher level than that possible with one moral being alone.

10 Ibn Ezra on Genesis 2:8

11 See the "Avi Ezer".

12 in comenting on the words "na'aseh adam"[Gen. I:26]

13 Translation and commentary by Rabbi R. Pelcovitz.

14 Adam = 'of earth' = Man(kind) Eve = Khava = mother of life

15 Tosefta Sanhedrin 8 (See Kasher: Torah Shelema.1,765[p64])

16 as a result Adam names this son "Sheth" ("appointed" or "sent" {by Gd}) [[4:25].

17This would of course be a permissible act since there was no other way to fulfil Gd's express command to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth". The daughter of Lot committed incest in the same spirit, not knowing that mankind had survived.

18 R. Yokhanan: Nida 61a.

19 According to the Talmud, even when prophesying via Divine inspiration, the prophets spoke in their own words so that two prophets receiving the identical prophecy would formulate it in different ways.

Rambam explains that when the prophets speak, they do so in their own vocabulary and style:

"It must be borne in mind that every prophet has his own peculiar diction, which is, as it were, his language, and it is in that language that the prophecy addressed to him is communicated to those who understand it".

Rambam continues and notes that it may be the style of a particular prophet to greatly exagerate the level of destruction which has occurred, and to use metaphors which translate a local catastrophe to cosmic scale:

"...every prophet has his own peculiar diction...After this preliminary remark you will understand the metaphor frequently employed by Isaiah, and less frequently by other prophets, when they describe the ruin of a kingdom or the destruction of a great nation in phrases like the following; - "The stars have fallen," "The heavens are overthrown", "The sun is darkened", "the earth is waste, and trembles", and similar metaphors.

According to Rambam, the prophet may use the word "Mankind" when "a nation" is what is actually meant. In Rambam's words:

"Sometimes the prophet uses the term 'Mankind' instead of 'the people of a certain place', whose destruction they predict; for example, Isaiah, speaking of the destruction of Israel says, "and the Lord will remove Man far away" [Isaiah 6:12]. So also Zephania [I:3:4], "and I will cut off Man from off the earth". "

In addition, a severe Divine punishment can be described as though it were complete annihilation.In Rambam's words:

"..[as in the passage] 'Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of His fierce anger'[Isaiah13:23]. I do not think that any person is so foolish and blind, and so much in favour of the the literal sense of figurative and oratorical phrases, as to assume that at the fall of Babylonian kingdom a change took place in the nature of the stars of the heaven, or in the light of the sun and moon, or that the earth moved away from its center. For all this is merely the description of a country that has been defeated."

Based on the approach of Rambam outlined above, one can perhaps interpret a prophet's description of the complete annihilation of Mankind as actually referring to the severe punishment of one particular nation .

20 Tiferet yisrael 32

21 Malbim on Gen.6:2 regarding "the sons of elohim"

22 Since they are not moral beings, they are not responsible for their actions, and cannot be punished by Gd. Therefore, they were not destroyed by the flood, and they have to be defeated in battle by the Jewish people: in the desert, by Shaul, and in the time of Mordecai and Esther -- and perhaps in later times as well.

23 Referring to the doctrine that only one individual was created, and that the entire human race descends from this one individual, Adam.

24 According to Ibn Ezra, 'via the energy of the sun'. That is, via natural processes.

25 Guide III:50.

26 Roman Catholics are permitted to believe in the theory of evolution, but as at best an incomplete theory, since it cannot - or does not 'wish' to - account for the origin of the soul in man. In addition, it is a dogma of the Roman Catholic church that only one man was created - in order to provide support for their doctrine of the "Fall of Man" which had to encompass all mankind. Thus, they believe in evolution, but only as a partially correct incomplete theory. See the "monogenist theory of human evolution" in the encyclical of Pius XII "Humani Generis":1950.

27 "Guide" I:7

28 Chava was not a full free willed moral being? Is that why she gave Adam the "fruit"?

29The predecessors and contemporaries of Adam were not H. Voluntas, and were thus not moral beings, were not the being 'created in the image of Gd' who was imbued with "the breath of Gd"; only Adam, the first H. Voluntas, was a being "in the image of Gd" and thus creation begins with his emergence, and he is considered the first man.

30 According to the Rambam, anyone with the proper intellectual attainments can become a prophet if Gd decides to allow him to be one [ SOURCE ] . However, according to Rabi Yehuda HaLevi - the Kuzari - the inherent ability to receive prophecy, to be part of 'segulah', is genetic . That is, not only proper intellectual attainments are necessary, but also a certain genetic endowment is a prerequisite for the capability to receive that transmission from the Divine which we term prophecy....[Kuzari 1:95]

31 However some of Noakh's genes and of his wife's genes, were of the non-moral line and therefore his children were representative of both types. Shem the moral being, Yafet the creative artist and Kham the the warrior.

32 "Guide" I:7

33 Chava was not a full free willed moral being? Is that why she gave Adam the "fruit"?

34The predecessors and contemporaries of Adam were not H. Voluntas, and were thus not moral beings, were not the being 'created in the image of Gd' who was imbued with "the breath of Gd"; only Adam, the first H. Voluntas, was a being "in the image of Gd" and thus creation begins with his emergence, and he is considered the first man.

35 According to the Rambam, anyone with the proper intellectual attainments can become a prophet if Gd decides to allow him to be one [ SOURCE ] . However, according to Rabi Yehuda HaLevi - the Kuzari - the inherent ability to receive prophecy, to be part of 'segulah', is genetic . That is, not only proper intellectual attainments are necessary, but also a certain genetic endowment is a prerequisite for the capability to receive that transmission from the Divine which we term prophecy....[Kuzari 1:95]

36 However some of Noakh's genes and of his wife's genes, were of the non-moral line and therefore his children were representative of both types. Shem the moral being, Yafet the creative artist and Kham the warrior.

37 Indeed the Midrash uses this account to derive various moral homilies.[See Mishna Sanhedrin quoted below.]

38 That males have nipples can be an indication of a common origin as part of a combination male-female, since the male nipples are not used for nursing, and therefore it would almost seem that the separation into male and female ocurred after the development of mammals..

39 The plain sense of the passages seem to imply that the original undivided state of the "Adam" was the optimal state, but due to its inability to function as is, alone, it was split into two.

cf. See Midrash re: Adam endeavouring to mate with the animals: this implies that Adam possessed one or both genders.

40 These words are in quotations because they are not scientific [genetic] terms - they are more defined in terms of sociology than genetics.

41 Even if the purpose of the entire universe were not necessarily tied into the moral activity of man, at least the relevant beginning from the point of view of mankind could be seen as the point of emergence of the first moral human.

42 In the next chapter we shall consider a different opinion (that an entire race of humans was created).

The Evolution of Life:

from Amoeba to Adam

One of the most fascinating questions addressed by science is that of the origin of life, and more specifically, the origin of humanity.

In addition to the interest of the question as part of a quest for theoretical understanding, there are practical dimensions as well. Certainly one would expect that the process whereby life and humankind arose left its traces in humanity, and that an understanding of this process would allow us greater understanding of self. Furthermore, an understanding of the process might allow us to simulate it and become creators on our own.

The question of origins has indeed occupied great thinkers for millenia, and has culminated in the theory of origins presented by modern science, including genetics, radioactivity and its genetic effects, the idea of random mutations, selection of the fittest, paleontology, geology, anthropology etc.

Origin Theory, Creation, and the Emergence of Humanity

One can claim that if correctly presented, the scientific origin theory cannot be untrue.

The scientific origin theory is based on assumptions, observations and logical reasoning. Indeed scientific knowledge in general is not a list of facts, but rather a compendium of assumptions, observations, and the conclusions reached on the basis of these assumptions and observations. If the assumptions are untrue, or the observations inaccurate, or the logic faulty, then of course the conclusions may well be untrue.

A scientific statement should perhaps really be formulated as follows: 'if the following assumptions are valid, and the following observations accurately represent the reality, and the logic is valid, then the conclusion is that....(and if these are not valid, then the conclusion may be invalid.)".

When completely and precisely formulated in such a manner, any such scientific statement should be incapable of being untrue1.

Astronomical observations, calculations, assumptions and extrapolations have revealed that there is a pattern to the motions of the stars - they are all receding from each other. This, together with other data and certain assumptions has led to the conclusion that the large scale structure of the physical universe is dynamic, and that it was different in the distant past than it is now. Similarly, geological and paleontological discoveries have led to the conclusion that long ago the earth and its inhabitants were quite different than they are now.

These conclusions lead to the further conclusion that the earth did not always exist, and that it did not always contain humans.

If one assumes that humans are purely natural beings rather than possesing a soul, or perhaps even without free will or even true consciousness, and one adds the assumption that all events follow patterns - 'natural law' - then the conclusion from all these observations and assumptions is that humans arose via the actions of natural law alone.

Given this conclusion, one naturally begins to seek the mechanism whereby this can occur within the framework of the operation of the laws of nature.

The answer was found in the laws of probability, physics, and genetics, and in logical reasoning. From probability, it is seen that given sufficient time and scope, almost anything physically possible can and will happen. In particular, given the conditions prevalent on earth long ago, atoms would evetually combine to form various types of combinations of atoms - molecules - and with enough time available self-replicating molecules will form2.

Common sense shows that non-viable molecules will produce fewer and less successful copies of themselves, and eventually the more viable will dominate. Due to the nature of quantum physics, and other mechanisms, some of these copies will be inexact. Most of these inexact copies will be nonviable, and will not produce copies, but a very few here and there will be even better than the original, more developed, more successful.

If one cuts out all the letters on the page of a book, and throws them repeatedly into the air, each time a different combination will result, the vast majority of these combinations being meaningless. However, eventually the original order will reappear. It may require a few billion years of throws, but it will eventually occur. Similarly, given sufficient time, throwing scrabble letters together will eventually result in a meaningful combination.

Analogously, under the appropriate conditions and with sufficient time available, it is almost inevitable that beings with the physical qualities of humans would eventually emerge.

This is however not meant to imply that humans did necesarily emerge in this way, or that science even claims that they necessarily did. Rather, one can state that given the assumptions that humans did not always exist, that they arose according to the laws of nature, that self-replicating molecules arose naturally, that the laws of physics as we know them are accurate, that there was sufficient time, and so on, then humans would arise as a result of the operation of natural law.

This formulation is then merely a matter of stating certain observations made on the universe about us, some assumptions about these and about the nature of reality, and certain conclusions based on these assumptions. It entirely sidesteps the question of whether or not some agency may have created the universe and perhaps designed natural law to achieve the result of human development, and the question of whether or not the assumptions are correct, and therefore whether the conclusions are in fact correct. Formulated in such a manner, the origin theory cannot be untrue, and therefore cannot conflict with anything.

Even if it were the fact that the universe was created and designed by God, and that humans are the product of a special act of creation, it may nevertheless be the case that the universe was designed in such a way that even had such a special creation not taken place, nevertheless humans would eventually have arisen 'naturally'. If this is so, then one could say that although human origin was actually not via the mechanism of evolution, the theory of evolution is nevertheless in fact quite correct.

Furthermore, even if one maintains that humans possess a non-physical component which could not possibly arise through the action of natural law - such as a soul or perhaps even a consciousness or free will - nevertheless the theory of evolution could still be a correct description of how the physical aspect of a human being could arise naturally - a theory of the evolution of the body and brain rather than of the mind and soul.

Emergence of Existence: Purpose and Chance

The Religionist view

According to the religionist the universe and the laws of nature were designed so as to develop living beings, and were invested with whatever inherent properties and qualities are requisite in order to guarantee that intelligent life develop from it at some stage3.

One can perhaps draw an analogy between the growth of a tree and the emergence of consciousness. The combination of seed, earth, environment, and laws of nature together possess all the properties necessary for the development of a tree from the seed. Similarly the combination of singularity 4, space-time-energy-matter, big bang, and laws of nature would possess all the properties necessary for the development of free-willed consciousness from the initial singularity. 5

Further, if it was desired to created not merely a universe with life but rather a moral universe, then there would be created a big bang and appropriate "natural law" containing the ingredients necessary to ensure6 the eventual emergence of moral beings 7 . 8

Purpose vs. Chance

To the religionist, the origin theories could be studied as revelations of Gd's Will and manifestations of Gd's Design. The conflict between the religionist and the atheist would center not on the origin theory itself, but rather on its interpretation - the essential issue being that of purpose vs. chance.

Atheists would claim that the universe and its life are products of chance; the fact that a singularity existed, that it developed into a big bang, that this evolved into a universe, that the universe evolved life in it, would not be accepted as being due to design - instead it would be considered as the result of chance.

Religionists, on the other hand, would claim that both the universe and life are the products of careful design and deliberate creation: the system of big bang and its concomitant natural law being specifically designed and created so as to produce moral beings. Neither side would be able to refute the other since they agree on the observable facts and disagree only on the aspects which are not empirically confirmable. Thus, the religionist could maintain that man has a divine purpose in life, while the atheist would deny this9. As illustrated by the anthropic principle, there are argument which can be put forward to butress support for the belief in a design to creation, and there are counterarguments employing opposite reasoning as applied to the identical data. The question of the underlying orign of life and existence in general does not seem answerable via the mechanism of publicly communicable unambiguous conclusions of rational thought. The conclusions reached - even the questions asked - will depend on opinions and beliefs which are formulated on evidence and sources of knowlege or understanding not accessible to scientific arbitration.

Conclusion

From a perspective in which there is no objective meaning or purpose to existence other than that which life creates for itself, and which investigates only that which can be measured objectively, the answer to the question of the origin of life can be provided only by knowledge gained from the physical universe, by the evidence which can be measured and independently verified by others. From this perspective it is clear that the universe begins with a random big bang and life evolved by chance.

From the perspective of quantum metaphysics, the existence of beings such as humans is indispensable to the existence of the universe itself as the universe begins actual physical existence only upon the emergence of a moral being.

From the perspective of the teleological anthropic principle and of the Bible, life is programmed into the universe - indeed the universe is designed to produce moral beings.

From the perspective of a search for meaning and purpose, and an inquiry into the 'why' of existence, the questions addressed by science and the scientific method of obtaining answers may not be relevant. It is only relevant in that it is interesting to know what type of conclusions would be reached by different types of inquiry. However, the truly relevant questions and answers are those which address the fundamental questions of 'why' which science excludes from its purview, and which access sources of understanding which are outside the realm of acceptable sources which scientific inquiry has established for itself.

Neither perspective can be proven employing scientific means of analysis, inquiry, and proof, and the three are compatible in the sense that acceptance of all perspectives simultaneously leads to no physically measureable contradiction. Accounts of the origin of life and of humanity which are written from the different perspectives will necessarily differ, and a comparison of these is meaningful only when the fundamental perspective underlying the various accounts is given appropriate consideration.

1 One of the most difficult part in formulating such a statement is in recognizing all the assumptions that are inherent in the situation. For example it was clear to the ancient Greeks and later mathematicians that parallel lines never meet. However, two thousand years later it was realized that this assumed that space is flat rather than curved - the fact that space could be curved was not realized until then.

2 For an explanation of how this can be possible, see a text on molecular biology.

3 The belief that life could arise via natural processes in a created universe is not contrary to religious belief at all: for example, many religious leaders believed in spontaneous generation without this seeming to them to be counter to their religious beliefs. [See chapter 3]. Thus the religionist believes that Gd created the universe, and studies the laws of nature as reflections of how the Divine Will operates.

4 The universe 'began' as a 'point' - a singularity - and exploded in a 'big bang' to form the universe as we know it.

5 Even if free-willed consciousness is a holistic emergent phenomenon, science would still assume that such a phenomenon would arise only under very specific conditions, and that these conditions would themselves arise as a result of a chain of cuause-effect stretching from the the initial conditions of the universe.

6Problems raised by quantum indeterminacy are dealt with later.

7 Ramban states that Gd gave the waters the power to bring forth "a living soul" - that is, life. See also Midrash Gen.R. 8:1 on Gen. 1:26 ['let us make man'] and see ref. to Midrash Thilim "and the spirit of Gd hovered" , this is the spirit of Adam. Also see Gen. R. 17:1 which states that 'the spirit of Gd hovered' represents onr of the ten ma'amarim (essential creative acts).

We can thus understand the passage "and Gd breathed into man 'nishmas khayim' " as implying a potentiality placed in the creation [see e.g. the Midrash regarding the creations created at dusk on the sixth day] which would be activated when a potential moral being emerged, or we can understand it as meaning a special Divine intervention at the time of the emergence of such a being.

Therefore for those who might insist that free willed consciouusness can be achieved only via Divine bestowal, in the text above read: "Gd could certainly ensure the emergence of a being capable of serving as a vessel for the Divine gift of free willed consciousness."

According to Rambam ["Guide" II:6], any act of Gd - any means by which Gd's Will is carried out in the physical universe - is termed an 'angel'. Since the laws of nature were created by Gd, according to Rambam the category 'angel' includes natural forces such as the elements, and the formative power in a seed. Thus, when it is said that Gd Willed a certain event or process to take place, what is meant is that it occurred via an angel - for example by the action of 'the laws of nature'.

Therefore, to say that Gd Willed that Man possess a consciousness, or a free-willed consciousness, is to say that Gd gave these properties to Man via an angel, or equivalently, via the workings of 'natural law'.

8 Consciousness can be a property of all fundamental particles, since all is derived from God. It can be inherent in the universe to be activated by a compex brain, or it can evolve at a certain point, corresponding to "and God breathed into man the soul of life".

9 The Genesis-Science Conflict for the Biblical Religionist

The actual conflict between religion and the scientific origin theories actually arise only when the religious beliefs involve belief in specific mechanisms and dates for the creation of the universe and the emergence of life. The Biblical creation account describes creation as taking place in six days, in a specific manner, culminating in the special creation of man - and all this about 6,000 years ago. This of course seems to violently clash with the details and overall mechanism of both the theory of the big bang, and the theory of evolution.

The Biblical religionist can - like the non-biblical religionist - legitimately reject the philosophical interpretation of the origin theory. He can also accept some of the basic scientific ideas of the origin theory as valid. However, it would seem that the Biblical religionist - unlike the non-biblical religionist - cannot accept the specifics and details, and must therefore reject the theory as a whole.

File: SolipsismGosse Book Intro (Folder: My Books: Evo)

Questions about the most basic aspects of reality are unanswerable - and therefore (possibly)meaningless in the operational sense.

Is there an external universe (am I a brain in a jar, or a purely mental entity)?

Are there minds other than mine? --> solipsism

I can know only the present - was there a past? If the physical universe exists, did it exist in the past or is it an instant universe?--> solipsism of the moment (Russel)

Mind/body: we cannot understand how they interact, but the existence of mind is a fact, so belief in an external physical universe means that there is necessarily some type of mind/body connection. Idealism is consistent, most consistent is Solipsism?

What can we learn from solipsism? Ans: not that only I exist, but rather that assuming the truth of the unprovable (i.e. that others exist) leads to contradictions.

True morality does not have meaning if only I exist. So although cannot assume others exist, the belief that they do not exist may be incompatible with ethics of the meaningful type etc.[Does solipsism imply the non-existence of God?]

Det/Randomness: we cannot imagine how FW can exist since logically all must be either D or R. Furthermore; Bridgman says FW is meaningless bec by definition can never operationally prove that “it could have happened differently”.

However moral responsibility of the meaningful sort is incompatible with non-existence of true FW.

In a solipsistic ‘universe’, FW is not problematic.

What can we learn from the undisprovability of solipsism of the moment? Maybe that we should not take time and causality too seriously? Or that there is possibly some inherent contradiction or hidden inconsistency in our physical theories because they assume a temporal flow, a past etc.

Theories constructed by our minds are limited by the inherent limitations of our minds. However the very conception that there is an order, that there can be an ‘explanation’ or a theory is from our minds.

Without understanding mind totally, we cannot know its limitations - we can by definition never know our own limitations, we cannot fully understand that which is by definition beyond us - so we can never reach a fully consistent understanding of the ‘universe’ as constructed by our minds. This is like a Godel theorem.

Can we expect that all our mental conceptions are not mutually contradictory?

..........

An interesting application of solipsism is to the idea of FW. FW is not disprovable, but it is nevertheless not unscientific if we limit ourselves to the provable since the physical universe is not provable.

A quaint use of the idea of solipsism of the moment was made by scientists in the 19th century in the debate sparked by the discoveries of geology regarding the age of the earth, and its apparent inconsistency with the age of the earth as alleged to be deducible from the Bible.

File: “Solipsism and Quantum Physics”

EPR, Bell, Aspect et all have shown us that to assume the existence of a ‘reality’ independent of what is actually measured, and measurable, can lead to verifiably incorrect conclusions. It is frustrating to try to come to a ‘complete’ theory of the universe, a la Einstein, without being able to include in that theory all that seemingly exists according to our intuition, but is not measured. This is however an indication that our intuition is incorrect, and the result is not a collapse of understanding but rather the negative emotion called frustration. Putting the emotion and intuition aside, we are left with correct understanding.

In the same way, we feel that there is a universe ‘out there’, although we cannot measurably verify this. We feel there are ‘other minds’ even though we are aware that we cannot prove this to be so. We experience time ...etc... Just as with quantum physics so too in regard to consciousness; assuming the existence of other minds, and of an external universe, lead to paradox, contradiction, incorrect conclusions.

The only complete theory is the idealist solipsistic one, and as in regards to quantum physics, the crux is consciousness.

The collapse of the wave packet is necessarily associated with the step of bringing results to the awareness of a consciousness (the problem only arises because we KNOW that there is only one possibility which is actualized), and it is consciousness which is the arena in which all occurs, and which is the ultimate reality.

(Also in Godel’s theorem, the only way that it is known that the theorem is true is because it is KNOWN to a consciousness; without a consciousness who knows the truth of the theorem, if it cannot be proven within the system then it cannot be said to be true.)

In both qp and the issue of the existence of an external universe we are faced with a question as to what is the full ‘reality’, one is in the small and the other is in the large, and both involve consciousness in a fundamental manner.

The Origin of Consciousness

We cannot create a theory of the origin of consciousness because we cannot prove to ourselves the existence of anything prior to our own existence, and assuming the existence of a universe independent of ourselves wil lead at some point to paradox.

However, there are very impressive scientific theories, the big bang etc, which provide coherence to our sensory impressions etc; why is this? If it is so successful, why not stretch it further?

And what is the reason for the existence of our consciousness?

Do we have to have an explanation? Or is the intuition that there is a reason for its existence simply an incorrect intuition?

What is the origin of the sensations in our consciousness? Why are there limitations on our control of reality - limitations which seem consistent with the existence of an outside universe, and with other minds, and minds who existed also prior to our own existence. Or are there really no constraints; if we train our minds correctly we can in fact control our sensory impressions etc, thus giving credence to solipsism. Or is it incorrect to assume the existence of a self-consistent model of everything.

File:"Gd.as.observer.Ch7 NasehVenish" 11/21/94

God as Quantum Observer

Introduction

The role that quantum metaphysics grants to consciousness in the creation of physical reality has other cosmological implications as well. Specifically, even if conscious observation brings into true physical reality that which was previously only existent as a quantum probability wave, since no human consciousness can observe the entire universe, the reality status of the large part of the universe not being humanly observed is cast into doubt.

Science deals with that which can be tested, with phenomena which can be verified by scientists in various countries independently of their beliefs or their culture or language. This is not to say that scientists consider all else uninteresting or insignificant. Rather, science limits itself to certain types of phenomena, and makes no judgement or indeed reference to matters outside its purview.

No unequivocal demonstration of the existence of a creator, of God, has ever been presented that convinced scientists everywhere, no experiment has been devised which would point to the existence of God in a manner convincing to all laboratory workers, and therefore the subject of God is not considered generally to be of relevance to scientific endeavor.

However, quantum metaphysics has touched on some issues which to some seem to point in the direction of a mind 'outside' the physical universe.

Schroedinger's Cat and Wigner's Friend

The eminent physicist Erwin Schroedinger, one of the founders of quantum physics, suggested the following 'thought experiment':

Put a cat into a closed box containing a poison which is released or not released into the cat's body depending on the outcome of a random quantum event in the box.

Since the state of the cat is dependent on a quantum event, its state can only be described by quantum physics. That is, the cat is in a combination of states: its state is represented by a wavefunction which is the sum of two wavefunctions - the wavefunction for the state of being dead by injection of poison plus the wavefunction for the state of being alive.

Of course when the box is opened, the cat will be seen to be either dead or alive - that is, the wavefunction has been collapsed to assume one of its possible components. The wavefunction of the cat is either one corresponding to 'dead already ten minutes', or 'alive but angry at being locked up in a box for ten minutes'. However, relative to those outside the box, the cat was in a combined state of 'dead plus alive' until the box was actually opened.

Wigner then asked what would be if a person [later dubbed 'Wigner's friend'] were in the box. As we have seen, the wave function of a sysem is collapsed when the state of the system is measured, or observed by a conscious being. Of course the person in the box would know if he were alive, and he would not feel himself to be in a combination of states. However, for those outside the box, he is in a combination of states until they open the box.

Similarly, for anyone who enters the room ten minutes after the box is opened. Until they are apprised of the result, relative to them the original observers are in the following combination of states: 'saw ten minutes ago that the person in the box was dead' plus 'saw ten minutes ago that he was alive'.

The person who was in the box and the observers in the room, form a quantum state in regards to the observer waiting outside the room. Just before the one outside the room is apprised of the result, the people inside the room comprise the state: 'the person in the box has been dead twenty minutes with the others mourning him already for ten minutes' plus 'the person who was in the box is alive and joking for the last ten minutes with his friends who opened the box ten minutes ago'. However, as soon as those outside the room are told the result, the wavefunction is collapsed to only one of its components.

Since all events are at their most fundamental level quantum events, all chains of events must be described by quantum wavefunctions. Until the result of a chain is known, the wavefunction is a combination of all the possible wavefunctions and as seen in the previous example, the chain can easily lead to large scale phenomena involving many people. As a result, all events are quantum events - not only microscopic events involving fundamental particles, but even events involving many people have to be described by the wavefunctions of quantum physics.

Gd and Quantum Physics

Since all physical interactions extend out to all distances, everything in the universe has a non zero interaction with every other part1. As we have seen, Bell's inequality has shown the interconnectedness of the most distant parts of the cosmos. Thus the entire universe is a system, with all parts interacting in an inseparable manner. As Rambam put it: "Know that this universe, in its entirety, is nothing else but one individual being."

Since the universe is one interconnected whole, the universe as a whole can possibly be considered as a quantum wave function2. One could then ask what then collapses the wave function of the entire universe - what measurement can there be which can measure the state of the entire universe. Some scientists have speculated that it is a network of observations of conscious beings, and therefore that the universe can reach full physical reality only when there exists within it a society of conscious beings able to observe the entire universe - perhaps by being so numerous and thoroughly spread out that they can in the totality of their observations encompass the entire universe. As the blessing to humanity and the summation at the conclusion of the creation account states (in its midrashic and kabbalistic interpretation): "be fruitful and multiply and fill the physical universe....which God created for humanity to complete"

Creation as the "Observation" of Gd

We have seen previously that "the wave function" is collapsed only when a measurement is made and recorded. However, prior to the emergence of man and his technology, only Gd could made such a 'measurement'. As a result, one could postulate that it is Gd's 'observation' of the universe which would cause it to emerge into reality. Indeed, according to Midrash 3, `nlr `xae `ziixe`a lkzqd. Gd "looked" into the creation blueprint - the Torah - and thereby created the universe. That is, the universe emerged into existence via an observation by Gd on the pseudo-real blueprint-universe.

The Torah is the blueprint of creation, and it is the Torah which governs the functioning of the universe: by looking at the Torah - observing - Gd created the universe. Each act of observation maintains the universe's existence, so that the universe is constantly being created anew - as the Midrash states, "Gd renews the creation every passing moment".

"And God Saw That it was Very Good"

After creation of the big bang, the universe - as a quantum system - could be only in a "superposition of states". It would not emerge into true reality until Gd chose to 'observe' it. Thus the universe develops simultaneously along all possible paths, including the path leading to the desired moral being.

When the universe has developed to the point at which the desired moral being has evolved on the optimal path, God could then pick out this desired potential universe from among all its parallel paths, and cause only it to emerge into existence. This would be the genuine act of creation - creation of 'the best of all possible worlds'.

Thus the universe which emerged into existence was a universe which was in God's eyes "very good", and the emergence took place at the point of emergence of the first moral being - as perhaps implied in the juxtaposition of the creation and Eden account, and by the effective placement of the statement "and God saw that it was very good" after the conclusion of creation, and before the story of the onset of free-willed consciousness.

Traditional Jewish Sources

The idea of Gd bringing the universe into existence via the operation of an act of observation can alo be found in other traditional Jewish sources. According to the Zohar4, the universe was created and is maintained via Gd "observing" Himself. Rambam states that Gd is the "ground of being' of the universe and "knowing Himself, Gd knows all" 5.

According to Ramban6, there are various levels of physical reality: the bringing forth into actual reality was accomplished via Gd's 'words', or 'verbal commands' ["let there be ..."] whereas the permanence of the things called into existence was granted by Gd's 'seeing' them ["and Gd saw that it was good..."]. The terminology also indicates, continues Ramban, that the coming into existence of all creation was via an act of Will, and the continuing existence of all creation is dependent on Gd's Will. Should there be a lack of the Divine will regarding the existence of some entity, it fortwith ceases to exist78.

This of course parallels the quantum metaphysical concept of the bringing of the universe into actuality via free-willed observation9 10 11.

In addition to the physical universe, Gd created man, and did so "in the image of Gd" - i.e. possessing free will, which is the Gdly attribute of transcending causal necessity.

Free will is thus the cause of the existence of the universe both in potential (Gd's Will) and in actuality (man's free will).

THIS STUFF APPEARS ELSEWHERE I THINK

Section I: The Universe of the Spiritual Forms and Man's Free Will

Introduction

Creation consists of two parts: the physical and the spiritual. There is a parallel between the two: the transcendental forces of the spiritual realm are the roots of all that is in the physical realm, and the two can interact via acts of man's free will. These spiritual Forces were created first; the existence of the physical universe emanates from them. Therefore, it was only after the creation of the spiritual 'forms', and after their methodology of interaction was set, that the corresponding physical universe and its physical law could be created.

The Creation Accounts

We can in fact interpret the first creation account as a description of the creation of these forces - that is, a description of the creation of the universe of spiritual forms. The second account then tells of the emergence of the active ingredient which can uniquely manipulate this realm - free will. Free will is that which connects the spiritual and the physical, and it is free will which allows and causes the emergence of the physical universe from its spiritual counterpart.

The third account then states that the physical realm was created.

The Universe of Spiritual Forms, Free Will, and Potentiality

The universe of spiritual forms was the "blueprint" of the physical universe, and thus it was created first. The only process which can directly affect the spiritual forms, are acts of human free will: it is only a free willed being which can cause the potentially existing physical universe to emerge into existence from its blueprint universe of spiritual forms, just as is the case with the observer bringing the physical universe into reality from within the potential universe of quantum pseudo-reality.

As stated above, the blueprint for the creation of the universe is the universe of the spiritual forms and their interactions. The physical entity corresponding to this blueprint is the Torah, which gives the rules of interaction between the physical and spiritual universes.

Gd created a parallelism between the spiritual and physical universes:

"He made this world corresponding to the world above, and everything which is above has its counterpart here below...and yet all constitute a unity."12 13

These 'Forces' are 'Potential Forces': concepts are conceived potentially among the Forces and are then translated into physical actuality. The universe of the Forces is therefore known as the universe of thought.

The Forces are the ground of existence of the universe 14.

Thus, the most basic level of reality is that of the universe of thought, of potentiality. The physical universe derives its reality from this thought-universe of potentia - and the connection between the two is man's free will. Indeed, only an act of free will by a moral being can bring the physical universe into existence.

Man's Free Will as Catalyst of Creation:

Traditional Jewish Sources

Genesis tells us that Gd rested, after creation, from all His work "which he created to do". The midrash explains that the words "to do" [zeyrl] means "everything that Gd created, requires the 'doing' of man". Thus man is partner in creation and in our scenario his free will - and role as observer - brings into actuality the universe created by Gd.

Another source relates to the Tree of Knowledge. According to our speculations here, the universe emerged into full existence when human free will emerged, symbolized by the partaking of the Tree of Knowledge. That eating of the Tree of Knowledge could enable man to bring an entire universe into existence is an idea actually found in the Midrash15. There we are told of the Rabbinic opinion that the snake tempted Adam and Eve to eat of the Tree by telling them that "from this tree Gd ate and created the universe" and that "Gd does not want you to eat of the Tree because he does not want you to create other worlds".

Summary

Since it is only free will which can bring forth the physical universe from the potentiality of the universe of the spiritual forms, the universe cannot emerge into physical reality until the emergence of a moral being.

Both quantum metaphysics and the Kabballah therefore indicate that the universe would begin its existence at the emergence of the first true moral being - giving a creation scenario entirely parallel to that portrayed in Genesis.

Synergy16 and The Jewish People

Introduction

A connection between the emergence of the universe into existence and the meaning of the existence of the universe as seen by Jewish tradition is provided by a combination of speculative socio-biology, quantum metaphysics, and kabbalah.

Socio-Biology and Kabbalah

August Comte, founder of sociology, considered a human society as an organism, and saw the society rather than the individual man as the basic unit of Mankind. Some scientists studying 'emergent properties' such as mind and consciousness also consider the possibility that a new and higher emergent level can arise when a sufficient number of individuals combine to form a society. It may even be that a moral being is only possible as part of a race of moral beings. Alternatively, it might be that although one moral being could be created, a race of moral beings has the potential to exist on a higher level than that possible by one moral being alone17.

If this is the case, then the Jewish People as a whole forms a synergistic unit - a unit greater than the sum of its component individuals, so that a free-willed choice by the Jewish people as a whole represents a level above that of the individual free-willed choices themselves. The higher levels of reality experienced by the Jewish people individually were brought into existence via the "na'aseh ve'nishma" at Sinai, as was the very concept of the Jewish people as a unit.

The importance of the events at Sinai was that not only did each individual accept the Torah freely, but that they accepted it as a unit. The Torah speaks of the Jews prior to Mt. Sinai in the plural, but at Sinai speaks of the Jewish people in the singular. According to the Midrash, it was at Sinai that the Jewish People became one - in the terms introduced above, one might see in the Jewish people a synergistic unit, an organism which is more than the sum of its parts.

Indeed, according to the Zohar, the factor which allowed the universe to emerge into full physical reality was the quintessential expression of free choice by the Jewish people as a whole, the epochal "na'aseh ve nishmah" at Sinai and the higher level of consciousness in the Jewish people as a unit which it engendered18:

"not till Israel stood before Mt. Sinai did they [the letters from which the universe was created] recover their proper order as on the day when the heaven and the earth were created, and [not till Israel stood before Mt. Sinai] was the earth once more securely established."

Furthermore states the Zohar, the universe was preserved after Adam's actions only because the Jewish people were to accept the Torah at Sinai - of their own free will. Had it not been known to Gd that they would do so, Gd would have destroyed the heavens and earth right then19.

"if not for Torah, the laws of heaven and earth would not be" .

That is,the laws of nature were created on condition that the Jewish People would accept the Torah.

Since the Torah is the blueprint of the universe20 - "`nlr `xae `ziixe`a lkzqd" - one can say that the universe achieved full reality only when its blueprint was accepted freely - that is, via free will - at Sinai. There follows from this also the centrality of the Eden account to the Torah, and its intrinsic link to the creation account.

Further Sources Connecting the Existence of the Universe and the Acceptance of the Torah

The Talmud21 points out that in the phrase "iyyd mei" - "the sixth day"22 - the letter d - corresponding to the definite article - is extra. As for all other days the phrase should seemingly have been written as iyy mei - a [not the] sixth day. So both the extra d and the whole word iyyd itself are interpreted as hints. The d itself, which has the value five, refers to the dxez iyneg dyng - the five books of the Torah: the meaning of this hint is then that the universe was created on the condition that the Jewish People would accept the Torah, and "iyyd mei"[the sixth day] is a hidden reference to the yceg ly iyyd mei" - the sixth day of the month of sivan, the day on which the Torah was given:

zxivi lk ewfgzp dxezd l`xyi elawy oeiqa 'e meiay: oeiq i.e. dxez ozn mei"

"dzr mlerd `xap eli`k aygpe ziy`xa

A second source relates to the Sabbath. zay is the witness (zecr) of creation; without zay there would be no universe:

:`id ze` :ux`e miny mka izecird :ux`d z`e minyd z` miwl` `xa ziy`xa

(d`ixal micr ipy = ux`e miny) it ixn` ux`d rnyzd ..minyd epif`d .

A third source states that without the Torah, the universe could not exist: "dxez `la miiwzn mlerd oi`" (i"yx) . Before a being exists who can use his free will to choose between good and evil, the Torah cannot be put into practice, and the universe cannot exist. Thus all generations prior to that of Adam could exist only in potentiality, in the 'mind of Gd':

xy`" :xn`py ,"ehnew xy`" lr xn` awri xa `g` axe `:ci-a:bi dbibg

ryz el`" ciqgd oerny iax xn` :`ipz ."mceqi wvei xdp zr `le ehnew

Furthermore, according to Rashi, the words "In the beginning (Gd) created..." ["Bereisheet bara..."] means "for those things termed 'reisheet', Gd created the heavens and the earth". Among the entities termed 'Reisheet' are the Jewish people, and the Torah. Thus, the first passage of Genesis tells us that the universe was created for the Jewish People, and for the Torah [among other things]. The Torah is called "etz khayim", the tree of life, and Gd commanded the Jewish people to "choose life" ["ubakharta bakhayim"]. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is complemented by the tree of life, the Torah. If one uses one's free will to choose life - Torah - then one has overcome the limitations of the tree of knowledge.

At Sinai, the Jewish people - as a synergistic unit, greater than the sum of its parts - declared in one voice their free willed decision to choose "life' - the Torah - the blueprint of creation. This free willed acceptance of the Torah - the blueprint of creation - at Sinai, by the direct descendants of the Adamite line [via Sheth, Noakh, Shem, and Abraham], provided the universe with the status of full concrete physical reality, and retroactively allowed the universe to be created at creation, at the emergence of Adam and free will.

Creation via the Will of Gd

One can interepret the passage at the end of the first creation account as implying that the universe was created in one instant - after being created in thought - as an expression of Gd's (Free) Will:

z` dyr mini zyy ik mlerl `id ze` l`xyi ipa oiae ipia" :fi :`l zeny

."ytpie zay iriayd meiae ux`d z`e minyd

that which He wished had come into existence = "ytpie"

"Guide": very end of I:67: (`n) epx`a xake ,ytp on lrtp `id ytpie :fq :` lk ly lrtl d`ivie evtg znlyd epipr didie ,oevxde dxhnd epiprye ytp.oipr `id dlrzi eil` qgia dxn`py ytp oexkf lke" :`n :` epevx

ivtga epipr ,dyri iytpae iaal xy`k exn`a (hl) epl miiwy itk oevxd

.ipevxe

According to Ramban23 and Rambam24, the universe first existed in a state of non-form, with a potential for physical existence.

Furthermore, as stated above Ramban teaches that 25 Gd's word brought things into existence, while Gd's observation gave full reality of concrete existence to the entities created previously only in Mind - and all this was an expression of the Free Will of Gd. 26 27

The Universe As Gd's Will

The Divine Will is both the 'cause' of the existence of the universe, and also its 'ground of being'. If Gd actively Wills the universe to cease to exist, it of necessity automatically does so. Further, if it is not Gd's Will that the universe exist, the universe has no ground of being, and does not exist.

We can speculate that there is a connection between the universe having been infused with free will and that as an emanation of Divine Will, the universe itself is, in its essence, Will.

Man, although ostensibly a physical being, bears within him the 'breath' of Gd, and is created in the 'image' of Gd, in a universe created out of the Will of Gd; it is fitting that seemingly-physical man can possess free will.

The universe emerged into existence as the actualization of Gd's Will. The purpose of the creation involved the activity of a being infused with the Divine ability to employ free will. Fittingly it would be the emergence of free will in this being which would provide concrete reality to the universe created from Gd's Will28.

Perhaps therefore, it is the purpose of man to return the cosmos to its former state: To restore the exclusivity of the Divine Will by developing one's own will to conform to the Divine Will - thus realizing fully one's status of a being 'in the image of Gd'; to restore the Divine unity by "cleaving unto Gd" "with all one's one's heart, with all one's soul, and with all one's might", by "walking in My ways"and by "being Holy as I [Gd] am Holy"29.

30

1 Unless they were outside each other's light cone at creation.

2 Whether or not one can define a universal wave-function is a matter of debate.

3 Midrash Rabbah Gen. 1:2

4 Zohar on "khokhma"

5 See Rambam Yesodei Torah 2:10 [last line]. "rceid-ed" dxez iceqi zekld

'HU HAYODEA...'ETC. = THOUGHT = KNOWLEDGE = COLLAPSE OF WAVE PACKET].

6 Ramban on Gen. 1:3

7 In Ramban's words: ".. the bringing forth of things into actual existence is called 'amirah' [saying]. Thus: And Gd said 'let there be light'...The word 'saying' here indicates Will...And the permanence of things called forth is called 're'iyah'....The purport of the word "seeing" ["and Gd saw that it was good"] is thus to indicate that their continuing existence is at His Will .."

8 The final act of bringing the universe into physical reality was the act of observation, and free willed choice of Gd. [Ramban: "it was good" - implying that otherwise, Gd would not have let it remain in existence. That is, Gd decided freely to have it continue to exist - with the concept of free willed choice related here to the concept of 'good'.]

9(that is why dkld (edut) can change ze`ivn(metziut))

10 `le mlerd `xapy mcew ze`xaidl ehnewy zexec rax`e miraye ze`n."e`xapmcew mlerd on xiardy zexec (974) c"rwzz lr :ehnew xy` lr :i"yx crl iphnwze" oeyl ,ze`xaidl exfbp ;ze`xaidl ehnew ;o`xa `le dxez ozn .(fh aei`) "did dn miiwl ,dxez ozn mcew zeidl ze`xaidl mdil` xfbp :mlerd `xapy mcew seql ozpdl dxez dzid diie`x ,(dw milidz) "xec sl`l dev xac" xn`py seql dpzpe ,ocxhe cnr ,dxez `la miiwzn mlerd oi`y d`xyke - xec sl` 1000-n 974 exqgy ixd) .epax dyn cr oey`xd mc`n = zexec e"k

([:gt zay i"yx]i"yx] A reference to the idea of an instant universe in classical Jewish sources is the idea that 974 generations of men preceded Adam (Gr 10:10) but that these generations were created only in thought [ (Chagiga 13B. Rashi's commentary). (see Note #3).R. Bakhya[Bekhayeh] on Gen I:3 (very end) says they were wiped out in thought ,which means they had been created in thought.

11self knowledge= self referential: knowledge = observing = collapse of wave packe:"Mekhadesh ha'briya.." = by constant observation, Gd collapses the universal wave packet [if such can be defined].

12 Zohar: Exodus 20a :#359: commentary on: "and Moses shepherded Yithro's sheep".

13 See Ramkhal [Luzatto] "The Way of Gd" ["Derekh Hashem"].

14 In the word of R. Aryeh Kaplan: "Man's thoughts and the information in his mind are therefore considered part of the physical world, see Yad, T'shuvah 8:3. The universe ..... of the Forces is Beriyah (Creation). Besides meaning Force, the word Koach also means "potential".....Concepts are conceived potentially among the Forces, and then translated into action..... The Kabbalists therefore speak of the world of the Forces as the universe of thought....."

15 Genesis Rabbah 19:6,

16 The property of something being qualitatively different than a combination of its parts.

17 Quote Sperry? :

18 Gen. 56a

19 The seeming conflict between Divine Omniscience and human free will is dealt with in many books and articles. See for example Rabinowitz "Free Will in the Fifth Dimension".

20 Gen. R. 1:2

21 B.T. Shabbat 88. See Rashi on the passage quoted from Genesis.

22 Gen.1:31.

23 Commentary on Genesis I:1. (?)

24 "Guide" : II:26

25 Ramban on Gen. 1:3

26 Zohar: Bereisheet 29a [p.111 eng.], and 29b [p112 english].

27And according to the Zohar, Gd created the universe from thought:

"having decided to create the universe, Gd traced and built, but the aim was not attained until Gd enfolded Himself in a covering of a supernal radiance of thought and created therefrom a universe.

"in the beginning Gd created" = "bereisheet Gd created", but "bereisheet " = "bekhokhma", that is, "in Wisdom". Therefore, one reads "In Wisdom Gd created.."

Ohr and Shefa: 'Ohr' is the term used for the 'shefa' - sustaining abundance, plenitude - which comes down to the universe from Gd. It is the Will of Gd as it manifests itself in the physical universe. [therefore it is also Nature] Therefore "vayehi ohr" [according to Gra] = retroactive expression of Will of Gd.

28This is yet another connection between the creation, free will, consciousness, self-reference, and self-causation. [and reflexivity]

29 [ "ve'dovak be'ishto' : 've'atem ha'dvekim b'hashem..' : 'vehayu lebasar ekhad'?

30 It was Gd's will that a universe be created. The universe emerged into existence. As soon as the universe existed, there would probably not also exist the Divine Will to create the universe. Similarly, as long as it was the Divine Will to create a universe, it must have been that the universe was not existent. Thus, the Divine Will to create the universe does not coexist with the universe itself. One can then perhaps say that it was the Divine Will itself which was transformed into the existence of the universe: thus, the universe is an 'emanation' of Gd.

File: "Ch un as an organism"12/8/94

The Universe as an Organic Whole

Ecological Completeness

The study of ecology has taught humanity the amazingly delicate balance between the various components of the physical universe. Without the plankton in the sea, the shrimp die, causing starvation in the small fish which feed on them, and then starvation of the slightly larger fish which feed on the small fish...and so on down the food chain.

Man and animal breathe oxygen, and exhale carbon dioxide. Plants, trees and all vegetation "breathe" carbon dioxide, and "exhale" oxygen. Therefore, too few plants means suffocation for Man and animal. Without the algae on the ocean surface, the carbon dioxide breathed out by Man and animal begins to dominate the atmosphere, and suffocation begins. If no non-vegetative life remained to convert oxygen to carbon dioxide, the vegetation would "suffocate".

Fluorocarbons released into the atmosphere rise to the ozone layer and destroy it, allowing the ultra-violet rays of the sun to penetrate to the Earth's surface, causing cancer in Man and animal.

The destruction of a species of animal or insect allows the species it preyed upon to wreak havoc on the species it itself preys upon, wiping out that species, and thus allowing its prey to wreak havoc....

The fuel Man uses - oil and coal - are formed from the fossils of long-dead animals. Without a rich history of life, a planet cannot have fossil fuels.

In the universe at large there is also some interdependancy. Aged stars explode and scatter their particles to other parts of the universe, causing the formation of new stars, and of planets. Some of the higher-energy scattered particles may also cause some vital mutations on some distant planet, thus contributing to the upward climb of life there.

The laws of nature themselves interact with each other to form a balanced unity - dispensing with one law could cause the entire universe to collapse.

After creation of a universe, whatever the method of creation, the components and the laws that govern them would necessarily be placed in harmony with each other, so that the universe and its contents could function as a unit.

The Universe as a Mathematical system

In any valid mathematical system, all statements implied by the axioms, or by other statements in the system, must be contained within the system. If the system implies the truth of statements which are not contained within it, the system is incomplete1. In addition, all the statements must be mutually consistent, and each one must be self-consistent.

A universe is a system - a physical representation of a mathematical system. If the universe is to be a complete and consistent system it must contain within it all that is implied logically by the presence of its components. Every entity in the universe, from galaxies to spiders, from space-time to man logically implies, by its very existence, the existence of that from which it originated. Thus, a logically and aesthetically complete and self-consistent universe must contain all the implied memory-artifacts: that is, it must be in a big bang-emergent state. If a universe were created with the moral being as the sole living entity on a planet under a sky empty of all stars but his sun, the being would not 'fit in' to nature.

Had the moral being been created alone, it would not 'fit in' to the instant universe, since it was not truly consistent with it. However, when the universe is in a self-consistent big-bang-emergent state, the universe is complete, and man fits in as an organic part of nature, in a richly populated world under a sky full of stars.

Any universe which is truly and fully self-consistent will be consistent in time as well as in extension. That is, just as any one section of the universe is consistent with any other, so too the universe as it is at any one time will be consistent with the universe as it is at any other time. Just as consistency in spatial extent implies continuity and not necessarily uniformity, so too the temporal consistency implies a dynamical continuity and not necessarily an unchanging staticity.

Also, if it is fully self-consistent, it must contain within itself all that it needs in order to change from one state to another. Thus, a fully self-consistent universe will contain within itself the seeds for its future development. As a result, since time directions are symmetric, it will contain as well all the information necessary for a reconstruction of its past.

If, as is true in our universe, there are beings capable of formulating "mathematics laws of nature" to describe quantitatively the dynamics of the universe, then these beings will eventually discover the secrets of the origin and future of the universe - as we are doing today. The state of the universe at that time will be traceable back to an origin - for example the "big bang".

The entire universe will be recognized as being in a state which developed over time from a big bang, containing all the entities/beings whose existence was implied by the conditions obtaining at the big bang. One could see the present state of the universe - and all it contains - as having "emerged" from the big bang. Thus one could term such a universe a "big bang-emergent universe" and every state of the universe could be termed "a big bang-emergent state".

As Rambam stated2: "When anything can only exist provided some other thing has previously existed, Gd has caused the latter to precede it."

The Unity of Nature

As generations of scientists and philosophers have found, contemplation of the universe reveals the unity of its nature and the coordination of its functioning. Organisms feed, and are fed; plants and animals recycle oxygen and carbon-dioxide; rain falls and evaporates again - an entire ecology; the organs of the human body act in coordination with symbiotic microorganisms which digest our food; gravity acts to keep us on the ground and to maintain the earth in its orbit.

More and more, it is being discovered that all of nature can be described by fewer and fewer general principles, with the grand hope being that all laws of nature will be unified into one universal law.

The universe operates as a self-consistent system, and this order, unity and elegance apparent in the universe led many people to believe that the universe is a product of mind, of a conscious act of creation by an omnipotent being. In all ages, alleged "proofs" of the existence of a creator, based themselves on "arguments from design" essentially inspired by the feeling of awe and wonder gained by contemplating the universe. Today we would not adduce any of this as proof of anything, but we would say that if indeed a "Gd" created the universe, it was done in a way which allowed the entire universe to "run itself" in accordance with a very beautiful, intricate, elegant - yet economical - unified universal law.

One could phrase this metaphysically as follows: Gd as creator of the universe ex-nihilo is the ground of being of that universe. A universe which operates according to one universal law can run itself as long as Gd maintains the operation of the one law. Gd is "the ground of being of the universe" and as such Gd's attributes are manifested in it. One can then say that Gd's unity is manifested in the physical universe as the one universal law, or that this unity is the "motive power" behind this one law.

The universe as created is self-consistent and complete, elegant and ordered rather than disjointed and makeshift, maximizing existence, and manifesting the intimate existential connection between man and universe itself.

As Rambam said3:

"Know that this universe, in its entirety, is nothing else but one individual being."

Natural Law and Moral Accountability

If man is to be held responsible for his actions, it is necessary that he be able to forsee their consequences. Therefore, a moral universe must be an ordered universe in which similar causes give rise to similar effects 4. However, it is precisely this regularity which is termed 'natural law' 5. Thus, a moral universe must be governed by natural law.

This natural law will govern the occurence of events within the universe, and will govern the development of the universe as a whole. This natural law could therefore be used to extrapolate backwards to an origin of the universe. If the universe is not consistent with that extrapolated original state, the system of natural law is inconsistent. Therefore a universe governed by natural law must be in a state consistent with its having emerged from an origin.

The Unity of God: the Creation and Eden Accounts

As nature is a creation of God, it is a revelation itself, as well as being a reflection of the divine. The oneness of nature can therefore bew considerd as a reflection of the unity of God. According to Rambam, to whom the unity of God was the paramount philosophical truth, the contemplation of the wonders of nature is the proper means to achieve the state of love and awe of God - and one might add, perhaps a better comprehension of the divine unity as well.

As opposed to the pagan creation accounts with their myriad gods and powers, and their ambiguous attribution of primary creative energy (it is not clear from these accounts how the entire process began, where the gods originated, etc.), the creation account provides a clear picture of one deity proceding in an orderly manner, designing a universe which is to function as a unit, with each step reviewed and approved - "and God saw that it was good" - prior to continuing with the next step. The final step was the approval of the overall creation - "and God saw all that had been created, and it was very good" - and then the institution of natural law to form a self-governing unified system, as symbolized by ZGod's 'resting'.

When looked at from the perspective of logical self-consistency the universe is emergent from a big bang, as described by cosmology - and this self-consistency of natural law is also a prerequisite for the existence of moral law. However, from the perspective of moral purpose, the universe is designed and created in an anthropocentric manner, as related in Genesis.

1However, mathematical and logical systems contain true statements which are not provable within that system, as Godel showed.

2"Guide" II:13

3 Guide I:72

4 See Levi, and Barth p.132-133

5 For discussions regarding precise definitions of the terms 'causality', 'natural law' etc. see e.g. Van Fraasen and see references there.

The Anthropic principle

and the Maximization of Existence

Introduction

The anthropic principle sets humanity as the measure of all things, and the strong anthropic principle goes even further and sees free-willed consciousness as being that which brings the universe into full physical existence. If such is the case, then both the design of the big bang and the very existence of the universe itself are specified by the requirement that it be capable of eventually producing a free-willed conscious being.

Therefore, according to the anthropic principles, the existence of free willed conscious biological beings is both a necessary and sufficient condition for the specification of the universe and also for its initiation into full physical reality.

Similarly, in Biblical philosophy God is both the necessary and sufficient agent for the existence of the universe and of free willed conscious beings. The anthropic principles therefore provide an extension to man of the idea of God as creator and ground of being, which is highly appropriate for the being created in the image of its creator.

In a created universe in which the big bang is designed so as to eventually produce free willed beings, all entities and life-forms which eventually evolve from the big bang owe their existence to the fact that a big bang designed to produce moral beings also produced them. This idea can shed some light on traditional Jewish views regarding the purpose of existence of the universe and of its constituent elements.

Rambam's Views on Existence

According to Rambam, the Torah teaches that the universe was designed so as to specifically include man. He then points out that many people, feeling that this teaching implies that all was created for man, ask why spiders detrimental to man were created, and why Gd created the distant stars if they are out of man's reach1.

In response, Rambam states that it is simply not true that all was created for Man. Rather, existence is a good in of itself, and the reason that harmful and useless entities were created is that it is Gd's Will that these entities exist, and because Gd wanted to grant the good of existence to all possible beings.

As stated previously, according to the anthropic principle, and from the Biblical perspective, the conditions of the big-bang are determined by the teleological consideration that it must eventually develop into a universe containing a moral being. A big bang which is designed to give rise to human beings will need to be of a very specific type.

This type of teleologically derived big bang. on the way to producing moral beings as it is designed to, will produce many other species - from amoebas through amphibians to apes. All these other beings - animals, insects and so on - which derive from the resultant teleoderived big-bang, can be seen as the "possible" beings Rambam speaks of. They are then given actual existence through Gd's creation of a big bang.

As Rambam pointed out, Adam could have been created without the rest of the universe (Guide III:13):

"We who believe in the creation must admit that God coud have created the universe in a different manner...the principal object, man, could have been brought into existence without the rest of the creation."

However, in order to give the good of existence to the maximum amount of beings within the context of a moral universe, the initial state was teleoderived from the moral stage to form a big bang which would produce all the beings inherent in the design of the moral being rather than simply the moral being itself.

There is thus not only a deep link between the physical characteristics of man and the fundamental physical structure of the universe, but the universe also contains virtually all that is implied by this interconnection - specifically, the physical and biological links between a big bang which would produce a human, and the human himself.

A Big-Bang-Emergent Universe: Maximizing the Amount of Existence

According to the Midrash, all was created in potentia in one act of creation, and the entire universe developed from this one state. We are also told by the Midrash that Adam was first a shapeless mass of clay, and was shaped into Man during a certain period, finally receiving the Divine "image" on the sixth "day". One can then say that the initial creation contained the rudiments of Adam, and the passing of time brought closer the development of this entity to being "Adam".

On the basis of this one can construct the following image: All beings which were links in the evolutionary chain leading to man can be considered as one continuously existent being, taking on various transient shapes, each one more complex than the last, until the final shape is achieved - that of man2.

Since the big bang was teleoderived from the design of the moral-being, it of necessity contains within it the potential development of man's evolutionary predecessors, including of course his near 'ancestor' the monkey/ape.

The sole raison d'etre of the monkeys and apes in a teleological sense are as the logically necessary evolutionary predecessors of man. The monkey is a transient being in the evolutionary sense since it eventually mutates to become man, and in the teleological sense because after the appearance of man, its existence no longer serves a teleological purpose - thus both the species and its teleological importance are transient.

Even more so, all species which developed along branches of the evolutionary chain unrelated to man - species unnecessary as steps towards the eventual emergence of man - are not only teleologically purposeless now that man exists, but always were so; nevertheless, their existence is guaranteed by the fact that they are inherent in the big bang which is designed to produce moral beings.

As outlined previously, Rambam provides us with a reason for why Gd created the universe in a big-bang-emergent state. According to Rambam, existence in itself is a great good3 4. As a result, Gd wished to give existence to all beings whose existence is possible5. In our context, this would mean not only to give existence to man, as the purpose of the evolutionary process, but also to all those other beings who would exist as a result of that process.

Thus it was Gd's Will to create the moral universe not with only moral man inhabiting it, but also with all the creatures implied in the form of Man. That is , Gd wished to give the benefit of existence to all the creatures which would exist in a universe designed to produce a moral being, all the creatures which would develop from a big bang-emergent universe teleoderived from the design of a moral being.

This then sheds light on the fact that in the creation account although after virtually every stage of the creation it is commented that "and God saw that it was good", after the creation of man there is no such comment, whereas immediately after the creation of mankind, which heralded the completion of creation as a whole, it is said that "God saw all that He had done and it was very good". In our terms, that the whole was derived from the design of man, and therefore the maximal good came not simply from the creation of man, but rather from the creation as a whole, with all that was inherent in the design of man.

Existence is a good in of itself

According to the Rambam it is wrong to assume that if a being exists, it does so to serve man, or for man's benefit. Instead, they exist because Gd wanted to give existence to all that could exist, including and especially the transiently-purposeful transient being which evolved into man - the monkey. In the words of the Rambam 6:

"no notice need be taken of the nonsensical idea that monkeys were created for our pastime [i.e. for man's benefit]. Such opinions originate only in man's ignorance of the nature of transient beings7, and in his overlooking the principle that it was intended by the Creator to produce in its present form everything whose existence is possible"8.

Conclusion:

That there exist parts of the universe which are seemingly useless to man - for example the distant stars or some of the millions of insect species, and so on - means that they do not exist because of man, that is, to serve him. However, since all these parts exist only because the big bang is teleoderived from the state containing moral man, then all that exists does exist because of man, that is, because man exists9.

As the Mishna in Sanhedrin states, man must say "Bishvili nivra ha'olam" - 'because of me was the world created'. So, the universe is designed for Man, and any being living in it exists only because they are part of the chain of being which stretches from the first creation to the first moral people. However, they were not created for the purpose of serving man, but rather they were created because Gd wished to give the Goodness of existence to all those possible beings whose existence was implied in the chain. That is, they exist because of man, not for man.

From the traditional Biblical perspective, the universe is designed to produce moral beings, while all other entities no matter how vast or numerous, if they are not free-willed conscious beings, exist because they are inherent in the teleologically designed big bang.

Mankind is therefore told in the creation account that the sun moon and stars, lofty and huge though they may be, will be convenient time-pieces; mankind is enjoined by the Bible to make use of the resources of the world, to harness the power of the animals and of the forces of nature, to channel all towards the purpose of moral action for the betterment of self, of the lot of others, and the worship of God. However, there are limits to the exploitation of nature - cutting down fruit trees, causing unneeded pain to animals, wanton destruction - since the universe and all it contains were not created simply to serve mankind's needs.

Humanity is instead to face the challenges inherent in its ability to discern the moral aspect of events and situations, and to utilize its free will to make the proper choices - that very free-willed consciousness which sets the tone for the design of the universe, which gives it full physical reality, and whose parameters define the extent of all possible existent beings.

Appendix: Possible Beings and Rambam

When we say that Gd wished to give existence to all possible beings, it is obviously not meant all beings which can possibly be imagined since that would be an infinite number, and since in any case it is clear that many imaginable beings were not created. Clearly then "all possible beings" means 'all beings possible which fulfil a certain criterion' - the criterion being logical self-consistency and consistency with the rest of creation. As Rambam says: (adapted to our interpretation) 'All beings which would arise along all the possible branches of evolution' (rather than just the existence of their teleological end, man).

"Possible beings" are those which are present in the big-bang-emergent universe, and the big-bang-emergent universe arises from a big bang teleoderived from the moral stage. Thus it is the characteristics of the moral stage, and particularly of the moral being, which determine the forms of all "possible being". In contrast, the existence of any form of being not derived in this way from the moral stage is "impossible". Since the moral stage is that which is directly designed according to the purpose which Gd's Wisdom has decreed for the universe, one can say that the existence and form of all possible beings is dependent on the original decree of the Divine Wisdom.

We can now read the whole passage as written by the Rambam (translated):

"...no notice need be taken of the nonsensical idea that monkeys were created for our pastime [i.e. for man's benefit]. Such opinions originate only in man's ignorance of the nature of transient beings, and in his overlooking the principle that it was intended by the Creator to produce in its present form everything whose existence is possible; a different form was not decreed by the Divine Wisdom, and the existence [of objects of a different form] is therefore impossible, because the existence of all things depends on the decree of Gd's Wisdom".

Thus, the universe exists in a big bang-emergent state because existence is a good in of itself, and Gd wished to bestow the intrinsic good of existence on all "possible beings". This truth is not obvious to man only because man erroneously believes that the whole universe exists only to serve his purposes, and that all created entities achieve their purpose only through their being of use to him. Because of this delusion, when they find no use for some of creation, they erroneously assume that these creations resulted from trivial, purposeless, or vain action on the part of Gd: as the Rambam says (translation):

"Know that the difficulties which lead to confusion in the question what is the purpose of the universe or of any of its parts, arise from two causes; first, man has an erroneous idea of himself, and believes that the whole world exists only for his sake; secondly he is ignorant both about the nature of the sublunary world, and about the Creator's intention to give existence to all beings whose existence is possible, because existence is undoubtedly good. The consequences of that error and of the ignorance about the two things named, are doubts and confusions, which lead many to imagine that some of Gd's works are trivial, others purposeless, and others in vain."

1 Ironically , today many have the reverse belief - that nothing was created to serve man, and that in fact man is a product of chance development.

2"the great chain of being".

3 On the connection betweeen good and existence: in the Torah Gd says: ÒI have laid before you the good and the bad, life and death - choose life!Ó ["Hinei na'tati lachem et hatov ve'et ha'ra et ha'chaim ve'et ha'mavet ubacharta bechaim."] That is, choosing good is equated with choosing existence.

Further, as we have seen, man's awareness of the distinction between good and evil brought existence from non-existence. In addition, according to Rambam:

"All the great evil which men cause to each other ... are ... due to non-existence; because they originate in ignorance, which is absence of wisdom", Guide III:XI. That is, all evil is nonexistence: and all existence is good: [ Guide: III:X]

4 "Guide" III:10, III:12, III:25. See also R. Sa'adya Gaon, "Emunot Ve'de'ot" [very beginning of Part III]. According to Ramban (Nachmanides), the phrase "and Gd saw that it was good", means "and Gd gave permanent existence to that which was created according to the Divine Will, because this existence was good". [Ramban Gen.1:4. See also 2:18 (very end), and 1:10 (beginning of "Vayar Ki Tov")].

5The apparent lack of necessity for the existence of much of creation was used as a point against the emanation theory of creation, and likely supported the contention that they were created because of the intrinsic good of existence. However this loses force in the light of the origin theory and anthropic principle. Our application therefore reinvests this approach with meaning.

6"Guide" III:25. A drash on Rambam, applying his translated words to the context of our thesis here.

7 Hebrew version: "Teva ha'havayah veha'hefsed"

8 See also "Guide" III:10 - III:13

9 Consistency with the laws of nature may have caused some species to have disappeared leaving less than the maximum amount of existent species.

Adam means humanity - the race - rather than an individual.

The development of farming, metal working etc is collapsed in Genesis into one generation etc, this is figurative. It is describing the evolution of society and technology.

We have a moral sense. There must have been a first human to feel this. It may be it was a sudden mutation or it was the sudden use of a potential granted via evolution, or it was gradual etc, and the line is arbitrary. In any case, Adam represents the onset of moral thinking in that individual human or the collective leading to him.They had nothing to rely on from previous generations, and if it was an individual male, there may very well not have been any female equivalent available; God produced Eve for him.

To exist without moral consciousness is not to live. To live means to feel, to understand, to grapple with moral choice. Eve was the mother of all truly alive humans. They were the first humans to represent the ultimate qualitative break with the animal kingdom, “and Adam did not find a help-mate”.

Their children however had some of the old genes as well; one came out one way, the other another, and killed the first.

Summary

We have now answered all the questions we posed previously:

1. Why create a big-bang-emergent universe; [answer: to maximize existence, for completeness, and to maintain freedom of belief].

2. Why create an instant universe; [answer: the universe is purposeless, boring, and preprogrammed until the moral stage].

3. Why at the stage depicted in Genesis; [answer: Genesis depicts the onset of the moral stage, at which point purposeful activity can begin].

4. Why the implied date of 6,000 years ago; [answer: human moral consciousness seems to have developed about then].

5. Why in the manner related in Genesis 1; [answer: it was necessary to create piecemeal since there was nothing to copy from, and no experienced universe-builder to consult.]

We can now restate our claim that the creation as described in Genesis is the most logical creation method for a purposive creator to use.

Accepting the instant universe scenario

We may believe that Gd created the universe for a purpose, but we do not know what Gd is, we cannot truly even define the concept. Neither can we properly define the words 'creation'[how can there be a beginning?], 'universe' [it cannot be defined except in relation to itself since nothing else exists] or purpose [it cannot be defined in terms that are neutral]. Nevertheless, we know intuitively what "Gd created the universe for a purpose" means, even if we cannot express these basic emotion-concepts in the necessarily limited medium of words.

To read Genesis and accept all that is written there is difficult for the 'sophisticated modern' since we are generally used to talking about only that which we can be seen, touched, or experienced directly. Especially in modern times where science and technology reign, where one is used to 'provability', it is all the more difficult to speak of Gd, of Purpose and so on. Many people even feel uncomfortable just mentioning the word 'Gd'.

However, when speaking of the Bible, we cannot avoid the subject of Gd. Nor can we ignore concepts like 'creation' 'universe' and 'purpose'. We must confront the difficult question: can we accept that we are the products of chance, that the universe arose by chance, that there are no absolutes, no true 'Purpose'? Or is there a Creator, and all that follows from that?

If there is a Creator, then this Creator had to create somehow, and clearly this Creator created Nature and its laws. It is therefore absurd to insist that this Creator would be constrained to create the universe using the laws that were created to run the universe. Further, it is reasonable to assume that the Creator would create the universe for a purpose. And if so, we are led to the instant universe idea.

Genesis as interpreted within the context of the instant universe scenario may seem foreign to our scientific/technological mode of thought; however if we honestly confront the issue, and can accept the possibility of creation, then in the same way we can accept the instant universe idea.

File: “sources and quotes for evo book”:

Charles Darwin:

Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follwos from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a theist. Autobiography: (Quoted in Neal C. Gillespie “Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation” p141)

Forerunners of Darwin: 1745-1859: discussion of Chambers' work and that of other early evolutionists, "Forerunners of Darwin" ed. B. Glass , O. Temkin, W. L. Straus, Jr. :The Johns Hopkins Press 1959.

p358 footnote: Darwin’s role (as opposed to predecessors) in establishing organic evo. Huxley, Spencer, Chambers’ “Vestiges”, Wallace, Emerson, Shopenhauer in favor of Vestiges, Huxley against. Huxley sharp attack on Vestiges, and against saying natural law is the cause (rather than the description of the pattern of occurrence) of events, and that God employed natural law to cause events to occur. Footnote p361 is re God’s responsibility for all actions which occur as a result of such divinely instituted natural law. (can use for free will book)

Evo of moral sense in humans: Huxley,Darwin.

Just Before Darwin:by Millhauser, re Chambers and “Vestiges”:6 pages: describes//reviews many pro-biblical responses to Lyell’s geology.

What Darwin Really Said: Farrington

p17: Erasmus (grandfather) as precursor

p52-56: How D presented the descent of man in somewhat veiled manner in his writings

p57: any animal close to man in intellectual development would have a moral conscience

p93-99: D and the Bible

Darwin’s Autobiography: writes against Design, D and the Bible

“Origin of Species”: final paragraph

“Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation” Gillespie:

p128-9: Darwin writes agains God deceiving us, (as would be with inst un)

p134-153: Darwin was not atheist etc. last 20 years he was partially agnostic, but good quote in his autobiography re a First Cause with intelligence like the human mind because cannot all originate in chance.

p137 quote re Darwin showed ignorance re creation date in Bible.

Hugh Miller “Footprints of the Creator” or The Asterolepis of Stromness”: shows the parallel between “Vestiges” and the ideas of Epicurus.

“Omphalos”: Gosse: 40 pages, with my annotations interspersed.

P H Gosse entry in Encyc Brit

Edmund Gosse entry in Encyc Brit

“Father and Son” .

“Life” P H Gosse: since humans share w animals everythng including intelligence and emotion, in what sense is humanity different than the animals: ans: god became man.

“A Comparative Estimate of the Mosaic and Mineral Geologies”: Granville Penn:

.........

Gavin deBeer: physical part of human moral sense evolved via animals, was improved by human thought. Refers to Darwin on this.

Joad: not for evo: is about objective reality, wholism, criticism of Eddington etc, Bergson and elan vital.

157-167: mind/body, emergence

duNouy: emergenc of moral sense, fw, Genesis.

Fiske: “Destiny”: 1884: no contradiction betweeen Bible and evo: evo works towards producing Humanity as highest product. Consciousness comes from infusion by God (quotes Spencer).

HaravKook: 1938: similar to Fiske

Nobel P Conversations:

Sperry: mind is materialistic emergent from brain

Eccles: dualism. Mind DOES interact w body. P157: Fw.

Jeans”Mysterious Universe”: 1932: p181: un is a un of thought, and therefore creation was an act of thought

Davies “Superforce”: p243: can explain all interms of laws, no need for God, but the laws and un itself are product of design - and therefore un has a purpose, and I feel the purpose includes us.

Eccles

“Human Mystery”

Quotes from Schroedinger, Wigner etc

materialism, emergence, but problem with evo is that is does not account for self-consciousness.

Design, emergence, divine providence

“Wonder”: evo theory defective bec doesn’t deal with consciousness. He clarifies that his critique isNot meant as a critique of sci, as the creationists will interpret it. If fw is not causally efective it CANNOT evolve!

Bridgeman: Solipsism

Barth: Newton, Compton, Planck quotes re laws of nature are of God, are themselves a miracle.

Without laws of nature, humans could not make plans etc so if there exist humans God must make laws rather than hold all together by fiat.

Blum: p94: living systems obey the laws of thermodynamics

p138/150: mutations are not random in the sense that any mutation can occur - they are bound by molecular dynamics etc

159: riddle: how did life emerge “spontaneously” if life requires processes available only when life already exists

de Chardin:

intro by J Huxley:all-pervading tendency of the un towards complexification, interconnections of human society causes “infolding”, human convergence to “omega point”.

P27: anti-entropic process

arising o consciousness, then arising of communal c?

p221:dCh quotes H “man is evo becoming conscious of itself

p225 top: fw?”

p301 bottom lines: every entity is c?

Weyl: p299: all complicated molecules are stereoscopically left handed therefore probably descended from one particular molecule : Weyl :”is like adam and eve”..

p300: can the mental realm influence the path of evo? Quotes Bergson etc.

Possible Future Convergence of the Scientific and Biblical Origin Accounts

Possible Future Directions for a Scientific Theory of Origins

There may well be some natural mechanism which causes self-organization, and can explain the emergence of the complexity underlying both the galactic and stellar structure in the large and inorganic, and the molecules and cells of our bodies in the small and organic. A natural ‘guiding hand’ to evolution such as this would deepen the seeming teleology of the evolutionary process, and would make the scientific origin theory seem like an account of creation.

The nature of consciousness is a scientific enigma:

INSERT

The inability of scientific theory to account for the evolution of consciousness is a serious lacuna of origin theory.

INSERT (Eccles etc)

A complete theory of evolution must account for the emergence of consciousness. Since consciousness is the most complex phenomenon and of an entirely different qualitative level than any other phenomenon, the theory accounting for it will presumably be far more sophisticated than the present day origin theory, and indeed may be of an entirely different qualitative level.

As consciousness involves elements of self-reference and holism, is the source of subjectivity and crosses the mind-body divide, presumably the theory of it will do so as well. As such the complete origin theory will possibly take on features more reminiscent of some of the underlying themes of the Eden account.

File: “Past Vewing for Inst Un”

There is in theory a way for us to see the future and the past. Relativity theory teaches us that by moving a speed close to that of light our time frame will be very different than the time frame of those we leave behind. If we leave the earth and travel close to the speed of light for a year and then return, we will find that many thousands of years will have passed on Earth! We will be in the future. However, there is no way to go back.

Ther eis however a possible means to see the past, not be in the past.

1) Light travels at a speed of 186,000 miles every second! Nothing can travel this fast except radiation like light, and nothing can go faster.

2) In a year light can go quite a distance - this distance is called a light year (it is not a measure of time, it is a measure of distance).

3) The closest star to us is the sun, the next closest is alpha centauri, about 3 light years away. Our galaxy contains about 180 billion stars and is xxxx light years wide at the widest. The known universe is about xxxx light years wide or radius.

4) The stars we see in the sky are in our galaxy and also in distant galaxies - some of the point of light we see are not individual stars but rather are entire galaxies, or even clusters of galaxies.

5) If a car is travelling 100 miles an hour and leaves its garage which is 100 miles from us, then by the time it reaches us, it has left the garage an hour ago. Similarly, if a star is 100 light years away from us then light takes 100 years to travel from the star to our eyes; when we look at the sky and see a point of light which is a star 100 light years away, the light we see left the star 100 years earlier. If the star is 10,000 light years away from us, we are seeing light emitted by the star 10,000 years ago. We are not IN the past of the star, we are simply seeing light that was emitted in the past (to be technical, our past).

Question: Is this in dispute by people who claim the universe exists only 6,000 years?

Perhaps not. Perhaps the universe was created with the light on the way.

Question: A star 10,000 light years away from us, still within our galaxy, sees the light the earth emitted 10,000 years ago. What does it see happening through the telescope it trains on the Earth? If the universe was created 6,000 years ago with the light from earth on the way, what did this light show? Did it show events which had not really happened?

6) For us to get to that star would take at least 10,000 years because we cannot go faster than light; if we went at a speed close to the speed of light we would arrive a little more than 10,000 years later, and when we arrived there we would see the light emitted a little after we had left.

It may be possible to get someplace through a short cut not in spacetime (a form of kfitzas haderech), eg. via a wormhole. We could travel to a place a few light years away, and then see the Earth as it was a few years ago - we could see ourselves preparing for the trip. We are not IN the past, we are simply seeing light emitted by events that occurred in the past.

What would we see if we traveled to a place 20,000 light years away from here in a time of 1 year as measured by the earth, and then looked through telescopes at the Earth?

We would be seeing light that was emitted by the earth 20,000 years ago! Would we see the cave people who existed before Adam according to science? Or would we see a blank - some type of pre-time? And if we traveled out to 5,800 light years away, and then waited to watch the creation of heaven and earth and of Adam, what would we see?

If we traveled to a place 50 million light-years away and looked at the Earth, what would we see? Dinosaurs? No humans, and only the early ancestors of the primates? If we traveled from there to a point closer to the earth, and then closer yet, would we be able to observe the progress of evolution of humans?

If we would see a ‘false past’ designed by God to hide the creation, designed to be in accordance with what science tells us we would see, complete with dinosaurs and humans evolving from apes, then we may as well agree to speak of the truth of evolutionary theory, even if only in the sense that it correctly predicts what God will create for us to see.

I do not believe that we would see nothingness, and I do not believe that we would see a garden of Eden and suddenly the first human created whole as an adult, and a woman being taken from his rib and a snake etc.

What would we see when we looked at the splitting of the red sea (reed sea)? We would see a strong wind blowing etc; al miracles happen in accordance with nature, can be attributed to nature, and nature can be attributed to chance by the skeptic, and to God by the believer.

From our perspective, for all physical intents and purposes the universe is a big-bang-emergent universe, and the past events of our universe and of the Earth and humanity are in accord with what science has revealed (or future more correct scientific theories will reveal) to us - or equivalently, what God has revealed/will reveal to us via science.

Diffraction Limits

It is interesting that two physical barriers prevent an actualization of the above scenario allowing a view of past events. One is the impossibility of traveling at or above the speed of light. This barrier however may be detoured about by the eventual possibility of traveling through ‘holes’ in spacetime etc.

Another is the diffraction limit - beyond a certain distance, light is so spread out that its exactness is fuzzy, and details cannot be observed ... give examples ..... However, galactic lenses ..... Calculations show that ......however diffraction effects ........ Recently however quantum effects .......

New personal Preface

new intro (1 page)

Forerunners of Darwin: 1745-1859:

p358 footnote: Darwin’s role (as opposed to predecessors) in establishing organic evo. Huxley, Spencer, Chambers’ “Vestiges”, Wallace, Emerson, Shopenhauer in favor of Vestiges, Huxley against.

Evo of moral sense in humans: Huxley,Darwin.

Just Before Darwin:by Millhauser, re Chambers and “Vestiges”:6 pages: describes//reviews many pro-biblical responses to Lyell’s geology.

What Darwin Really Said: Farrington

p17: Erasmus (grandfather) as precursor

p52-56: How D presented the descent of man in somewhat veiled manner in his writings

p57: any animal close to man in intellectual development would have a moral conscience

p93-99: D and the Bible

Darwin’s Autobiography: writes against Design, D and the Bible

“Origin of Species”: final paragraph

“Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation” Gillespie:

p128-9: Darwin writes agains God deceiving us, (as would be with inst un)

p134-153: Darwin was not atheist etc.

Hugh Miller “Footprints of the Creator” or The Asterolepis of Stromness”: shows the parallel between “Vestiges” and the ideas of Epicurus.

“Omphalos”: Gosse: 40 pages, with my annotations interspersed.

P H Gosse entry in Encyc Brit

Edmund Gosse entry in Encyc Brit

“Father and Son” : 2 ½ pages.

“Life” P H Gosse: since humans share w animals everythng including intelligence and emotion, in what sense is humanity different than the animals: ans: god became man.

“A Comparative Estimate of the Mosaic and Mineral Geologies”: Granville Penn: 3 pages

For INST UN

Adam’s first mitzva was kidush hachodesh (gemara r”h 8a: tosfot)= power over reality . emergence of fwc being -->collapse of psi -->retroactive un.

Time starts from imaginary year - Rambam hilchot kidush hachodesh 6:8, 9:3,, tosfot r”h 8a.

biblical time begins with emergence of fwc being: physical time with big bang.

[r”h 10b rabenu Tam BeMachshava.]

Sanhedrin 38b: Chava was created in 7th hour, and the command not to eat was in 9th hour! So Chava was there to hear it?!

Why is ‘bara’ also employed for taninim hagdolim? Maybe they are dinosaurs of sorts - they were a previous intelligent race, god creates and destroys, destroyed them and then created humans. How destroyed? Maybe via cataclysm such as metreorites etc.

“One day” vs “1st day” --> Inst Un: was created ‘one day’, NOT on 1st day.

“Eleh toldos hashomayim...behiborom...beyom asos..” --> these were the things inherent in the universe in the day the inst un was created. Beyom asos: what day was it, ie what happened to make that period the one when the inst un would be created? Ans: emergence of fwc being.

Also “one day” --> no ‘beginning’ to time, therefore there cannot be a ‘1st day’.

................

In ancient times people ‘knew instinctively’ that there is a God; it was understood. When people then thought of meaning, purpose, morality etc it was then within the framework of a God.

Nowaday we do not feel God so clearly, we are affcted by the scientific model of the universe, and the scientific method, and require evidence. Some people, mostly growing up in very insular traditional societies, still come to God via the same way as in ancient times, ie the imbibe it with Mother’s milk, others feel God directly, others have to come via a different route: rather than feeling God, they feel meaning, purpose, moral responsibitliy, good/evil, and therefore deduce the existence of a God etc.

When coming at things from the scientific perspective, the instant universe seems very odd and unreasonable. When deducing God from deep feelings of meaning etc, the next step is to understand that God created the universe according to an agenda, for meaning etc, and it is absurd to suppose that God self-limited to creating according to the scientific model of a random big bang etc.--> instant universe.

The Anthropic principle

and the Maximization of Existence

Introduction

The anthropic principle sets humanity as the measure of all things, and the strong anthropic principle goes even further and sees free-willed consciousness as being that which brings the universe into full physical existence. If such is the case, then both the design of the big bang and the very existence of the universe itself are specified by the requirement that it be capable of eventually producing a free-willed conscious being.

Therefore, according to the anthropic principles, the existence of free willed conscious biological beings is both a necessary and sufficient condition for the specification of the universe and also for its initiation into full physical reality.

Similarly, in Biblical philosophy God is both the necessary and sufficient agent for the existence of the universe and of free willed conscious beings. The anthropic principles therefore provide an extension to man of the idea of God as creator and ground of being, which is highly appropriate for the being created in the image of its creator.

In a created universe in which the big bang is designed so as to eventually produce free willed beings, all entities and life-forms which eventually evolve from the big bang owe their existence to the fact that a big bang designed to produce moral beings also produced them. This idea can shed some light on traditional Jewish views regarding the purpose of existence of the universe and of its constituent elements.

Rambam's Views on Existence

According to Rambam, the Torah teaches that the universe was designed so as to specifically include man. He then points out that many people, feeling that this teaching implies that all was created for man, ask why spiders detrimental to man were created, and why Gd created the distant stars if they are out of man's reach1.

In response, Rambam states that it is simply not true that all was created for Man. Rather, existence is a good in of itself, and the reason that harmful and useless entities were created is that it is Gd's Will that these entities exist, and because Gd wanted to grant the good of existence to all possible beings.

As stated previously, according to the anthropic principle, and from the Biblical perspective, the conditions of the big-bang are determined by the teleological consideration that it must eventually develop into a universe containing a moral being. A big bang which is designed to give rise to human beings will need to be of a very specific type.

This type of teleologically derived big bang. on the way to producing moral beings as it is designed to, will produce many other species - from amoebas through amphibians to apes. All these other beings - animals, insects and so on - which derive from the resultant teleoderived big-bang, can be seen as the "possible" beings Rambam speaks of. They are then given actual existence through Gd's creation of a big bang.

As Rambam pointed out, Adam could have been created without the rest of the universe (Guide III:13):

"We who believe in the creation must admit that God coud have created the universe in a different manner...the principal object, man, could have been brought into existence without the rest of the creation."

However, in order to give the good of existence to the maximum amount of beings within the context of a moral universe, the initial state was teleoderived from the moral stage to form a big bang which would produce all the beings inherent in the design of the moral being rather than simply the moral being itself.

There is thus not only a deep link between the physical characteristics of man and the fundamental physical structure of the universe, but the universe also contains virtually all that is implied by this interconnection - specifically, the physical and biological links between a big bang which would produce a human, and the human himself.

A Big-Bang-Emergent Universe: Maximizing the Amount of Existence

According to the Midrash, all was created in potentia in one act of creation, and the entire universe developed from this one state. We are also told by the Midrash that Adam was first a shapeless mass of clay, and was shaped into Man during a certain period, finally receiving the Divine "image" on the sixth "day". One can then say that the initial creation contained the rudiments of Adam, and the passing of time brought closer the development of this entity to being "Adam".

On the basis of this one can construct the following image: All beings which were links in the evolutionary chain leading to man can be considered as one continuously existent being, taking on various transient shapes, each one more complex than the last, until the final shape is achieved - that of man2.

Since the big bang was teleoderived from the design of the moral-being, it of necessity contains within it the potential development of man's evolutionary predecessors, including of course his near 'ancestor' the monkey/ape.

The sole raison d'etre of the monkeys and apes in a teleological sense are as the logically necessary evolutionary predecessors of man. The monkey is a transient being in the evolutionary sense since it eventually mutates to become man, and in the teleological sense because after the appearance of man, its existence no longer serves a teleological purpose - thus both the species and its teleological importance are transient.

Even more so, all species which developed along branches of the evolutionary chain unrelated to man - species unnecessary as steps towards the eventual emergence of man - are not only teleologically purposeless now that man exists, but always were so; nevertheless, their existence is guaranteed by the fact that they are inherent in the big bang which is designed to produce moral beings.

As outlined previously, Rambam provides us with a reason for why Gd created the universe in a big-bang-emergent state. According to Rambam, existence in itself is a great good3 4. As a result, Gd wished to give existence to all beings whose existence is possible5. In our context, this would mean not only to give existence to man, as the purpose of the evolutionary process, but also to all those other beings who would exist as a result of that process.

Thus it was Gd's Will to create the moral universe not with only moral man inhabiting it, but also with all the creatures implied in the form of Man. That is , Gd wished to give the benefit of existence to all the creatures which would exist in a universe designed to produce a moral being, all the creatures which would develop from a big bang-emergent universe teleoderived from the design of a moral being.

This then sheds light on the fact that in the creation account although after virtually every stage of the creation it is commented that "and God saw that it was good", after the creation of man there is no such comment, whereas immediately after the creation of mankind, which heralded the completion of creation as a whole, it is said that "God saw all that He had done and it was very good". In our terms, that the whole was derived from the design of man, and therefore the maximal good came not simply from the creation of man, but rather from the creation as a whole, with all that was inherent in the design of man.

Existence is a good in of itself

According to the Rambam it is wrong to assume that if a being exists, it does so to serve man, or for man's benefit. Instead, they exist because Gd wanted to give existence to all that could exist, including and especially the transiently-purposeful transient being which evolved into man - the monkey. In the words of the Rambam 6:

"no notice need be taken of the nonsensical idea that monkeys were created for our pastime [i.e. for man's benefit]. Such opinions originate only in man's ignorance of the nature of transient beings7, and in his overlooking the principle that it was intended by the Creator to produce in its present form everything whose existence is possible"8.

Conclusion:

That there exist parts of the universe which are seemingly useless to man - for example the distant stars or some of the millions of insect species, and so on - means that they do not exist because of man, that is, to serve him. However, since all these parts exist only because the big bang is teleoderived from the state containing moral man, then all that exists does exist because of man, that is, because man exists9.

As the Mishna in Sanhedrin states, man must say "Bishvili nivra ha'olam" - 'because of me was the world created'. So, the universe is designed for Man, and any being living in it exists only because they are part of the chain of being which stretches from the first creation to the first moral people. However, they were not created for the purpose of serving man, but rather they were created because Gd wished to give the Goodness of existence to all those possible beings whose existence was implied in the chain. That is, they exist because of man, not for man.

From the traditional Biblical perspective, the universe is designed to produce moral beings, while all other entities no matter how vast or numerous, if they are not free-willed conscious beings, exist because they are inherent in the teleologically designed big bang.

Mankind is therefore told in the creation account that the sun moon and stars, lofty and huge though they may be, will be convenient time-pieces; mankind is enjoined by the Bible to make use of the resources of the world, to harness the power of the animals and of the forces of nature, to channel all towards the purpose of moral action for the betterment of self, of the lot of others, and the worship of God. However, there are limits to the exploitation of nature - cutting down fruit trees, causing unneeded pain to animals, wanton destruction - since the universe and all it contains were not created simply to serve mankind's needs.

Humanity is instead to face the challenges inherent in its ability to discern the moral aspect of events and situations, and to utilize its free will to make the proper choices - that very free-willed consciousness which sets the tone for the design of the universe, which gives it full physical reality, and whose parameters define the extent of all possible existent beings.

Appendix: Possible Beings and Rambam

When we say that Gd wished to give existence to all possible beings, it is obviously not meant all beings which can possibly be imagined since that would be an infinite number, and since in any case it is clear that many imaginable beings were not created. Clearly then "all possible beings" means 'all beings possible which fulfil a certain criterion' - the criterion being logical self-consistency and consistency with the rest of creation. As Rambam says: (adapted to our interpretation) 'All beings which would arise along all the possible branches of evolution' (rather than just the existence of their teleological end, man).

"Possible beings" are those which are present in the big-bang-emergent universe, and the big-bang-emergent universe arises from a big bang teleoderived from the moral stage. Thus it is the characteristics of the moral stage, and particularly of the moral being, which determine the forms of all "possible being". In contrast, the existence of any form of being not derived in this way from the moral stage is "impossible". Since the moral stage is that which is directly designed according to the purpose which Gd's Wisdom has decreed for the universe, one can say that the existence and form of all possible beings is dependent on the original decree of the Divine Wisdom.

We can now read the whole passage as written by the Rambam (translated):

"...no notice need be taken of the nonsensical idea that monkeys were created for our pastime [i.e. for man's benefit]. Such opinions originate only in man's ignorance of the nature of transient beings, and in his overlooking the principle that it was intended by the Creator to produce in its present form everything whose existence is possible; a different form was not decreed by the Divine Wisdom, and the existence [of objects of a different form] is therefore impossible, because the existence of all things depends on the decree of Gd's Wisdom".

Thus, the universe exists in a big bang-emergent state because existence is a good in of itself, and Gd wished to bestow the intrinsic good of existence on all "possible beings". This truth is not obvious to man only because man erroneously believes that the whole universe exists only to serve his purposes, and that all created entities achieve their purpose only through their being of use to him. Because of this delusion, when they find no use for some of creation, they erroneously assume that these creations resulted from trivial, purposeless, or vain action on the part of Gd: as the Rambam says (translation):

"Know that the difficulties which lead to confusion in the question what is the purpose of the universe or of any of its parts, arise from two causes; first, man has an erroneous idea of himself, and believes that the whole world exists only for his sake; secondly he is ignorant both about the nature of the sublunary world, and about the Creator's intention to give existence to all beings whose existence is possible, because existence is undoubtedly good. The consequences of that error and of the ignorance about the two things named, are doubts and confusions, which lead many to imagine that some of Gd's works are trivial, others purposeless, and others in vain."

1 Ironically , today many have the reverse belief - that nothing was created to serve man, and that in fact man is a product of chance development.

2"the great chain of being".

3 On the connection betweeen good and existence: in the Torah Gd says: ÒI have laid before you the good and the bad, life and death - choose life!Ó ["Hinei na'tati lachem et hatov ve'et ha'ra et ha'chaim ve'et ha'mavet ubacharta bechaim."] That is, choosing good is equated with choosing existence.

Further, as we have seen, man's awareness of the distinction between good and evil brought existence from non-existence. In addition, according to Rambam:

"All the great evil which men cause to each other ... are ... due to non-existence; because they originate in ignorance, which is absence of wisdom", Guide III:XI. That is, all evil is nonexistence: and all existence is good: [ Guide: III:X]

4 "Guide" III:10, III:12, III:25. See also R. Sa'adya Gaon, "Emunot Ve'de'ot" [very beginning of Part III]. According to Ramban (Nachmanides), the phrase "and Gd saw that it was good", means "and Gd gave permanent existence to that which was created according to the Divine Will, because this existence was good". [Ramban Gen.1:4. See also 2:18 (very end), and 1:10 (beginning of "Vayar Ki Tov")].

5The apparent lack of necessity for the existence of much of creation was used as a point against the emanation theory of creation, and likely supported the contention that they were created because of the intrinsic good of existence. However this loses force in the light of the origin theory and anthropic principle. Our application therefore reinvests this approach with meaning.

6"Guide" III:25. A drash on Rambam, applying his translated words to the context of our thesis here.

7 Hebrew version: "Teva ha'havayah veha'hefsed"

8 See also "Guide" III:10 - III:13

9 Consistency with the laws of nature may have caused some species to have disappeared leaving less than the maximum amount of existent species.

March 26, 1991

Chapter 15 : Is Evolutionary Theory 'True'? 1

The Mechanism of Evolution as a Creation of Gd

All of creation manifests Gd's Glory - when it is seen in the proper perspective. Few people are immune to the beauty of mountains, lakes, flowers, or a sunset. Many poets have a heightened sensitivity and can perceive beauty even in the purely mundane. Scientists revel in the awesome complexity and beauty of nature, and physicists wax almost mystical in their contemplation of the profound subtlety and aesthetic elegance of the laws of nature themselves.

To the Rambam the contemplation of nature was the way to fulfillment of one (two) of the greatest mitzvot - 'to love and to fear the Lord'/[INSERT]

The scientific theories accounting for our presence - the theories of the big bang, planetary formation, expansion of the universe, evolution via mutation and selection and so on - are beautiful theories. Some of them - notably, the theory of evolution - are not (yet) scientifically proven. Nevertheless, even this 'evolutionary hypothesis' possesses a certain aesthetic elegance in its ability to account , in a general way at least, for so many facts. If it is actually true, then the evolutionary process is a creation of Gd, just as are all laws of nature, and just as are all the workings of the universe. As such, it would be a legitimate subject for contemplation, and should be given the respect and awe accorded to all of Gd's creations.

In addition, as long as one takes into account the Divinely bestowed aspects of man, it is possible that advances in psychology, biology, and medicine can be made by using the hypothesis that man is effectively the product of an evolutionary process. However , as just stated , one must take care not to ignore those crucial qualities of man which are due to special Divine design for example free will, spirituality, and the like.

In the meantime , while the origin theory is as yet not totally proven, it should be accepted at least as a great intellectual achievement of man - a creation of man, if not of Gd. That is, the origin theory teaches us that had Gd created the univese as a big bang, it would have evolved naturally - that is, according to the 'laws of nature' Gd created - into the present universe.

Atheistic Theology

The general thrust of the atheistic theology often propounded is:

1) Since man developed from inorganic matter through natural occurrence and through random activity - as opposed to purposeful activity - man cannot legitimately claim any more 'purpose' than can an electron.

2) Since the universe as a whole developed 'naturally' and via random action, the universe as a whole is devoid of 'purpose'.

This argument is of course fallacious, as we have shown. As discussed previously,any universe Gd would create would possess natural laws; these laws could then be used to trace the universe back to a theoretical beginning. This does not at all imply that the universe came into being without Gd. Similarly, it is true that the laws governing the emergence of life are such that life can be traced back to inorganic matter; however this in no way implies that life originated independently of Gd, or that life is the product of random processes.

Did Man Evolve?

When the Torah states that Gd "rested" on Sabbath, it means that Gd created a "self consistent system" of "universe-and-laws-of-nature". This means a set of laws which govern the behavior of the universe as a whole, and of its component parts individually. As such, these laws describe the time development of the universe - both to the future and from the past.

It is in theory possible to describe (using these laws and knowledge of the universe as it is) what the universe would look like in the far future if all occurred without supra-natural (Divine) intervention. Similarly it is theoretically possible to extrapolate back into the past to see what the universe would have had to be like (if no intervention took place in the past) in order for the universe to be as it is now.

Thus, these laws would lead to a description of an initial stage for the universe - the big bang.2 The theory of the big bang, and the theory of evolution can be accepted as correct theories even by the most 'fundamentalist' interpretation of the Torah. The scientific origin theory is probably correct in the sense that Gd indeed created the universe in such a way that it could have begun with a big bang and developed via evolution into a universe containing life, or at least that Gd created the universe in such a way that scientific reasoning correctly leads to these theories. On the other hand, if the meaning of Genesis is that the universe originated in an act of special creation as there described, then the origin theory is not correct in the sense of an actual description of past events.

This distinction betweeen scientific theory and historical fact is embodied in the instant universe model. The instant universe theory does not state that human beings actually evolved. Rather, the completed universe created by Gd was a self-consistent system of universe and natural law; as such everything then existing had to be 'derivable' from what 'previously' existed, and had to 'causally' develop into what would exist in the future.3

Science, which by definition is a study of the regularities of nature, can deal only with Gd's 'natural law', not with one-time special interventions of Gd. By definition, science can explain phenomena only as the workings of natural law. The coal present at creation could only be explained "scientifically" as having developed over many years from organic matter - and would indeed have done so had Gd created at an earlier stage rather than creating directly. So too, humans were created directly, but science - because it assumes the non-involvement of Gd - can by definition only understand human beings as the products of prior entities, in this case the apes. Indeed, they would have been, had Gd created the evolving universe at a stage earlier than the emergence of human beings.

The Origin Theory: Practical Implications

We are enjoined by the Torah to 'conquer' nature, and to use our knowledge for the good. The Torah does not reveal to us - at least not openly - the secrets of atomic power or of electricity . Nevertheless, it is part of man's purpose to harness these forces for the furtherance of the Divine Purpose. The knowledge contained in the fields of medicine, biology, and the like - knowledge not discovered by perusal of the Torah, although perhaps implicit within it - have contribued greatly to an understanding of the workings of the human body, and to a great lessening of human suffering. Similarly, other scientific knowledge can be employed for the furtherance of the Divine purpose.

Science is a means, not an end. As a means, its study can lead to feelings of exaltation, to love of one's fellow man and of Gd. Science has led to longer lifetimes, lower child mortality rate, greater comfort, health and nutrition. That man's mind so parallels the universe that it can discover the inner workings of the cosmos by thinking and observing is a wondrous thing, and the elegance and beauty of the laws of nature demand investigation and appreciation by those aesthetes capable of appreciating it. Certainly as a creation of Gd, as a manifestation of Gd's plan for the universe, science deserves man's deep study and appreciation. Nevertheless, when science becomes an end in itself or a substitute for ends in general, or is extended beyond its realm of validity for partisan purposes,a warning note must be sounded.

Tracing how the universe originated and developed into the universe that we see about us today is intellectually exciting in itself, but its importance lies in what it reveals ot us about the nature of the universe and man today, and about their future path of development.

Similarly so for the study of the origin and development of the Earth. Uncovering the origin of life and the evolutionary development of man is a great intellectual and emotional challenge , however its real importance derives from what it can teach us about man today, and about his possible development in the future. The same is true for the study of anthropology and the evolution of human culture.

If the origin theory is correct within the context of the instant universe approach, then the light it sheds on human biology and psychology and so on can be used to further the Divine Purpose. Knowledge of the particulars of the big bang and evolution theories could very well help one to arrive at a more complete understanding of man and the universe he inhabits. If indeed such is the case, it is in fact incumbent on us to employ the origin theory in this manner.

As we have seen, the instant-universe scenario presented here involves a complete acceptance of the big bang theory and of the theory of evolution, and thus it accepts also that these can shed much light on human biology, psychology and sociology. However, the central point of the instant-universe idea is that the big bang was not fortuitous but planned; that the big bang was teleoderived from the moral-stage universe-blueprint. Thus, in order to obtain a more complete understanding of human psychology, socology and so on, and in order to attain a truer comprehension of the future path of human development, one must take into account that all of the cosmological, planetary and evolutionary developoment was the product of careful design; that the final product of the evolutionary development on Earth - man - was part of the original design of the big bang; and that man has a free will; and so on.

In this way , rather than conflicting with one another, religion and science complement each other. Religion can tell us why the universe might have been created, why man was created, what is man's purpose in life, what is good and what is evil, while science can tell us how a physical universe develops, how humans grow from genes and cells.

Modern psychology can give valuable insights into the understanding of man's thought processes - if it is tempered by a view of man as a partially spiritual being possessed of a free will rather than the Laplacean Darwinian Freudian picture of a purely physical being whose thoughts are totally determined by his genes and environment. Similarly, the truths of the origin theory can possibly provide valuable insights into the study of man - if it is within the context of the development of man from a moral-stage-teleoderived big bang rather than from a random one which emerged by chance.

The instant universe scenario reconciles scientific theory and the Biblical creation account without accepting any of the purpose-denying ramifications of conventional evolutionary theory. All the actual physical results of the big bang theory and evolutionary theory can be accepted as true by those who accept the Divine origin of the Bible - it is only the athestic interpretation of those results which should be rejected. And, since interpretation cannot be objective and is thus not science, there is no more scientific reason to accept one interpretation than another.

If Gd created the universe, then Gd created all that which is studied under the names 'religion' and 'science' Religion and science are simply two complementary approaches to the study of Gd's creation. There is no need for one to conflict with the other, nor is there need for those who study one to denigrate those who study the other.

Which is more basic, which is more important, depends on the answer to the question: which is more important, the 'why' or the 'how'?

The Limits to the Domain of Validity of Science

As we have seen , scientific theory presents no real contradiction to the Torah Creation account.

Indeed, science limits itself to the explanation of the sensations arising in consciousness rather than dealing with consciousness itself. Moreso, by definition science deals only with the regularities which present themselves to our consciousness via our sensory organs, and does not deal with unique events.

This is especially true for physics at its most basic level - that of quantum physics. Quantum physics deals with ensembles of particles and events - not with individual particles and events. The origin of the universe was however a single quantum event, and thus is not truly amenable to rigorous treatment by physics.

Science endeavors to explain what is observable, to predict future development based on the data available in the present, and to explain the present by tracing its causally related past. Thus it is important for science to be able to trace the present state of the universe as far back as possible, maybe to some beginning such as the big bang. However, since it is impossible to disprove even that the universe was created right now, it is ridiculous to argue whether or not it was created 6,000 years ago or billions of years ago - the state of the universe at present is as if it had developed from a big bang billions of years ago and that is all that one can hope to prove, and that is all that is therefore relevant to science.

Thus, determining when and how the universe actually came into existence is a question of metaphysics, not of physics. As such, it is a problem better left to religion than to science.

With this approach, none of the scientific results and theories connected with the theories of the big bang and evolution need be rejected for religious reasons. What should be rejected, not only by religious people but by all, are the atheistic theological conclusions erroneously believed to be scientific facts.

The theories of the big bang and evolution can shed much light on the present state of the universe and of man: their study can be of great importance to man and aid in the achievement of his purpose if the theories are not subverted by the atheistic theologies of cosmic (anarchic) pessimism.

It may well be that soon some new discovery of science, or some new theory, may in some ways invalidate this theory of the instant universe. However, we have shown that even the seemingly incontravertible scientific proof of the age of the universe, is no proof at all.

The Instant Universe Model

We have seen that a method has been found to reconcile the Biblical and scientific origin theories. Moreso, in the light of this model, Genesis is seen to describe a creation scenario which is not only non-contradictory-to-science, but is as well quite a plausible method of purposive creation .

To many, the Biblical creation account has been if not disproven by science, then rendered totally implausible. Nevertheless, as we have seen, Bible-science conflicts can be resolved even when at first there seem to be an impassable chasm between the two.It is always easier to question and destroy than to answer and build. Religion still is around, and so is the Bible, yet it has been attacked for thousands of years by Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, various scientists and philosophers, writers etc. Religion has been prematurely buried quite often by overoptimistic sceptics since the very beginning of religion.

A religious scientist has the belief that any questions which may arise will find answers, just as contemporary questions have been answered.

Conclusion

Torah is meant to be understood in all ages. Today we do so by reconciling Genesis with science: the origin theory , and so on. Every age has its different way of understanding Genesis - and all are legitimate since Genesis is designed to be amenable to understanding in all ages.

Nevertheless, it is possible that our understanding is so limited that even the questions we formulate are without "true" meaning - and thus their answers are of course necessarily devoid of meaning as well.

However, we cannot simply ignore a question for fear that it may be invalid when it is clear that the question does occupy us, and that we desire an answer. Similarly, when a satisfactory answer is arrived at, it would be extreme to ignore it for fear that it might not be the real "true" answer.

It is of course possible that the actual Creation proceeded in a different manner than that so cavalierly attributed to Gd in this book. However we are meant to use our intellect and imagination to come to a better understanding of Gd and His works. Thus a solution such as the one outlined in this book, even if it is not reflective of the actual method Gd employed in Creation, nevertheless represents a type of approximation to, or allegory of, the actual truth. In any case, as finite and physical beings, when it comes to the Divine mystery of Creation, we can never hope for more than an allegorical-type of understanding.

However, one may feel that our conclusions might be invalid if indeed Gd created the universe using a methodology other than that described in this paper.

This is not so. Indeed, it may very well be that there were many options available to Gd. In this paper we have described one such scenario, the 'instant universe'. Since the purpose of this paper is to show that the scientific and Biblical creation accounts are not logically contradictory, that is, that they can both be valid at the same time, it is irrelevant for us to determine the actual true method used by Gd to create the universe - it is sufficient that we prove that there is at least one possible method which validates both science and the Bible.

That is, the basic problem considered in this book was the assumption that science and the Biblical creation account were mutually contradictory, and could therefore not both be true.

However, the instant universe idea presents us with a logically consistent and plausible creation scenario compatible with both. Thus, since there is at least one scenario in which they do not contradict each other, it is proven that the two theories are not logically incompatible .

In summary, we do not claim to have proven the truth of the Biblical creation account nor do we claim that creation actually followed the instant universe scenario proposed in the book; rather we have shown that the truth of the Biblical account should not be rejected on the grounds that it is contradicted by scientific theory.

Resolutions of the origin theory and the Biblical Creation account - as the one here described - are important as illustrations of the eternal validity of Torah - problems and conflicts may occasionally arise, but regardless of how insolvable they appear, they are eventually resolved. Almost certainly science will yet again raise "challenges" to the Torah, but since both nature and Torah originate with Gd, they cannot ever present a true contradiction.

1Copied from file "Ch8,9,12,14" of May 12 . It is a revised version of last laser printed copy

2as well as a possible final stage, 'the big crunch'.

3Perhaps one can understand the numerous Midrashim regarding Adam's possession of a tail, of scales, webbed fingers, etc. as references to the appearance of man during his pseudo-past, before the point of actual emergence into physical reality.

[can insert this re:'chain of being' or Ch1 or 2]

March 26, 1991

Chapter 9: Natural Law:

The Limitations of Science: and Science in the Light of Torah 1

How We Know of the External Universe

There are essentially two types of knowledge - that which is obtained by seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, tasting; and that which originates in our brain via thinking, imagining, dreaming, etc. That is, whatever is in our brain either originates within, or without. If it is from without, i.e. from the outside universe, then we can know of it only via our senses. We do not experience a "table" when we look at it - rather we experience the way our brain interacts with our sensory perceptions of the table. When we see, feel, smell and taste an apple, and hear it crunch, we are experiencing the effect on our brain of the electric currents generated in our nerves by our organs of sight, feel, smell, taste and hearing. That is all that we can hope to experience - the "apple itself" remains a stranger.

Indeed, a disembodied brain floating in a laboratory jar, stimulated by electric wires in the appropriate fashion, could be made to experience sensations so that it believes itself to belong to a body whose mouth is eating an apple.

All that we can ever know of the universe outside us, we can know only as it is transmitted via our senses.

Furthermore, we exist in the present - always. What is now present will immediately become past, and what was future is now present.

We can never know of the future. Indeed, even the past cannot be directly known. Our only means of knowing the past is via our memories, or via traces left in the present by past events. However, it is clear that a distinction exists between an event itself, and the memory or trace of that event.

Thus, we can know only the present, and even the present we can know only through the medium of our senses. Since the present is constantly slipping away to become the past, virtually everything we know is actually only a memory of sensory experience - not events in themselves, but only memories; not even memories of events in themselves, but only memories of our sensory perceptions of events-in-themselves.

Science is essentially then the study of the regularity of our sensory perceptions.

A scientific theory is a creation of the human mind which attempts to capture the essence of this regularity. To the religionist, "natural law" is the name given by man to the Divinely instituted regularities he perceives operating in the universe, and scientific theory is man's quantitative description of the Divinely instituted "natural law".

We will now examine the attitude of religion towards science, in the most general sense, and how this affects the religious view of the origin theories themselves - as scientific theories - without the invalid "atheistic theology" which often accompanies them.

Natural Law: the religionist vs. the atheist

It is the belief of the religionist that natural law is a creation of the omnipotent Gd designed so as to allow the universe to function without constant Divine intervention2. 3

However, when natural processes are not sufficient to bring about some desired result, Gd can and does intervene4. Thus, to the religionist, science - the study of natural law - can explain all events except those which result from direct divine intervention. In contrast, the atheist, since he believes that no Deity exists, believes that science can explain all events and phenomena without exception5.

Thus, miracles, inspiration and revelation and so on are not at all inconsistent with any specific scientific theory. These phenomena are of course inconsistent with the belief that "all activity in the universe is amenable to complete explanation by 'natural law'". However, science is self admittedly unable to prove or disprove the existence of Gd , or the reality of Gd's intervention in the universe. Thus , any statement which categorically denies the possibility of Divine intervention , is not a scientifically valid statement, but is rather a statement of belief. For example , it is the nonscientific belief of the atheist that all activity in the universe is amenable to complete explanation by 'natural law'.

Let us therefore expand the "scientific credo" to the belief that: "all processes in the universe not involving Gdly intervention 6are amenable to complete explanation by natural law". Clearly , with this formulation of the "scientific credo", no scientific theory can be invalidated by belief in Gd, nor are any scientific theories in themselves in conflict with any religious beliefs.

Thus, belief in Gd does not necessitate disbelief in the validity of science - rather 'science' has different limitations for the religionist and for the atheist.

Origin Theory and the Biblical Religionist

We all know that a dropped stone will fall to the ground, and that the law of gravitation can predict the exact path and duration of the fall. Indeed, the law of gravitation has been used with great success in predicting planetary motion, stellar formation etc. A religionist would certainly believe that Gd could perform a miracle and cause a stone to remain suspended in midair without this in anyway implying that the theory of gravitation and its laws are in any way incorrect. Similarly, a religionist knows that natural law requires that many aeons pass before organic material metamorphoses into coal. Indeed, even if he were apprised that the universe had been created only that very instant, he would not reject the theory of coal formation as an indication of how coal would form through natural processes - he would merely reject the contention that in this case coal had in fact originated naturally.

Analogously, for the Biblical religionist, the theory of the big bang and evolution can be accepted as describing the mechanism whereby our universe and its life would have arisen had Gd created the universe at the big bang stage 7. The only datum which would be rejected is the speculation that the big bang actually occurred, and that life actually did evolve. Instead, it would be postulated that Gd created an instant universe in a big-bang-emergent state.

Science can only tell us (through natural law) what would happen if Gd did not intervene, but cannot state what actually did occur. Religion complements science by fulfilling the exact opposite role.

The Universe Evolved As Surely as the Sun Rises

If we accept that he universe is now in a big-bang-emergent state, then by definition there is no physical difference between our universe now and one which actually did evolve from a big bang. Thus, one can learn a great deal about the physical universe by assuming that indeed it did begin as a big bang. Therefore, for the purpose of convenience in studying the physical universe, it is most reasonable to speak of the universe as having originated in a big bang, and having evolved to the present state, even if this might not be true in actuality.

When dealing with the non-physical aspects of the universe however, the big-bang model might be irrelevant. Instead, the creation model may be the more appropriate.

Thus, even when it is the Biblical Religionist who wishes to study the structure and development of the physical universe, just as he will still speak of the sun 'rising' and 'setting' for convenience sake even though it is not true, similarly he will speak of the universe as having begun as a big bang and of life as having evolved, and can be comfortable with phrases such as "when the big bang ocurred 15 billion years ago" or "these fossils are remnants of the times millions of years ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth" and " the cave-man of 50,000 years ago used to .." and even : "man is descended from the apes".

The place of science in a Purposeful universe

Although science cannot tell us what actually happened, and it can perhaps provide an erroneous picture of our origins, certainly science is not to be rejected in toto as misleading.

Man has been granted the greatest gift by Gd - that of being created in His image. We are enjoined to follow the Ways of Gd [HEBREW]

(eikxca zkll ,edrc jikxc lka , 'da miwac etc.)

and to use our divinely derived qualities to channel the physical (material) / animal in ourselves and in the universe towards achieving the cosmic Purpose. Our will, intelligence, imagination, insights and hopes are reflections of the divine spark within us (...'l` mlv ,...znyp eit`a gtie) and we are bidden to complete Gd's creation using these qualities: to be creative because Gd created, to be just because Gd is just, to be merciful because Gd is merciful .[separate two phrases] [end HEBREW]

Part of the Purpose towards which we must strive is the abolition of hunger and disease, war and oppression. Application of physical and social science has been made both to exacerbate and alleviate these evils. However the channeling of all creation towards its Purpose, on our own planet and in the cosmos as a whole, is an end to which science is can contribute greatly. Science plays a pivotal role in the spiritual/emotional/intellectual realm as well: the sciences of psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, chemistry, physics, physiology, mathematics and physics can aid us in achieving harmony with ourselves and with others, developing that best part of us which we glimpse occasionally; and in acquiring an understanding of the universe and its Creator, and thus a love and awe for Creator and creation.

Gd created the universe in an unfinished manner, and left to man the task of completing and perfecting the universe. The physical universe operates according to a divinely mandated natural law, a system of law which the human mind was designed to be capable of grasping. The curiosity and intellectual hunger which have always driven man to probe everything - from the workings of the universe as a whole to the functioning of his very own mind - is a reflection of the divine spark within us, providing us with the push to always improve, always advance until perfection is attained - perfection of ourselves, of human society, of the cosmos as a whole.

From lasers to operate painlessly on the ill, to improved fertilizers to enrich crop yields in poor countries, energy to heat the cold, rockets to reach out to the cosmos, microprocessors to regulate pacemakers, and so on, all correctly-applied science is a spiritual achievement, as are all purely theoretical quests for scientific knowledge8.

1From file "Ch's 8,9,12,14" of May12 [1989?]

2 As stated above, to the religionist "natural law" is the name given by Man to his perception of the Divinely ordained regularity.

3 [INSERT RE NATURAL LAW AND SHABBAT FROM CHAP 2?de Broglie,Rambam, Sforno etc. ?? Also see p6 of this chapter. and p5 of ch. 3 re Rambam and laws of nature

4 Rambam quotes the Midrashic view that even Divine intervention is natural - each such intervention is actually preprogrammed into the laws of nature. ["Guide" II:29]

5Subject of course to natural limitations such as the power of the brain, power of computers etc.

6 nor free-willed action ?

7 (or the initial singularity which led to the big bang)

8[See Rambam Source ]