I read with interest the articles about arguments for evolution, entitled
"Monkeys and Typewriters" by Joshua Josephson, presented in
recent issues of Yated.
I agree with the editor's position that there cannot be any real conflict
between Torah and science. However, that is not to say that science
should not be addressed critically and professionally. True science
can never contradict the Torah. But this cannot be said for the theory
of evolution. Rather than unbiased research powered by intellectual
sincerity, this theory is an artificial ad hoc construction.
An honest statement by the British thinker and writer Aldous Huxley
exposes what many tried to conceal: "I had motives for not wanting
the world to have meaning; consequently I assumed that it had none,
and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for
this assumption! The philosophy of meaninglessness was an instrument
of liberation" [A. Huxley, Report, June 1966, "Confession
of a Professed Atheist"].
The pious believer in evolution -- Dr. Richard Dawkins -- was
even more explicit: "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually
fulfilled atheist!" [R. Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker,"
p. 6 (1986)].
The theory of evolution is not merely an [extremely poor] scientific
theory. It serves as a cornerstone of the modern culture of permissiveness
and devaluation of the spirit. Many social and ethical offshoots of
this theory plague our society and pollute the thinking of Jews who
are aspiring to the Torah in the "post-modern" era.
The public is, usually, presented with a theory that is depicted almost
as "The Grand Unified Theory" of Biology, as if it represents
the ultimate truth. It is represented as unanimously accepted by science.
Indeed this is the impression of the majority of secular intellectuals
in the western civilization. In countless Arachim Kiruv Seminars around
the world -- in Hebrew, English, French, Spanish and Russian --
the same picture emerges. Most of the participants present the "Monkeys
& Typewriters" argument, and I find Mr. Josephson's article informative
and lucid. His article contributes not only to da mah shetoshiv
but also exposes the poor scientific basis of the theory.
Many eminent scientists have presented powerful and compelling arguments
against the theory of evolution. The statistical refutation is one
of them. Estimation of the probability of spontaneous formation of
the necessary building blocks for life has been performed by Sir Fred
Hoyle, Thorpe, Lovell, Yockey, Erbrich and many others. All of them
arrived at ridiculously small figures. Sir Fred Hoyle's result is
1 in 10^39,500 to quote one.
Mr. D. Kurtz referred to the Borel-Cantelli Lemma arguing that it
is counter to the argument presented by Mr. Josephson. [Editor's
Note: The Borel-Cantelli Lemma states that, if the probability of
an event occurring is greater than zero, then this event will occur.
This means that every possible event will occur eventually.]
Unfortunately, he totally ignores the fact that it does not apply
to our Universe, simply because it is finite! In fact it was Dr. Borel
himself who made the following statement: "The impossibility threshold
of any chemical phenomenon on earth is a probability of 10^100!"
[E. Borel, "Probabilities and Life," 28 (1962), and E. Borel,
Elements of the Theory of Probability 57 (1965)]. This figure
is comparable to the odds of one person winning the grand prize in
the national lottery 16 times consecutively!
Mr. Josephson correctly pointed out the finite nature of the Universe,
and I would like to dwell on it further. The entire Cosmos with its
billions of galaxies, each inhabited by billions of stars, contains
some 10^80 atoms, and Dr. J. Morton pointed out that the total number
of possible events in the Cosmos can therefore not exceed 10^110.
This figure explains the threshold of impossibility mentioned above.
Considering the odds against the possible random creation of life,
many scientists agree with Dr. Monod, a Nobel Prize recipient: "Life
appeared on earth: what, before the event, were the chances that this
would occur? Its a priori (lechatchilo) probability was virtually
But that does not prevent this eminent scientist from firmly believing
that life did evolve by chance. This is, I believe, a demonstration
that "bribery blinds the eyes of the wise."
I would like to thank Mr. Josephson and Yated Ne'eman for their courage
and contribution to exposing one of the false myths presented --
wrongly -- as science.
R' Zvi Inbal, a former scientist, is a senior lecturer for Arachim
around the world.