On Ralbag and the Creation Sequence

Scene 1: “Dad, phone call from Joe.” “Tell him I’m not home.” (Dad lies.)

Scene 2: “Dad, phone call from Joe.” “Give me half a minute to get out of the house. Then tell him I’m not home.” (Dad avoids lying.)

In scene 1 dad has his son say something that isn’t so, (for whatever purpose). In scene 2 dad avoids falsehood yet realizes his goal of not speaking to Joe by adjusting himself to the message that he wishes to convey.

***

Ralbag says that the torah puts the creation of the luminaries on the fourth day, after the creation of vegetation, though this isn’t so, in order to convey a crucial message to sun-worshippers in general, and particularly to the Jewish nation that had spent some two centuries in sun-worshipping Egypt, that the sun is only fourth rate. Ralbag’s interpretation has a certain beauty.

1. It is consistent with science.

2. It is consistent with R. Hirsch’es observation that a creation story where G-d made an ingenious system of progression from the simple to the complicated—[from bang to amoeba and] from amoeba to all life—would inspire us to even greater reverence of the Creator.

3. It is consistent with R. Yerucham Levovitz’es understanding that G-d prefers to work through nature.

But it has an obvious drawback, it has the torah writing something that isn’t so.

I therefore humbly suggest a modification of Ralbag much like the way scene 2 modifies scene 1. That is, it was crucially important to convey the message that the sun is only fourth rate and therefore the Creator indeed created it on the fourth day, after vegetation on the third day. The vegetation thus existed and survived on day three without the sun, who needs the sun?! -another demotion for the sun. And if “day” three was longer than 24 hours, the vegetation “snubbed” the sun that much longer.

The weakness of this modification is that it goes against R. Hirsch and R. Yerucham. Yet the message of not worshipping the sun might be valuable enough that the lessons derived by R. Hirsch and R. Yerucham will just have to be set aside. Ralbag allows this message to set aside the torah’s moral “obligation” to only write that which is so, so important is this message. One might argue that if this message is important enough to do that, it is certainly important enough to set nature aside.

It would seem that Ralbag only addresses the science of his time, though his interpretation is a cure-all for any conflict between the torah’s creation account and science. If in his day science thought that the earth was created before the sun, then the torah’s placing the creation of earth before the creation of the sun would be consistent with the facts. If not, the torah’s sequence would be to demote the sun to fourth place. According to my modification, the earth was indeed created before the sun to convey the very same lesson. I am unaware, but I claim no erudition on this point, of a way the sun could be dated against original vegetation whose descendents fill the world. The primordial vegetation is perhaps gone without a trace, perhaps like many of the missing links, and cannot be dated.

***

After the sin of the golden calf, Moshe prays for forgiveness for the Jewish people. “If You will not forgive them”, he says to Hashem, “erase me from the book that You have written.” What is “the book that Hashem has written”? Rashi says that this is the torah. Ralbag says that “the book” is an allegory referring to creation, which Hashem has “written”.

The torah and creation, the “books” of Rashi and Ralbag, or more specifically the torah and the laws of nature that govern creation, are in conflict about whether vegetation preceded the sun or vice versa. Ralbag, in a sense, sees the book of the torah conceding to the book of creation, to teach a crucial lesson. Our modification sees the book of creation conceding, bending over backwards, to the book of the torah, to allow it to teach a crucial lesson. We would claim that though creation might be the more concrete of the two, the torah is more fundamental, and creation should thus bow to the messages that the torah seeks to convey.

(Rashi (2:5) says that although vegetation was created on day three it did not come out of the ground until later. That view would be a discussion unto itself.)

(Based in part on http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/772116/Rabbi_Nosson_Slifkin/Dinosaurs_and_the_Development_of_the_Universe )

More on Persecutions... and on "Howler Monkeys"...

A recent comment at Rationalist Judaism states that

"... From my desultory look at various types of literature, the level of … good manners that exist in scientific works … is higher than what I have observed in the people alleged to be serious proponents of a "Chareidi" approach...."

I believe that the fine commenter is writing with due honesty and humility. But maybe if he reads my previous post he will see that there is more to the picture.

Now I wish to add a selection from Richard Milton's book from the same chapter as my previous citation which, I believe, shows the same. (It is not my concern to comment on the remainder of the book, written by an anti-evolution atheist/agnostic. Certainly none will complain that I not suppress his ideas [I hope!].)

(PAGE 267)

The taboo on debating Darwinism extends to the broadcast Media as well.... One rare and honorable exception was NBC'c decision in 1996 to broadcast the film "The Mysterious Origins of Man".... The program proved immensely popular with many viewers, attracting audiences of around 20 million on each of the two occasions when it was shown. The producers also received dozens of abusive responses, which included virtually no attempts to rebut the scientific issues but took the consensus position that students and the public should not be given access to such contradictory evidence. They included such terms as; "horrible," "atrocious," garbage," "anti-intellectual trash," "evil," deliberate, fraudulent information," "claptrap," "bxllshxt," "a piece of junk," "crxp," and "shame on you, liars and opportunists."

You might imagine that these remarks came from the keyboards of pharmaceutically challenged undergraduates or semiliterate teenagers. In fact they are the words of senior scientists and academics (including several professors) from the University of California at Berkely, State University of New York, and Wisconsin, New Mexico State, Colorado, Northwestern, and other Universities.

(PAGE 270)

Darwinism also remains a hot topic for discussion on the internet…. One group of Darwinist vigilantes who are found regularly on the internet are referred to and, indeed, proudly refer themselves, in internet jargon, as “howler monkeys.” Readers will recall that howler monkeys gather in large groups; have very loud voices that can carry as much as two or three miles; and enforce the boundaries of their territory by engaging in shouting matches with their enemies. Howlers also drive away their enemies by hurling handfuls of their own exxxxment at them.

The effects of the howler monkeys of the internet are profoundly damaging to academic freedom of expression…. In 1996, for instance, Dr. Peter Nyikos, professor of mathematics at the University of South Carolina… who is not a creationist, infuriated internet Darwinists by pointing out that the devotees of cladistics actually use a language with which creationists should be quite comfortable.

Despite his academic standing, Nyikos was not even accorded the civility of a hearing. He was immediately barraged with abuse and buried under tons of technical “objections” which kept him busy and unable to discuss publicly the flaws in Darwinism.

The fact that Nyikos is not a creationist but an evolutionist himself does not save him from such treatment. Indeed, Dr. Nyikos told me, “even fellow believers in evolution, like myself, get flamed without mercy if they aren’t good ‘team players’ for the ‘howler monkey’ side.”

Needless to say, if dissenting senior academics and scientists get this kind of treatment on the internet, outsiders like myself and other nonacademic critics are routinely howled down without a pretense of courtesy—an unexpected outcome of the information superhighway that many hoped would bring about global freedom of expression, led by the example of the academic community.

The reader is welcome to interpret the above, and the previous post, as they wish. For myself, the previous post showed that the Kanna’im aren’t all that ‘holier’ than the evolutionists they oppose; this post shows that evolutionists (and perhaps others) aren’t all that ‘holier’ than the Kanna’im.

(NOTE: I am considering closing the comments section. I don’t necessarily have the time to select comments for publishing, and for responding to them. Forewarned is forearmed; I will play it by ear. Thank you for visiting.)

P.S. You may come back for my next post "On Ralbag and the Creation Sequence"; should be ready in a few days.