Further discussion....
I would just like to republished a part of TRW's blog and my response with EN:
TRW was asked whether evolution was fact of theory and she replied:
It's a theory that could be a fact it you hold that a day of Creation was the billions of years that it took for the tiny bug to become a person...although I have issue with the fact that I may have come from apes. In fact, I just plain old don't believe it. Very distantly related, possibly. Direct descendants? Absolutely not. (We're also distantly related to ישמעאל, but we try to avoid that as well...)
-This led to the following-
TRW was asked whether evolution was fact of theory and she replied:
It's a theory that could be a fact it you hold that a day of Creation was the billions of years that it took for the tiny bug to become a person...although I have issue with the fact that I may have come from apes. In fact, I just plain old don't believe it. Very distantly related, possibly. Direct descendants? Absolutely not. (We're also distantly related to ישמעאל, but we try to avoid that as well...)
-This led to the following-
TRW,
You should really read Rabbi Brown's book on evolution-or perhaps it was in Gerald Schroder's book-I think you own them both and are both very good-anyway-these books discuss evolution from a Torah standpoint-for example-the main difference between apes and humans is that we have a neshamah-did we exactly "evolve" from apes-or maybe they existed and from something that might have resesmbled an ape-or you know-a guy with a big forehead :)-and Hashem placed a neshamah into that being and then Man came into existence. Science and Torah certainly do not conflict-the Ramban discusses some kind of evolution in his commentary on Bereishis. What I am mainly remind people when they question me about these so-called "conflicts" is that I believe that while the concept exists-a Higher being is rnning the show....
9:52 AM
I agree with TRW on this one. It is only a theory, so why evolve a theory to make it coinside with Torah is beyond me. There really is no purpose, and I don't think (not that I am an expert on these matters) that reading Schroder's book is called limud hatorah.
6:04 PM
Sara-'Member my sister went with you to the lecture and didn't understand a word? I'm afraid us non-scientific folks have a bit of trouble with it...:/
Just a moment, en..I didn't say I thought it was shtus, I just said I'd never thought about it before. When books like Dr. Schroeder's come out, I think they're wonderful-showing how science and Torah don't have to be at odds with each other, which many academics have trouble with. I don't think it's a bad thing at all!! I just don't fully understand the theories of evolution in general.
6:11 PM
en! I don't even know where to begin and maybe this is not the place for it, but just because you say that reading a book that discusses Torah AND science is not limud torah-how can you say that there is no purpose!!!!!!
TRW-I certainly agree that for non-science folks some things can be complicated. But EN--this does not excuse the fact that you can just simply disregard the word evolution-when the Ramban discusses it-so the Ramban is teaching us something on Bereishis and this in not limud torah???? Hashem created the world to run according to Teva (in a general sense ok??) and you are saying that there is no point in trying to understand it-that is what people do when they create theories-try to understand the world-prove or disprove these things and move forward in a better understanding.....
8:48 PM
sara- What I am saying is that these books are similar to the ban on slifkind. It is trying to stuff understanding of God into ideas that can not be proven (hence the word theory). Learn the Ramban, that is enough to know, not, some new fangled authors who are learning science and stuffing Torah to fit that view. The Ramban never used the term evolution which seems to imply continues change, he said the world came from something the size of a mustard seed. If he felt it was important to descibe and explain the how and why I am sure he would have . It is not like his work is as concise as Rashi.
9:24 PM
I don't think TRW wishes this discussion in her blog. I have many more things to say-but will just conclude that I feel so sad that you feel a person has to stuff science into Torah. Torah encompasses everything-I don't think stuffing is required-just something tasty on Thanksgiving.
New fangled authors-well, I am not sure what you consider new-people consider the Chofetz Chaim new-and unless you are of the Sefardic persuasion-then you follow much of the halacha from what he has taught.
And I suppose if a Rabbi of my community has published some of his thoughts on Torah-he is just another new fangled author that shouldn't have bothered...
11:47 PM