There are a few things that are considered repulsive to a wise person, and high up on that list are people who believe in silly, fairy-tale-like stories, and science deniers. This nausea comes from the fact that such people don’t have the pursuit of truth on top of their priorities, a value which one of the highest to the wise person. People like this are either gullible, or they simply reject centuries of human scientific progress and think they are smarter than everyone else because of whatever agenda it is they are championing.
I’d say the disgust is quite justified.
One example of a person who manufactures this visceral reaction in the scientific community is the reviled young earth creationist.
That said, let’s get into it:
The simple and most acceptable reading of the Torah gives a clear impression that not only is the world less than six thousand years old, but also that this very fact is a part of what we are meant to believe. The detailed genealogy recorded in the pesukim (verses) seems quite intentional so that we should know exactly when the creation event occurred by the time the Torah was given. It is obviously a stretch to claim otherwise.
Simultaneously, the evidence is beyond overwhelming that we live in an old universe. As you all know, every area of study confirms an earth that seems to be in the billions of years range. You can type into Google or ChatGPT “areas of science that show and ancient world” if you need details. Of course, this question would exist even if we had evidence of an earth that was 10k years old, but it so happens that the number is billions (though perhaps that means it’s harder to explain away).
There is an obvious contradiction from the Torah to what we see from science.
The material atheist has a very easy time with this; he just dismisses the (already dismissed) Torah’s account. Many religious people will similarly find themselves with no issue; they’ll just dismiss the scientific account. Those are two ways to get rid of the problem.
But people like me (and Daas Yochid for example) aren’t satisfied with that, and we want to have some sort of synthesis. We both agree that denying practically every area of science is entirely unreasonable, and we are both frum Jews who believe in the authenticity and divinity of the Torah.
To make some kind of synthesis, we must take some route that kind of bends one of the sources - either the Torah isn’t literal, or the earth was created looking old but is not actually. The latter takes all the science into account, just makes the fantastic claim that it all began seven minutes ago with the entire historical background. Understandably, each proposal is not without issue, and inevitably something is being twisted, either the pesukim, or the conclusion from science.
Just to quickly Frumstack name drop, Daas Yochid (DY from here on) is convinced of the former, as are many more Modox-leaning individuals, and for many that approach is a Judaism-saver, while דוד™️ on IM, if you recall (see below), is convinced of the latter.
The option that the Torah isn’t literal has merit. If I walk outside and I find bones of a dog, in any normal scenario, I would be correct to conclude that there was once a dog, because that’s what dog bones are - remnants of a once living dog. It’s that reasonable to assume dinosaurs once roamed the earth, and it’s that simple. To say a bone was planted there without a prior dinosaur is more than a big pill to swallow. To assume that Hashem scattered rando dino bones throughout the world despite there never having been dinosaurs strikes us as strange and unreasonable.1
This is why dinosaur bones are harder to explain than stars and rocks, even though stars and rocks are also old by definition. A star is inherently a billion+ year old outcome of a long cosmic process, and rocks are by definition the product of geological history. But a dinosaur skeleton feels worse. A star can be part of the structure of the universe, but dino bones seem to be evidence of a creature that lived and died and it’s like its own cosmic structure.
דוד™ developed this theory stronger, and provided a super long, but seasonally well reasoned post arguing that dinosaur bones are part of the makeup of the world (expanding the idea of stars onto the themselves to biology as we know it, a web of interconnected developments). Evolutionarily, the configuration of our hands and noses have the historical footprint on it, including the general lives of those fossilized dinosaurs. His basic argument is that the present physical world can only exist as the product of a specific, detailed history, so if God created the world in its current form suddenly, that history - including evolution and dino bones - had to be embedded within creation because the history is part of what makes the world what it is.
While his approach may seem a stretch at first, it is actually a rather remarkably elegant extension of the omphalos theory he begins with. And if we take the Torah at face value, it is (IMO) as strong as the original omphalos approach, credit given where credit is due.
So here’s where I stand: his sophisticated version of the omphalos theory is strong enough, IMO, to explain the bones comfortably once you think about for a while. But I take more issue with this approach when it comes to prehistoric civilizations and that entire field of science. Even if we say dino bones are a part of the history embedded in your palm, and you want to argue that even this specific dinosaur was necessary for, say, how my ears are shaped (see the above article from דוד™ at length), the very specific cave drawing seems harder to swallow, and entire ancient civilizations of faux history seem too much to me - although I do understand his claim that those are necessary as well for the world we see in front of us.
To me the more specific it gets, the more it begins to sow doubt into his entire theory, and it just becomes more and more reasonable that the history we see is full of remnants of what actually happened. I think DY would start saying this already from the dino bones (correct me DY if I’m wrong), and I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
Honestly, I don’t have a great answer to these questions except either swallowing his approach in its entirety, which does not (rn) sit comfortably with me. Or alternatively, there is always the “archeology shmarcheology” approach (to quote Ben Torah). Archeology is messy and complicated and not as straightforward as it seems. It can be easily tampered with and isn’t as reliable as most sciences. I also never personally visited these excavation sites nor am I any sort of expert in archeology to know that it all isn’t bogus.
I hope you understand that this response does not make me happy at all, especially in light of the rest of the old-universe evidence, since ancient civilizations fit right in to that picture. Also, if you follow my previous links to Gersh the archeologist’s posts, they are all to discount absence of evidence, not actual evidence. In fact, we may conclude that evidence that is preserved despite the many issues may be considered highly reliable, but you can take that up with Gersh to confirm or deny.
I am simply not satisfied with these answers, and given the data of an old universe, one must wonder if it is actually, in fact, old. Which would be a reasonable conclusion looking at the overwhelming data.
The only thing stopping us from reaching such a conclusion is the Torah, and obviously without the Torah, I would immediately conclude an ancient universe. But the same way the simple reading of the earth leads us to an old earth conclusion, the simple reading of the Torah leads us to a young earth conclusion. And this is why I may still stick with the דוד™ approach at the end of the day, despite my strong reservations.
But given the simple reading of the earth, it may very well be that the proper response is that the Torah is not a history book, despite that it seems to be telling us the history since Adam, which is not a small point at all. We’d have to respond that the count is only in order to know when “history” vs. “prehistory” began - whatever Hashem wanted us in His Torah to know about history begins with Adam despite a previous scientific progression, and that’s what matters as far as the Torah’s objective is concerned. (The atheist issue that this can lead to, that it gives major fodder to assume the Torah is all made up, is not a small point, but this article is not entering that realm.)
To say this is a forced interpretation of the pesukim is an understatement, and we can call it apologetics about the Torah in deference to science.2 That doesn’t mean it’s not true; it’s possible the universe lives through the evolutionary history we detect and the Torah part of it begins 5,786 (give or take 165) years ago but to think this is the obviously and only correct pshat (interpretation) is also extremely difficult.
My issue with DY’s approach (you can call it DY’s, Natan Slifkin’s, or many other names) is that although it works perfectly from a scientific perspective, obviously, but it is very forced into the Torah.
So what do I believe?
My personal opinion is right now at a 50/50. I do think the tool we have - given to us by Hashem - called being reasonable, begins with the assumption that the universe is very old. But then He gave us another tool called the Torah, and if we read His words there reasonably, the simple interpretation is clear that the universe is very young. Which is supposed to bend for which? Any heavily dogmatic religious person would immediately bend science (well, they’d even go with much more unreasonable approaches, but you know what I mean…), but anyone who stares at science understands that Hashem made it that way too, and I’m not comfortable enough with דוד™’s approach. So I find it equally reasonable to admit that I know little about maaseh bereishis and the scientific account of the universe is a strong possibility.
(One claim I can positively make is that of course, Slifkin’s book should never have been banned.)
I do have a separate concern, that this open-mindedness can lead people to atheism, because once evolution and the big bang can be real, it opens up weird questions about existence. We become a blip in time, and a history that Hashem planted, but that whole history doesn’t matter until the late 1700’s. I know all the philosophical answers, about how it makes us even more special (similar to the heliocentrist explanations) and so forth, but it does make one wonder and ponder, and it can open the box for many.3
But that would be a question for a society implementor to decide when to utilize the noble lie, not for a blog where I’m sharing my thoughts and what I think is actually true. (And I’ll reiterate once again in this context that the Slifkin ban was silly, and it was a misuse of society implementor power.) I guess if I were able to accept דוד™’s approach fully, that would make life easier.
As it stands, I’m open to hearing more proofs on either side - for this conversation that would mean assuming the truth of the Torah and the truth of science, and feedback along with those assumptions are more than welcome. I always like to hear a good sevara!
Below the paywall I didn’t put much so don’t pay just for this. Especially since I didn’t end up saying anything. It’s just a bonus for those who already are paying subscribers to be able to get involved in a discussion off Substack. O ya, I see the footnotes are blocked by the paywall, whoops, so the paid subscriber gets that as well. Yay.
Although you should become a paying subscriber to read the full version of my post, How To Love Your Wife. Just saying.
______________________Paid content below this line ↓_______________________
For those who got behind the paywall, hopefully by paying, I’ll be honest that I do have one more point to add which would be very unpopular on frumstack which finds kaballah-type ideas repulsive - despite them being completely in the dark about what kabbalah really is. You can read my conversation with משכיל בינה here in the comments, for example:
So never mind, I’ll keep my mouth shut.
Of course, the famous Tiferes Yisroel style approach that these creatures existed in prior worlds, or the other “pre-flood dinosaurs existed” approach, account for this, but it won’t help the age question or stratigraphy, amongst other issues and these approaches doesn’t stand in my books, כבוד התפא”י הנשגב במקומו מונח. I’m only dealing with the ones that actually seem acceptable to me.
This besides that if the only years that count begin with Adam being twenty, why did Hashem need to create the other billions of years? They themselves could’ve been a backstory, like in דוד™’s explanation…
At the same time, I think it can also save people from going off, so idk
I'll comment despite the paywall meaning no one will read it.
The main issue with the Dovid post (and I have listed multiple issues in the past) is the mabul. The mabul either means the Torah is false, not literal (kvetch a local flood) or a myth. It's that simple.
You ignore that issue.
The thing that jars me about this post is how thin a razor edge we are both dancing on, and what exactly is the difference between me, a big, bad, ugly, autistic, probably abused, never-tasted-true-Yiddishkeit atheist kofer, and you, a sincere truth seeker.
When we are trying to figure out the truth of something that requires a shikul hadaas, I imagine our brains as having this sort of a three-dimensional space where we run all these Bayesian analyses - a topography/latticework of bars, all trying to solve for for the question. Here the question is "Is belief in Judaism reasonable?" You're running that math and I'm running that math - with all the little sub-issues resoving into one solution. The only question is how we crunch the numbers.
In your post, the issue is very blunt: the universe looks very old. Civilization looks very old and in no way, shape, or form conforms to the story in the Torah. So what is a believer supposed to do? As you said yourself, if not for the Torah, you would undoubtedly assume the world is billions of years old. But you have other data points that make you hesitant to say the Torah is false. Fine. So what are the big solutions? By your own accounting, you have three options:
1 – Daas Yochid's non-literal counter-myth approach. But your brain rejects that as unreasonable.
2 – "Evolution shmevolution, archeology shmarcheology." Which you admit does not make you happy at all.
3 – Last Thursdayism - or as someone in this thread summed up, "God designed us consistent with the evolutionary process, but did it 5,800 years ago, and then made it look like the evolutionary process ran for billions of years." You yourself seem deeply uncomfortable with this approach.
So what's the bottom line? You have reasons to believe the Torah is true, so you'll hold your nose and ascribe a 51% probability to Last Thursdayism being correct, whereas I would ascribe it 49% — maybe because חותמו של הקב"ה אמת and לא איש אל ויכזב, maybe because it's a massive overreach of the gemara of בקומתן נבראו, maybe because it renders everything unfalsifiable. But the point is that we are dancing on the edge of a razor here. These are tiny distinctions in reasonableness.
And, if we were to explore the surface area of this question, it would be the same everywhere else.
I bet if we discussed the Kuzari, it would boil down to a handful of equally obscure and complicated judgment calls. What exactly counts as a mass experiential tradition. How myth formation works. How reasonable it is to rely on human incredulity to stop the first false belief.
If we discussed yetzias Mitzrayim and the evidence and counter-evidence for those events happening, it would probably come down to how willing you are to accept Rabbi Hool's revised chronology over the conventional one. We would end up deep in the weeds of how cross-locked the various Egyptian dates are with Assyrian and Babylonian records and how they fit in with the solar eclipse records, etc., and how much of the ancient Near East you're willing to redate to make room for the Sader Olam.
If we discuss the mabul, it probably come down to how reasonable you find Rabbi Meiselman's idea that since the pasuk says the sun didn't move and the water was boiling, the whole event was a total suspension of the natural order, and therefore no evidence can ever be brought to contradict it.
Not to beat a dead horse, but looking at your post for erlier this week, it's the same with your post about the religious experience. You and I both look at the data and agree the explanation is either (x) "brain states" or (y) the existence of a non-material dimension that our consciousness is tapping into. Your read of the evidence says the non-physical explanation is more likely, lets say call it 60/40. Fine. I looked at the same evidence and gave it 60/40 the other way.
My point is that these are all complex judgment calls. You're making them and I'm making them. We take all these weights and judgments and add them up to decide how reasonable and justified Jewish belief is. For me the math comes out -50 percent; for you it comes out +50 percent. Ok, great, reasonable minds can disagree. but what bothers me is that there's this exasperated way of interacting with OTD people on this platform. We're obtuse, autistic, haughty, unable to change our minds, prone to dumb groupthink, convinced we're smarter than we actually are. That condescending framework is present in almost every comment section here. But if the entire distance between us is a tiny shikul hadaas about how reasonable a pretend-old earth is - why am I now the baal gaavah, stuck-in-his-ways atheist OTD bum, and you're the reasonable mivakesh?
One more point. Orthodox Judaism demands emunah sheleimah, not uncomfortable Bayesian wiffle-waffle. When I was still a believer, starting to have these kinds of thoughts, it became harder and harder to have kavanah in Shema and think "bechol nafshecha, afilu notel es nafshecha." Are you willing to die over the proposition that Last Thursdayism is 51% more likely than the universe actually being old? Every year your children come home from cheder with the story of Chana and her seven sons. Are you willing to sacrifice your children because your Bayesian probability matrix assigns a 51% chance that Judaism is probably reasonable?
I hope to have some thoughts on the actual arguments, but I wanted to get this idea out there first.