Just to elaborate, I personally don’t believe in the theory of evolution for a different reason which is the self-assembly issue. There are so many intricate parts which are needed for even the simplest cell, and they are interdependent. One needs DNA to encode proteins, but one needs proteins to run the transcription and translation apparatus. The proteins which are needed (in the first cell) would have to have been there by coincidence, but also encoded for in the same DNA in order for the cell to have a chance of replicating and passing on its abilities. What are the chances that a random sequence of amino acids is functional (when even a single substituted amino acid can be detrimental, like I believe occurs in sickle cell anemia)? But furthermore, what are the chances that the corresponding sequence by chance happens to be found in the DNA or RNA of such a primordial cell?
There are so many atoms and molecules which can interact in so many random ways, that even if the right ingredients are there, what is the chance they will bind in a way that is operative in even the simplest cell? Think of it this way. You want to save money on automobile factory workers. So you cleverly design a car that self-assembles. You attach magnets to special places on each component and part of the vehicle so that part 1 will automatically come together with part 2, and then with part 3, and so on. You dump the whole pile on the floor, and miraculously a car emerges. Actually, not so simple. What will direct part 1’s magnet to lock up with part 2, and not part 8 which happens to be lying next to it? There are an enormous number of permutations that could clump together, and an enormous number of orientations, most of which would yield nonsense. And that assumes that the right parts are all present. I do not think any factories have been able to produce anything useful using self-assembly to date.
But what many don’t understand about Rabbi Slifkin is that he shows that even if one would demonstrate that things can self-assemble, the contribution of the RBSH is in the fact that he designed the laws of nature which allow such a system to be built. There are many constants in nature which are just too fortunate to have the value they do. He shows that if evolution were proven true in a lab, this would not negate the existence of the RBSH. It is a shame that many have misunderstood his intent, and think he is trying to uproot yiddishkeit, when in fact he is trying to show that even the most sopshisticated science has a need for a borei.
He appeals to those who work and have studied science on an advanced level who get annoyed when simplistic statements are made such as the scientists are fools or deliberately looking to falsify. In fact Darwin was no slouch. I saw an exhibit at the Harvard Museum of Natural History in which a new flower was discovered that had an extremely deep and narrow access to where the pollen was located. No known bug could fit into it. Darwin said there must be a moth of such and such a size with a long tongue of such and such dimension that does the pollenation. Sure enough, after a long search, such a moth was discovered, and it did indeed pollenate that flower.
The brilliance of Rabbi Slifkin is that he tries to be meyashev the highest levels of science with the highest levels of Torah learning. Not the simplistic dismissals of “they are all reshaim and fools” which doesn’t go over to well with a trained scientist. Scientists have learned how to harness electromagnetism and send satellites to space which guide your own car. Biologists have learned to work with DNA and genes and have quite a good understanding of major cellular processes. DOn’t frum people go to Dor Yesharim to get tested? Don’t they go to doctors who have studied germs and so on? To call them fools is rude, but worse, is pure sheker.
Of course there is so much more to learn, and we can’t visualize the movement of proteins in real-time, which would open up entire new worlds of research and we don’t understand how proteins fold up automatically, and which interact with which others without much painstaking trial and error. We don’t know how to regenerate many types of damaged cells, and this is being actively pursued in thousands of labs. However, calling these people fools and liars really doesn’t reflect well on the intelligence of the one using those phrases. It makes one sound like a boor, and certainly doesn’t do anything for the honor of Torah, as intelligent scientists will simply dismiss such noisemakers, and go home with the opinion that religious people really are from the dark ages.
In order to enter into a dialogue with scientists, one must evidence some understanding of how deep science really is, and how hard these scientists work to uncover its mysteries. Rabbi Slifkin has done a remarkable job in trying to do that and show how the Torah can be understood even by educated scientists, and even if certain facets of evolution are found to be true.
One anecdote that R. SLifkin mentioned somewhere is that one Rov once told him that evolution is obviously false because the fossil record doesn’t show enough evidence. So R. Slifkin answered back, well, exactly how many fossils would you need to believe that it was true. Obviously the Rov did not answer. The point is that the Rov went in to the subject with a preconceived notion, and not with an objective desire to study the merits of the theory. Rabbi Slifkin has ways of showing that even if the theory is 100 percent true, it can still be totally in accordance with the Torah. Let us give him a little credit for the brilliant work he has done, even if we do not agree with his conclusions.