Excuses are not Reasons

Rabbi Slifkin has given a variety of reasons for not debating Dr. Betech. None appear to hold up in the light of reason. Rabbi Sifkin wrote (see his blog comments):

I have given several valid reasons why I refuse to debate evolution with him (Dr. Betech). To recap: 1) His professed desire for a scientific debate is a ruse, since it is a fundamental religious issue for him.

Supporting Darwin's theory of evolution (common descent via chance/natural mechanisms) seems to be a fundamental "religious" issue for Rabbi Slifkin. In fact, Rabbi Slifkin has made a name for himself in support of Darwin's theory. For Rabbi Slifkin to admit that he was in error would be to repudiate his own books and the reputation he has created for himself as a "rationalist". Given Rabbi Slifkin's own biases, and using Rabbi Slifkin's own uncharitable interpretation of Dr. Betech's motives, we might as well claim that Rabbi Slifkin's professed desire to avoid a scientific debate is also a ruse---due to the fact that he would not want to be shown to be in error.

As was stated in an earlier post, somehow, in Rabbi Slifkin's mind, Dr. Betech is too biased to debate --- whereas, somehow, Rabbi Slifkin does not have these disqualifying biases. This is despite the fact that Rabbi Slifkin acknowledged the contribution of Dr. Betech's biological expertise in one of his books. Of course, a rational approach would be too admit that we all have our biases and then attempt to debate the issues on its own merits.

Rabbi Slifkin further writes:

2) I am not a biologist and it is not up to me to defend evolution. He has to convince the scientific community; as far as I know, he has yet to convince anyone. 3) Even if I believed evolution to be false (and frankly, I really don't understand how the mechanisms of evolution work), it would not make a difference; I would still consider it important to publish my book in the same way and show how evolution is not a contradiction to Judaism. Dr. Betech has formally declined to debate the halachic/hashkafic legitimacy of my approach, claiming that he is not qualified to do so. 

In answer to (2), Dr. Betech has offered to debate a biologist of Rabbi Slifkin's choice. In his latest book (page 317) Rabbi Slifkin writes that there are “compelling reasons” to believe that even Rabbi Yisrael Salanter has evolved from monkeys. Given that Rabbi Slifkin has provided scientific evidence in his books that supposedly show that that the Darwinian theory is true, Rabbi Slifkin's claim that he is not a biologist seems disingenuous at best. Surely if his reasons are genuinely compelling they can withstand critical scrutiny.

In answer to (3), if evolution is false, why would we want to show that evolution is consistent with Torah? Logically, it would seem that the first step is to examine the truth of Darwin's theory in the light of the best scientific evidence.

 (But apparently he does consider himself qualified as a paediatrician to challenge the global scientific community of biologists, palaeontologists, physicists, anthropologists, archaeologists, etc., without even having published a single paper on the topic.) 

In point (2) and here, Rabbi Slifkin demonstrates that he is a big believer in the infallibility of the global consensus of scientific experts. True, our first inclination should be to consult the scientific experts. We certainly hope that we can trust them to provide us with the experiments and data needed to evaluate their theories. But, on critical issues, they have also been wrong, and badly so. An informed layman certainly has the right to ask relevant questions. What are the critical experiments that demonstrate the truths that are being espoused? What untested assumptions have been made? etc. Biology is not rocket science. An informed layman (especially a paediatrician) may surely ask what experiments show that the astonishing machinery of a single cell comes from dead chemicals via chance/natural processes, absent of intelligence? Where are the experiments or empirical data that demonstrate that an amoeba can develop into a fish, and a fish into a philosopher via purely mindless physical processes? When these questions remained unanswered by the most qualified experts then the informed layman is within his rights to be skeptical of the proposed theories.

Michael Crichton, in an invited lecture delivered at the California Institute of Technology in 2003, had this to say about the notion of consensus:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

Biology is hardly rocket science. If the experts have critical experiments or solid empirical data for Darwin's theory, Rabbi Slifkin should have no problem making his case. 


Scientific discovery does not rest on authentic revelation. By contrast, halacha starts with the revelation of the Torah at the mountain of Sinai, and is governed by the terms of the transmission mechanism set in to place at that time. To a very large extent, halacha relies on prior precedent, the majority view and consensus of qualified halachic decisors (poskim) in the chain of that transmission. Perhaps Rabbi Slifkin considers himself a posek; but Dr. Betech is quite within his rights to refrain from making halachic determinations and decisions. Rabbi Slifkin's last comment is:

Dr. Betech has not formally declined my proposal to debate his own "scientific" approach, but since I've asked him plenty of times over the last week and he has not yet responded, it certainly looks like he is declining. (Perhaps he is avoiding formally declining so as not to be challenged to give his reasons for declining.) Which is odd, because he claims to be interested in truth, and claims that scientific debate between us leads to that. Apparently, that was all a ruse. 

I do not see where Dr. Betech has declined to debate his own "scientific approach". However, does the Torah point of view qualify as a scientific theory? If anything, the Torah is God's blueprint for creation, a blueprint that makes science possible in the first place. Surely the relevant question is whether current scientific evidence best supports Darwin's blind watchmaker theory or the Torah's account of meta-natural creation via a transcendent Intelligence (as explained by our baalei mesorah).

So far as I know, Dr. Betech is willing to debate Rabbi Slifkin (or his representative) in an intellectually respectful, protocolized, neutral, public forum on any of the issues presented in Rabbi Slifkin's books in the light of the best scientific evidence.

1. Cosmic Evolution (Big Bang Cosmology). 
2. Chemical Evolution (increasingly complex elements, molecules and compounds developed from the simpler chemical elements that were created in the Big Bang). 
3. The age of the universe. 
4. Biological evolution (of the species). 
5. The accuracy of science-related statements made by Chaza"l. 

Biological evolution should be the first subject to be debated, because that was the initial challenge to Rabbi Slifkin presented by Dr. Betech. Darwinism is both a specific theory of biology as well as a way of thinking about things in general (methodological naturalism). So a debate about evolution will strike at the heart of the matter.