Who We Are and Where We Came from: Divergent Views on Human Origins

ABSTRACT

In this article, I respond to Malik’s analysis of positions on common descent (“Creationism, Human exceptionalism, Adamic exceptionalism, and No exceptions”), regarding their metaphysical and hermeneutic compatibility with al-Ghazali’s approach. As a “no exceptions” proponent, I offer a number of Jewish theological sources that support this position, and argue with Malik’s assessment of this stance as scientistic. Due to my divergence from Malik on this fundamental issue, I then go on in the article to explore possible conceptualizations of disagreement, dialogue and the interaction of diverse views regarding fundamental matters.

KEYWORDS:

• Evolution
• Judaism
• divine image
• humanity
• Soloveitchik
• Heschel
• Sacks

Introduction

It is a challenge and an honor to take part in this special issue. In this brief article, I will focus on the issue of exceptionalism for Adam and Eve that seems to be one of the key differences between my view and that of Malik’s. I will begin by (1) introducing the background from which I approach the questions at hand, and then (2) move on to bring some sources that are foundational for my perspective. I will then (3) grapple with a Jewish source that raises other emphases. In the remainder of the article, due the divergence between my own view and that of Malik’s, I will (4) explore ideas regarding dialogue between alternative approaches on fundamental issues.

Malik’s categorization of views regarding human descent (“Creationism, Human exceptionalism, Adamic exceptionalism and No exceptions”) and his assessment regarding these positions’ metaphysical and hermeneutic compatibility with a religious perspective is one that is not simple for me to encounter.¹ Coming to this analysis with a background in prehistoric archeology (paleoanthropology),² and as an adherent of Jewish Modern Orthodoxy,³ I am firmly planted strictly in the “no exceptions” perspective, and other views are somewhat outside of my frame of reference. Indeed, reading this book brought to mind many broader questions regarding the interface of science and religion, for instance, does modern science include secular, materialist or anti-religious biases that should be highlighted? I was not educated with any indication that I should be on the lookout for secular biases in the scientific worldview (my full throttle pro-science religious stance is a subject I will return to and reflect on further below in the continuation of this article). Other questions relate to the significant historical period in which we live. With the fall, over the last half century, of the secularization thesis, the notion that science would replace religion due to its capacity to explain the world, how do we understand current conceptions of these two powerful forces of religion and science in people’s lives? It seems that American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002) did not get it exactly right with his concept of non-overlapping magesteria (NOMA), as these two spheres in fact seem extremely entangled and enmeshed in real life rather than separate. Are there, then, alternative perspectives that could be more helpful to both the public understanding of these issues as well as the academic study of them? Along with these unresolved questions, Malik’s book brought to mind the rallying cry of “nothing about us without us,” made prominent in other fields such as disability studies, and pushed me to listen to a broader variety of perspectives, some of which may well be outside of my comfort zone.

Where I Come from

I was initially drawn to the study of paleoanthropology and prehistoric archeology as an undergraduate and master’s student, at least partially, because it seemed that the human path over the past millions of years of evolution was inextricably linked to our contemporary identity. I wondered: What are our natural tendencies as a species and how do they interact with our free will and agency as individuals? How do different people understand this interface and how do I? Although I was given the message that my religious heritage would not be in conflict with the field I chose to study, it also had not been clarified exactly how my tradition related to the details of the scientific investigations on these matters either.

I relished my experience at an undergraduate field school in Zoukoudian, China (“the Peking Man site”), as well as opportunities during my M.A. to study materials from Neanderthal sites in Israel. In both geographical areas, these sites were explored to see how humans interacted with their environment: for instance, what the inhabitants ate and how they processed food and other materials with tools and fire. This was done by analyzing bone fragments and stone tools excavated from the sites. I had the chance not only to dig but also to work in one of the labs where the follow-up work was conducted. Experiencing this direct rendezvous with the shards of past through touching these objects was viscerally powerful, but many of my theoretical questions of how the past might relate to the present were not necessarily considered. There were glimmers of connections that I spotted. For instance, in China I saw that the prehistoric record unearthed in the country was embraced as part of a national heritage. In Israel, however, this did not seem to be the case, with the local prehistoric record being much less renowned than biblical or later sites. I wanted to explore further this cultural difference in relating to the distant past.⁴ Similarly, I learned about how my professors who excavated and studied Neanderthal living sites had argued that the inhabitants’ behavior was not different from what was unearthed in the nearby living sites of Anatomically Modern Humans. They found signs of burial of the dead and use of symbolism, as well as similar technology used to create stone tools. However, when they sent their work in for publication, it turned out that many paleoanthropologists were not ready to accept these findings—was it because their approach blurred the lines between “us and them”?⁵ I wanted to know more about conceptions of the human, who people felt connected and related to in our distant past, and who not, and why. I was looking for the intersection of the cultural with the natural, as well as understanding how these categories themselves were constructed, seemingly differently at different times and in different places, but I could not put my quest into words yet.

In the last semester of my masters’ degree, I took the first course outside of the archeology department since I entered the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. It was called “Evolution and Human Nature: question for education and Jewish education.” The lecturer brought a wide range of texts and discussed in class how his research of evolutionary thought was part of his journey as a human being to understand the world around him.⁶ I was extremely moved by this refreshing perspective and realized that my path of study would change course a bit. Through the lecturer, I found the only Science, Technology and Society (STS) program in Israel, and I began to encounter the ways science and society, including religion, inform one another and the way we live our lives. The program encouraged public engagement in addition to scholarship, and after graduation I worked with other students I had met in the program to offer courses to students and teachers in the Israeli school system on the Judaism and evolution interface. More recently I have worked in the first large scale research project on evolution education in Israel, which also explored views of origins in religious education such as Bible and Islamic education.⁷

In this current article, I am trying something a bit different due to the nature of this special issue. I do not utilize the type of historical perspective that I took in my dissertation, mapping who said what when, but rather I aim to reflect from my own perspective on the subject at hand, bringing the thoughts of some of the leaders who have been meaningful to me and whose work I have taught. I hope the preceding personal introduction helps readers contextualize the arguments I will make in the coming pages.

The Case of Human Evolution

While evolution is far from the only example where issues related to the interface of science and religion come into play, it is a magnificent case. From a theistic evolutionary perspective, evolution’s grand framework can be understood as bringing all of existence from time immemorial until the present day into connection with one another. As the previous Chief Rabbi of the UK Jonathan Sacks (1948–2020) wrote in a chapter he penned on Darwin: this is “the most unlikely and beautiful story ever told.”⁸

In this same chapter, Rabbi Sacks listed five related spiritual lessons that can be learned from evolution: (1) that God delights in diversity; (2) that the Creator made creation creative; (3) that all life derives from a single source; (4) that language is a powerful metaphor for life; (5) and that all of life is interconnected:

the fact that plants, animals and humans have a common origin—helps us understand in new depth the Bible’s … generic name for Homo sapiens, Adam (from adama, meaning the Earth). Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik took this as one of the central insights of Darwinian biology … We are responsible for the preservation of nature and the animal kingdom, for we and they are part of the same continuum of life.⁹

I find Rabbi Sack’s spiritual lessons from evolution quite inspiring, and it is his last idea that brings into focus on what seems to be a key point of departure between my perspective and the ones other than “No exceptions” presented by Malik. Rabbi Sacks follows one of his teachers, eminent twentieth century American Jewish leader Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik (1903–1993), in focusing on the continuum of plants, animals and humans, rather than on human original exceptionalism. Indeed, an in-depth consideration of these issues by Rabbi Soloveitchik was published posthumously in 2005. In this work, which received the title The Emergence of Ethical Man, Rabbi Soloveitchik brought unique exegesis on the first chapters to Genesis to argue for the development of the Divine image in humanity in the verses through two stages of communication with God.¹⁰ Regarding his overall view of the position of humanity in the narrative Rabbi Soloveitchik wrote:

… Man in the story of creation does not occupy a unique ontic position. He is, rather, a drop of the cosmos that fits into the schemata of naturalness and concreteness. The Torah presents to us a successive order of life-emergence and divides it into three phases; the last of those living structures is man. The viewpoint is very much akin to modern science. Christianity split the story of creation in two, and analyzed the story of man without taking cognizance of that of animal and plant … ¹¹

… Here we grasp one of the most characteristic features of the Jewish anthropological philosophy. The deep feeling of man’s basic harmony with organic nature- harmony emerging from uniformity- is the most salient feature of the philosophical formula. Man may be the most developed form of life on the continuum of plant-animal-man, but the ontic essence remains identical.¹²

… I wish to emphasize that the wide spread opinion that within the perspective of anthropological naturalism there is no place for the religious act, for the relatedness of man to eternity and infinity, is wrong. Perhaps more than man-as-a-divine-person, man-as-an-animal needs religious faith and commitment to a higher authority. God takes man-animal into His confidence, addresses him and reveals to him his moral will.¹³

In all of these quotations, and throughout his manuscript, Rabbi Soloveitchik portrays an image of Adam and Eve, and all of humanity, as naturally evolved creatures. Indeed, he mentions the similarity in his view between the Jewish Biblical perspective and the scientific conception of humans as part of nature, in opposition to alternative religious and philosophical approaches that separate humanity from the rest of nature. Clearly, this pushes on the questions raised above regarding how science and religion, two relatively recent terms,¹⁴ relate to one another.

Disagreements on Fundamental Issues

The disagreement regarding the crux of human identity—naturally evolved or specially created—could be understood as a substantial one, and a question I struggle with is how to address divergences of views on significant matters like this. I would argue that this is one of the biggest issues confronting societies today: how to engage in disagreement better, how to work to understand and include a variety of perspectives—for our own edification as well as that of others—and only to exclude from discourse those views that are unethical, harmful or dangerous.¹⁵

However, how do we delineate this last criterion? Some would contend that perspectives that reject scientific views, perhaps including those enumerated by Malik other than “no exceptions,” cross this line. Proponents of this perspective might argue this point on the grounds of the rationality of science, or they might stress practical consequences to opposing scientific stances. For instance, while rejecting human evolution may not have everyday implications, spurning recommendations about COVID-19 or climate change could—and thus perhaps all challenges of science are incriminated as having harmful effects?

Figures in STS and related fields like sociology of science, which focus on illustrating how science and scientists are embedded in cultures, have wondered if they have fallen out on the wrong side of history by working to humanize the production of scientific knowledge. On the one hand, history of science has shown us that science can err, both substantively and ethically. For instance in retrospect it seems like practitioners of eugenics the world over a century ago, could have used more people willing to protest against the views of the science of their day, which enabled the execution of so many travesties.¹⁶ On the other hand, this historical lesson does not seem like a direct analogy to those today who protest mainstream scientific perspectives on evolution, COVID-19 and climate change, and so the guidelines for engagement in this discourse are difficult.

Are those of us who take human evolution for granted prioritizing science over religion and thereby allowing science to set the ground rules that religion must play by? This seems to be what Malik intimates by labeling the views of Guessoum and Dajani as “scientism.”¹⁷ I do not think that is the only way of conceiving of this. For instance, science education expert and ordained priest Michael Reiss (2010) has described his suggestion of asking students to think about the conceptions of the interface of science and religion by making a drawing to represent their understanding of the relationship.¹⁸ Reiss highlights three possible illustrations that often emerge: (1) scientific knowledge and religious knowledge as separate domains, (2) religious knowledge as a smaller domain than scientific knowledge and almost entirely contained within it, and (3) scientific knowledge is smaller than religious knowledge and contained within it.¹⁹ Reiss states that as a person with a religious worldview his perspective is in fact most similar to the third illustration, even though he does not think that “scientific knowledge can be obtained from religious sources,” and he certainly accepts evolution including human evolution. This type of sentiment is very similar to the perspective in the Jewish communities in which I was raised mentioned above—an allegiance to science does not indicate any disregard for religion. Identities may be largely fashioned by religion, with this impetus propelling people to further engage in scientific investigation and fervently embrace its results. Like Reiss, my embrace of evolution is related to the elegance of “arriving at humanity via natural processes” as well as being convinced by the fossil record.²⁰

Of course, this pro-evolution orientation and identification within Jewish communities is in no way universal, and the question of evolution often hits a nerve for many people. For instance, a Pew study in 2016 found very low rates of acceptance of evolution among Jewish Israelis who defined themselves as religious or even traditional.²¹ Therefore, the question is reinforced: how should we relate to the spectrum of divergent views on human origins? I have worked in projects that expose students to a variety of views and elicit the development of their own perspective through challenging them to think about the issues.²² For instance, I have been involved in courses that expose Israelis to a spectrum of rabbinic views on the issues, including Rabbi Sacks and Rabbi Soloveitchik, but also R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902–1904), an anti-evolution proponent.²³ Additionally, I have begun to research museum outreach policies, due to an example that gained notoriety in Israel, when a small museum in Jerusalem covered an evolution display with a sheet so that Ultra-Orthodox schools would feel comfortable bringing their students for a visit. The director of education at the museum is more than happy to make this accommodation in order to get additional students to come to the museum; others, however, are appalled at this approach.²⁴

These experiences developed my interest in the concept and practice of dialogue in the academy as well as the public square and is part of what led me to join an organization Sia'h Shalom, Talking Peace, which was founded by two philosophers and a practitioner of dynamic group facilitation.²⁵ Their approach is based in part on the philosophical premise of achud hahafachim—unity of the opposites—from the thought of the first Chief Rabbi of British Mandatory Palestine Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935). Avinoam Rosenak, one of the three founders, has suggested that a religious immanental view of the world is more amenable to deep recognition of the other than a secular normative-sociological perspective. In the latter, there is only recognition of an alternative narrative, while in the former there is recognition of an additional piece of truth and reality that also has standing in the world, according to his view. Moreover, the encounter between the two people who hold these opposing aspects of reality creates a significant event in the world that has both meaning and repercussions. Each person has the capacity to emulate God in contracting and making space for the other, which can elevate the experience to one of holiness. In this way, people can strive to raise conversations to follow the Talmudic dictum “elu velu divrei elokim chaim,” these and those are both words of the living God.²⁶

However, one might wonder—perhaps these pluralistic perspectives are possible only in the theological realm, and should not be employed when science is at play? As we alluded to above, this question is gaining more and more prominence recently regarding issues like vaccines, climate change and more. Philosopher of education Hanan Alexander has begun to experiment in this direction regarding the concepts of “learning in, from and about,” which have been used in religious education. For example, even if I have been raised in Judaism, I can learn about and from Islam and Christianity. Alexander has set out to explore if this could be relevant to science—i.e. if I come from the kind of religious background that leads me to feel that evolution represents a foreign worldview that I would not be interested in being initiated into, would it still be possible for me to learn about and from evolution?²⁷ One question regarding this attempt is what about the reverse symmetrical analysis—should those of us who embrace evolution try to learn about and from anti-evolution perspectives, even if we do not want to be initiated into them?

When I attempt to consider what my “no exceptions” approach could gain from a “human exceptionalist” or “Adamic exceptionalist” approach, I gravitate towards some writings of the twentieth century theologian and civil rights activist Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel (1907–1972). Heschel does not seem to be anti-evolution in any direct sense, but he does seem worried about science and its materialist approach, at least as he experienced it in the middle of the last century. He wrote:

What is human about a human being? What do I see when I see man? We know that man is more similar to an ape than an ape is to a toad. We are told that “man has not only developed from the realm of animals; he was, is and shall always remain an animal.” But is this the whole truth about man? Is this the answer to the question, “What do I see when I see a man?” … A textbook used in our American colleges contains the following definition. A human being is “an ingenious assembly of portable plumbing.” What glory to be a man! We must not take lightly man’s pronouncements about himself. They surely reveal as well as affect his basic attitudes … A definition in the Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica is surely bound to inspire reverence for the greatness of man. It says: “Man is a seeker of the greatest degree of comfort for the least necessary expenditure of energy.”²⁸

Heschel was a contemporary of Soloveitchik, but the two men differed both in religious approaches as well as in life histories. Heschel came from a Hassidic dynasty and was mystically oriented. His greatest focus was a close personal relationship with God. Soloveitchik on the other hand was the scion of the great Brisk mitnagdim, opponents of the Hassidim, and Soloveitchik’s focus is often on the great abyss between humanity and the Divine. In terms of their life experiences, Soloveitchik emigrated to the U.S. in the early 1930s following his parents, while Heschel escaped Nazi Germany only in 1940 and lost many family members in the holocaust. Heschel brings these elements to bear on his understanding of dangers of materialism:

In pre-Nazi Germany the following statement of man was frequently quoted: “The human body contains a sufficient amount of fat to make seven cakes of soap, enough iron to make a medium-sized nail, a sufficient amount of phosphorous to equip two thousand match-heads, enough sulfur to rid oneself of fleas.” Perhaps there was a connection between this statement and what the Nazis actually did in the extermination camps: to make soap out of human flesh. As descriptions of one of many aspects of the nature of man, these definitions may indeed be correct. But when pretending to express his totality or meaning, they contribute to the gradual liquidation of man’s self-understanding. And the liquidation of the self-understanding of man may lead to the self-extinction of man. It seems that the depth and mystery of a human being is something that no science can grasp. The knowledge of man we get from science for all its usefulness strikes us as an oversimplification; its definitions become meaningless when applied to actual human beings. Am I addressing myself at this moment to an ingenious assemblage of portable plumbing?²⁹

I try to approach Heschel’s view with the humility that can admit that for all of the esteem I have for powerful rationalist science, perhaps I take that idolization too far—perhaps it blinds me to other aspects of existence that become harder to see when I foreground science. Is it healthy to ask myself these questions and challenge myself to look for what I might be missing? I hope so. In terms of the Bible’s description of humans’ relationship to the rest of creation, Heschel seems to draw the opposite conclusion from Soloveitchik, and seeing their comments in juxtaposition is somewhat breathtaking:

… the Bible emphasizes the absolute difference between man and all other creatures. Plants and animals were brought forth by the earth, by the waters (Genesis 1:11, 20:24); they emerged from “nature” and became an “organic” part of nature. Man, on the other hand, is an artifact. The Lord both created and formed him (1:26; 2:7). He came into being by a special act of creation. He did not come forth out of dust; he did not grow out of the earth. He owes his existence not to the forces of nature but to the Creator of all. He is set apart from both the plants and the beasts by the fact of God being directly involved in man’s coming into being. It is the knowledge of this fact that inspired the Psalmist’s prayer: “Thy hands have made me and fashioned me; give me understanding that I may learn Thy commandments.” (Psalms 119:73)³⁰

Heschel and Soloveitchik are both role models. I wish to emulate each in some ways, despite their seeming diametrically opposed views—how can I make sense of their deep disagreements on this subject? Should I use Heschel as a stimulus to bring additional intellectual humility to my understanding of science? Are there advantages and disadvantages to this approach? What am I gaining and what am I giving up on?

Contemporary Israeli Biblical scholar Yoni Grossman has argued that both the elements that Soloveitchik stresses, that humans are part of the continuum of creation, as well as the ones that Heschel emphasizes, that humans are entirely different from the rest of creation, are present in the text of the Bible itself. For instance, Soloveitchik’s perspective is drawn into the focus when we hear about the sixth day of creation, dedicated to both animals and humans. On the other hand, Heschel’s view takes the foreground when we see that the root b-r-a (create) is used three times with reference to the creation of humanity, whereas this term is not used in most of the creation narrative after the initial creation of existence from nothing. In the rest of the text, for instance regarding animals, verbs with the root a-s-a (made) or ya-tza-r (formed, fashioned) are used. In this way, both readings—Soloveitchik’s and Heschel’s—can be said to be present in the biblical text itself, and it depends on the lens, interest and focus of the reader regarding where her or his eye and heart are drawn.³¹

It is unclear how much comfort to take from this type of analysis. Has humanity really always been confronted by so many perspectives on life and its nature? Or is this a twenty-first century projection backwards onto texts that makes perfect sense to us today, but in fact we are the first generations to be confronted by the boundaries of diversity to this degree?

The questions regarding the parameters of pluralism when science is involved are manifold. I recently learned that in ecology education, there is a disagreement regarding whether teachers should necessarily work to convince their students to embrace an ecocentric perspective, or whether it is sufficient to promote embracing environmentally friendly behavior from a biocentric or anthropocentric perspective, the latter of which is often the perspective of religious students. In other words, the lines between worldviews, values, knowledge and behavior are getting more complicated regarding the interface of science with society.

Malik is a new generation of scholar entering the fray and engaging audiences in the subject of the interaction of science and religion from an academic perspective that attracts religious listeners. He worked to make his book open access so that all can download and works with social media and other formats to reach additional populations. Malik’s unabashed insistence on religious principles that guide his views in addition to scientific ones brings theology and science discussions to new contexts. As feminism, disability studies and other subjects have had numerous generations of practitioners and theorists that have drawn meta-inquiry, so too do discussions of science and religion in society seem to be going in new directions. I have had the pleasure of working with Shoaib,³² and I have benefited from up close from the perspectives that he brings to the field. In terms of questions for further work, I wonder about parallels in Muslim and Christian traditions regarding the concept of “elu v’elu” discussed above—if the understanding that within a spectrum there might be a variety of views that could be reflecting truth, is a perspective based in all three religious traditions explored in this special issue.

I have enjoyed taking part in conversations on evolution and religion because they seem to touch on such a core issue of self-identity. Whether we conceive of ourselves as evolved or specially created, as connected to the world or differentiated from it, seems interwoven with how we understand ourselves more broadly as well as the world around us. I have particularly been attracted to work that reflects disagreements on these subjects, perhaps because it has the potential to lead towards a broadening of approaches. Therefore, I hope to continue discussions with Shoaib on these topics because, and not despite the fact that, we come from different perspectives and to different conclusions. Perhaps the future depends on whether we can communicate with those we disagree with, whether it be on evolution, the interface of science and religion, or a myriad of other contested issues in today’s society.

Conclusion

In this article, I focused on the positions Malik analyzes regarding common descent, which was difficult for me to encounter. I presented some Jewish theological sources that are important for my understanding of Adam as an evolved being, such as the text of The Emergence of Ethical Man by Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, which focuses on special relationship and revelation, rather than creation. I then reviewed alternative Jewish perspectives, such as the one offered by Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel. I questioned what can be learned from taking all of these alternative views seriously, even if I do not embrace them myself.³³ This issue of how to confront deep disagreements seems to be one of the major issues of our time, especially when the disagreements relate to science in addition to values, ethics and belief, so it was a pleasure to bring these ideas into the conversation that this new contribution to the literature is engendering.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Rachel S. A. Pear

Rachel S. A. Pear is a research fellow at the University of Haifa where she recently completed her role as research coordinator for the first large scale study of evolution education in Israel. Rachel is also one of the co-founders of a regional research network for scholars who study the interface of science and religion in society in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA S&R). Additionally, Rachel has taught numerous cohorts of professional development courses for teachers on evolution and Judaism through Herzog College, and through a postdoc at Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Rachel joined one of the first research projects studying “replication in the humanities.” Recently, Rachel has pursued research on the how natural history and science museums relate to religious publics in different cultural contexts.

Notes

1 E.g. Malik, Islam and Science, 11.

2 After completing two degrees in this field, I switched to write my PhD on the history of Jewish responses to evolution: Rachel S. A. Pear, “‘And It Was Good?’ American Modern Orthodox Engagement with Darwinism 1925–2012” (PhD diss., Bar-Ilan University, 2012). A number of chapters have since been published as articles such as: Rachel S. A. Pear, “Arguing about Evolution for the Sake of Heaven: American Orthodox Rabbis in the 1930s–50s Dispute Darwinism’s Merit and Meaning,” Fides et Historia 46, no. 1 (2014): 21–39; Rachel S. A. Pear, “Differences Over Darwinism: American Orthodox Jewish Responses to Evolution in the 1920s,” Aleph: Historical Studies in Science and Judaism 15, no. 2 (2015): 343–87; Rachel S. A. Pear, “Agreeing to Disagree: American Orthodox Jewish Scientists’ Confrontation with Evolution in the 1960s,” Religion and American Culture: A Journal of Interpretation 8, no. 2 (2018): 206–37; and Rachel S. A. Pear, “The Kiss and the Slap: Modern Orthodox Ambivalence towards Evolution 1980s–2010s,” Journal of Modern Jewish Studies 21, no. 3 (2021): 297–318. For other studies on Jewish engagement with evolution see Michael Shai Cherry “Creation, Evolution and Jewish Thought” (PhD diss., Brandeis University, 2001). Geoffrey Cantor and Marc Swetlitz, ed., Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism (University of Chicago Press, 2006). Rephael Shuchat, “Attitudes towards Cosmogony and Evolution Among Rabbinic Thinkers in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries: The Resurgence of the Doctrine of the Sabbatical Years,” The Torah U-Madda Journal 13 (2005):15–49.

3 Modern Orthodoxy extolls science as well as embraces extensive Jewish practice. This type of positive orientation to both science and religion is clearly in no way unique in the landscape, and it is fascinating to see how different groups who ascribe to these types of approaches understand the intersection of theology and science in multiple ways.

4 B. Sautman, “Peking Man and the Politics of Paleoanthropological Nationalism in China,” The Journal of Asian Studies 60, no. 1 (2001): 95–124, doi:10.2307/2659506.

5 I have interviewed Professor Anna Belfer Cohen about some of her experiences and I would still like to conduct further research on this subject.

6 Eilon Schwartz, At Home in the World: Human Nature, Ecological Thought & Education after Darwin (SUNY Press, 2010).

7 http://sciencereligiondialogue.s379.upress.link/?lang=en.

8 Jonathan Sacks, The Great Partnership (New York: Schocken Books, 2011), 232.

9 Sacks, The Great Partnership, 219.

10 Joseph B. Soloveitchik, The Emergence of Ethical Man, ed. Michael S. Berger (Jersey City: Ketav, 2005). For a summary of some of this material, see https://www.jewishideas.org/article/darwin-and-rabbis-understandings-divine-image-evolved-world.

11 Ibid., 12.

12 Ibid., 47.

13 Ibid., 5.

14 On this see for instance, Peter Harrison, The Territories of Science and Religion (University of Chicago Press, 2015).

15 One wonderful example of a book that aims to bring greater understanding among political and religious rivals is: Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (Harlow: Penguin Books, 2013).

16 “A Dangerous Idea: The History of Eugenics in America” National Constitution Center 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rt1YWvV1fA.

17 See, for instance, Malik’s Text (Islam and Evolution), 297.

18 Michael J. Reiss, “Science and Religion: Implications for Science Educators,” Cultural Studies of Science Education 5 (2010): 91–101. And, see Malik’s diagram on p. 186 for comparison of the analyses.

19 Ibid., 95–7.

20 Personal communication with Michael Reiss via email, July 2023.

21 Pew Research Center, Israel’s religiously divided society, part 7 – Education, Values and Science https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/03/08/education-values-and-science/ March 8, 2016 (accessed May 21, 2023).

22 Rachel S. A. Pear, Meir Klein, and Dov Berger, “Report from the Field: A Pilot Project on the Teaching of Jewish Views of Evolution in Israel,” International Journal of Jewish Education Research 25, no. 8 (2015): 59–66.

23 Rachel S. A. Pear, Dov Berger, and Meir Klein, “Religious and scientific instruction on evolution and origins in Israeli schools,” Religious Education, 115, no. 3 (2020): 323–33.

24 Rachel S. A. Pear, Nigmeh Abu Toameh Kadan, and Israel Belfer, “The Place of Evolution in Israeli Natural History Museums and Public Discourse” in Most Adaptable to Change: Evolution and Religion in Global Popular Media, ed. Alexander Hall and Will Mason-Wilkes (forthcoming).

25 https://talkingpeace.org.il/.

26 For a fascinating example of analysis from this perspective, see Avinoam Rosenak and Sharon Leshem Zinger, “Narrativism and the Unity of Opposites: Theory, Practice, and Exegesis: A Study of Three Stories from the Talmud,” Religions 10 (2019): 367.

27 David C. Owens et al., “Scientific and Religious Perspectives on Evolution in the Curriculum: An Approach Based on Pedagogy of Difference,” Research in Science Education 48, no. 6 (2018): 1171–86.

28 Abraham Joshua Heschel, Between God and Man: An Interpretation of Judaism, from the Writings of Abraham J. Heschel. ed. F. Rothschild (New York: Free Press, 1959), 233–41.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid.

31 Jonathan Grossman, Creation: The Story of Beginnings (Miskal-Yediot Achronoth Books, 2017), 74–79. There is also an English translation of the book (Maggid, 2019). I would like to thank Baruch Sterman for bringing my attention to this source and additional conversations regarding this manuscript.

32 Rachel S. A. Pear and Shoaib A. Malik, “Categorizations of the Interface of Evolution and Religion,” Cultural Studies of Science Education 17 (2022): 625–34.

33 There is now work underway by Naomi Kloosterboer regarding how it is possible to take an even wider range of views seriously, see e.g. https://www.ozsw.nl/event-calendar/ultima-talk-naomi-kloosterboer/.