As mentioned, the above letter was widely circulated and sent to various individuals. One of those individuals, Dr. Hillel Goldstein, wrote the following letter with his comments, to Rabbi Nissan Mindel, who subsequently gave the letter to the Rebbe.
B"H, October 23, 1962 [25 Tishrei 5723]
New York 53, New York
Rabbi Nissan Mindel
770 Eastern Parkway
Brooklyn, New York
Dear Rabbi Mindel,
I was very glad of the opportunity to renew your acquaintance Sunday evening. As I mentioned at the time, Rabbi Raichick has urged me to send you my comments on the widely circulated letter of Rabbi Schneerson dated the 18th of Tevet, 5722. Needless to say, I am in full sympathy with the aims of the letter.
But I must confess that I am troubled by certain portions of the letter particularly those that deal with science on its own ground. As I understand the letter, it contains in part the thesis that the scientific theories concerning the dating of the World are refuted by their own internal weaknesses and inconsistencies, that in short—they are “bad science.” The validity of such a thesis must be judged by the standards and criteria set up by the scientific method itself for evaluating the strength of any theory, independent of considerations outside of science. My remarks will be confined to these questions of science, for only there do I feel at all qualified to make any comment.
The material in the letter dealing with science can be further divided into general discussions on the nature of science or the scientific method and statements about specific scientific theories and observations. Some of the general discussion I can heartily applaud, such as the emphasis that scientific theories never pretend to give the ultimate truths. Some I can only deplore, as a rather gratuitous attack on the personal motives of scientists in the paragraph beginning “You may now ask...” But can offer little comment on most of the general description of the scientific approach, especially that part from “Basically, the problem...” to “For further illustration...”, because I have serious doubts whether I understand what was meant in these sections. All I can say from what little I grasp of these paragraphs is that they seem to imply a picture that bears little relation to the scientific method I am familiar with from my study and daily work. It is therefore only in regard to the specific scientific statements that I can offer any detailed comments.
In the paragraph beginning “For further illustration...” a chemical reaction is described as ‘fissional or fusional’ and mention is made of the phenomenon of catalysis. The terms ‘fission’ or ‘fusion’ can only be applied to nuclear, not chemical reactions and indeed only to a limited class of nuclear reactions. On the other hand—catalysis, when present, occurs only in chemical, not nuclear, reactions.
The paragraph following contains the statement that scientists know very little about the interactions of isolated atoms or subatomic particles. I don’t understand the relevance of this statement to theories about the dating of the World, but it is in any case far from accurate. It is closer to the situation to say that the major part of physics research in this century has been concerned, experimentally and theoretically, with the interactions of individual units ranging from atoms to the most elementary particles now known.
It is twice stated that conditions of pressure, temperature and radioactivity in the early periods of the history of the Universe were “totally different” from those existing today. The present theories of the history of the World imply even at quite early stages environmental conditions which have for the most part either been duplicated in the laboratory or observed in natural phenomena. I’m not sure I understand what is meant by the sweeping but vague phrase “totally different.” But under the circumstances, neither it nor the equally sweeping phrase “universally admitted by all scientists” seems applicable.
The adjective “cataclystic” is used in several places as a well-known characteristic of certain environmental conditions, particularly radioactivity. I understand the word is a misprint for “cataclysmic”. But the term does not seem at all appropriate. There is no evidence that any radioactive element produces the violent geological upheavals or changes that are called cataclysms and certainly not when present in only small amounts.
In several places the present theories of the early stages of the Universe are said to involve the process of “colligation” and “conglomeration”. These are not standard scientific terms and I am unable to identify them with any of the presently proposed theories of the formation of the elements.
I will refrain from commenting about the statements on the biological aspects of evolution since this does not lie in my area of specialization. But there is one further general and important observation that can be made still within the realm of purely physical phenomena. Throughout the letter there is confusion, or at least lack of clear distinction, between cosmology, which deals with the structure and evolution of the Universe and geochronology—which is concerned with the dating of portions of the Earth, particularly in its crust. If one wishes to view that the World is 5723 years old (according to the years which we count now) then a discussion of cosmology is largely irrelevant and something of a red herring. The crucial point to consider is provided by theories of geochronology in the form of the statement “There exist in and on the crust of the Earth objects and geological formations whose age in terms of physically observable clocks is many times 5723 years.” Judged solely by the internal criteria of science, this [is] not a “weak” theory; on the contrary, it is quite well supported. Indeed, I know of no existing piece of evidence admissible by the standards of scientific reasoning which in any way contradicts or is inconsistent with this statement.
I hope that my motive in making these remarks will not be misunderstood. The principle “Know what to answer the apikores” is one to which I subscribe with all my heart. I firmly believe that proper and convincing answers for the apikores can be provided for our youth, especially if they have adequate education in the sciences. But I am deeply concerned lest the letter, by its misstatements about science, have the opposite effect from what was intended and in the end, serve only to add fuel to the attacks of the scoffers.
With my best wishes for peace and success in the New Year,
Sincerely,
Herbert Goldstein
Avos 2:14.
