In our Gemara on Amud Aleph, an intriguing expression is employed to delineate the liabilities incurred by an ox that gores, as opposed to one that tramples or eats, and causes damage. The distinction lies in the fact that when the animal eats or tramples, it possesses no "intention" to cause harm, whereas when the ox gores, it "intends" to cause damage. You might wonder if the English word "intent" is a poor translation of the Aramaic term, but the Aramaic/Hebrew word used in the Gemara is "Kavanna," and it is used in the same precise manner. Describing the actions of animals as intentional is not how we think of animals. How should we understand this description?

It appears that the Rabbis of the Gemara were not constrained by the sometimes arbitrary classifications of scientific terminology. I do not believe rabbinic or Biblical Hebrew employs a specific term for self-awareness or consciousness, as they did not evaluate animals through that lens. Nevertheless, they did consider humans to possess superior intelligence, primarily due to their ability to express themselves through language (see Targum Bereishis 2:7, Rashi, and Mizrachi). However, the intention to cause harm, while not seen as a sign of high intelligence, was viewed as the product of a being with some thought process, at least capable of wanting to cause damage and carrying out that desire. According to the Rabbis, an ox is indeed capable of intention.

This specific intention is not sophisticated. The ox did not "intend" to build a fusion reactor; as this ox is no rocket scientist but it did intend to cause damage and succeeded with its plan. Destruction is much easier than construction or repair, and so even an ox can accomplish this. This principle holds true in the emotional world as well as the physical world, reminiscent of the second law of thermodynamics. This law states that the total entropy of a system either increases or remains constant in any spontaneous process; it never decreases. It flows from more organized to less organized, making it easier to destroy than to build.

Speaking of entropy, as religious individuals, it's worth noting that one of the strongest arguments in favor of Creationism is the absence of any example in physics of a naturally occurring reversal of entropy. While I may not be proficient in math or physics, I understand that local entropy may decrease, but never without an overall increase of entropy in the Universe. This implies that while a bird can build a nest or fertilized eggs can grow into chicks, the energy involved in these activities dissipates further, even if locally we hatched an egg. Understanding the immutability of entropic flow, means that the all-encompassing organization required to shape the Universe could not have spontaneously occurred; there had to be an organizing force. Similarly, in the context of Evolution, while we can conceptually agree that a random mutation might result in improved offspring, the overall trend would be toward disorganization and devolution. Our Sages respected this idea, taking it for granted that earlier generations were wiser, holier, and, biblically speaking, lived longer because they were closer to the original organizing and life-giving force of God's creation. It is practically implausible to believe that matter spontaneously organized itself and science in many ways confirms this.