69 of 73 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Simple and straightforward, August 22, 2001
This review is from: Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible (Paperback)
I will not attempt to add fuel to the debate as to whether or not Dr. Schroeder has a valid arguement by reason of proofs. He has done that quite well himself. This was one of the best books I have read in recent years and having read it after "The Science of God" I found it to be much more basic. In fact, I feel this work to be a wonderful starting point for the layperson being introduced to the possible truth that 6 days and 15 billion years are both the correct timing for the creation of the universe.
One great aspect of Dr. Schroeder's works is his "silent encouragement" for readers to seek out the truth. The fact that he doesn't just pick up any Bible and attempt to glean his hypothesis from present translations but rather has a deep understanding of the Hebrew and Greek languages it was written in is refreshing. One thing science tends to do is dismiss religion in general and Christianity in particular without studying it as deeply as it would, for example a rock formation or new bacteria. This is rather hypocritical. Religion on the same token is no better. I often hear educated men with doctorates stand behind a pulpit and chop science to bits without any real knowledge of what they are discussing. Religious leaders who dismiss science away as God's way of sending confusion into the world, but at the same time find it easy to believe the words of their doctor (medicine is a science) or their computer technician (computer science) are rather hypocritical themselves. People from all walks of life and with all types of beliefs tend to "pick and choose" their own version of the truth and perpetuate it as long as possible. Until everyone puts down their stereotypes and digs deeper into the "truth" as a whole, we will forever wage this complex if not childish battle between science and religion.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
84 of 92 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Finally, an approach in the right direction!, April 12, 2000
This review is from: Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible (Paperback)
Schroeder's insight helps to bridge the gap between science and the bible (particularly Genesis). After the first days of creation, the bible very much follows the geological and historical record, so why is Genesis so seemingly out of alignment? (for me, this has always been a tough nut to crack) This book presents a viable explanation of the reconciliation of the two opposing viewpoints, utilizing astrophysics, the Theory of Relativity, and the theory of the Big Bang to hypothesize a secular model that might overlay on the traditional theistic belief of the six days of creation. I urge people to weigh the reviews here carefully because there are several negative reviews here that might have caused me to skip over this book. Some seem to suggest incompetence on the part of the author and/or mistakes, but none offers any substantial explanation. I am not a Ph.D., but I have a decent background in physics and while this book may be based on principals and equations that are not for the layman, Schroeder does an excellent job of presenting the case for a marriage of the secular and theistic viewpoints that anyone can easily grasp. He is also an unquestionable authority in his field, with an impeccable reputation.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
35 of 36 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Are modern views of Genesis right?, February 22, 2001
This review is from: Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible (Paperback)
It's pretty good. I don't agree with everything he says, but I don't agree with everything I say.
The best thing about his book is that he relies only on the best and most reputable scientists and theologians (albeit almost exclusively Jewish). He never quotes crackpots or weirdoes or makes outlandish claims.
The worst thing about his book is that he says "Maimonides says" and "Nahmonides says" (two important Jewish commentators) but he rarely quotes the guys. We're just supposed to take his word on it.
But if what he claims is true, I want to read Maimonides' commentary and Genesis and his "Guide to the Perplexed." Supposedly (back in the 10th century, I'm pretty sure) Maimonides said, based only on his exegesis of Genesis, that there were man-like creatures before Adam, that the entire universe was created from something smaller than a mustard seed, that the six days are not comprehensible according to our time-scale (which makes sense, since how can you have a day before you have a sun?), and a whole list of other things that are remarkably consistent with modern scientific views.
Anyway, there's a lot there and it's fairly interesting. It also provides a pretty good overview of the history and development of the universe.
He has three big points.
+ Secularists have to quit kidding themselves. The physical constants and properties of the universe are so carefully fine-tuned to create the conditions necessary for life that it speaks of design, and that the sudden appearance of life on earth -- basically as soon as conditions would permit -- is so horribly improbable as to be impossible.
+ Biblical fundamentalists have to quit kidding themselves. (He says he wrote this book for his son who was taught in Hebrew school that the world was made in six days no matter what those scientists say.) The evidence for an old earth, pre-Adam hominids, change in species over time, etc., is unquestionable. He doesn't really address the flood and he says the punctuated model of evolution is the only reasonable one -- and again he says the driving force behind these "punctuations" can't be chance. He seems to favor the view that living systems are designed with an inherent ability to adapt and change, and that these spurts in evolution are kinda already there (as far as information potential is concerned), waiting for the right circumstance to make them happen.
It seems reasonable to me to say that living systems have an innate ability to change (in their descendants, anyway) to survive in changing conditions, and that this innate ability is the stuff that natural selection works on. IOW, the design of living systems deals with the fact that environments aren't stable, so they are pre-programmed to adapt.
It seems absolutely impossible to me to say that this ability to change is not designed. There's simply too much information and intelligence there. And I suspect that we've only scratched the surface of the complexity of life. Just as with elementary particles, the deeper we dig into the stuff of life, the more complex and amazing it will become.
His third point is that ...
+ All of this is consistent with a traditional reading of Genesis -- that the "sages" (as he calls them) had hints and glimmers of this before science discovered any of it.
I'd like to learn more about that last point, but from several things I've read recently (see, e.g., Genesis Unbound by Sailhamer -- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0880708689/gregkrehbishomep) it seems that the modern approach to Genesis is atypical in the history of Christian and Jewish thought, and may be more of a knee-jerk reaction to Darwinism than anything else. I suppose that's why the RCC has made accommodating statements about evolution. The traditional interpretation of Genesis (so these guys say) really doesn't say that it was six, 24-hour days, etc.
One funny thing about the book is that the author says it really is six, 24-hour days, but from God's frame of reference. He says that it's silly to talk about an absolute age of the universe because time has no absolute meaning -- it all depends on your frame of reference.
It's pretty interesting stuff. In the very end he makes some weird theological points, but I'm not that familiar with the ins and outs of contemporary Jewish theology, so maybe it's normal Jewish thought.
Greg
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
