Physics Science

Several have said that this book is completely unconvincing for various reasons. The reasons tend to be as follows:

1. The author quotes non-Biblical sources such as Kabbalistic writings, therefore they have no relevance to the Bible.

2. The author does not read the Bible in a literal fashion from a person’s perspective on Earth (and that’s what the Bible was intended to be, damn it!).

3. The author is an idiot because he is trying to prove the existence of God, and it’s clear God doesn’t exist.

4. This book is no more than this person’s opinion, and therefore has no value.

Each of these reasons contains a kernel of truth, but little more. All of them show inconsistency in reasoning. To refute:

1. The non-Biblical sources such as commentary on Scripture CAN be true, even though they are not the primary source, i.e., the Bible itself. The logic in point one is presented thusly:

a. The Bible is true.

b. Source A is not the Bible.

c. Ergo, Source A is not true.

This is a non sequitur fallacy that implies that only the Bible contains truth, and everything else is false. Even the Bible itself says that there are things (specifically, other miracles of Christ) not mentioned in the Bible. Other works besides the Bible can be sources of truth, even if those works are not divinely inspired. (Example of inconsistency in reasoning in this logic: most who agree with number 1 will claim the above and then read other authors like Billy Graham or Hal Lindsey. If the writings of Billy Graham can contain truth, why not the writings of Josephus or the writings of Rambam?)

2. The whole point of this book is to attempt to square the text of the Bible with modern science. To those who would say that the author is out of bounds by interpreting the six-day creation story as being six days from God’s perspective (as opposed to the perspective of someone on Earth), let’s look at another passage. Is the bread and wine at the Last Supper LITERALLY the Body and Blood of Christ, or only symbolic? Most who hold to the logic evinced by point 2 would say that the Six Days were six days as we understand them, but that the bread and wine were only symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood. once again, this is inconsistent reasoning. Incidentally, as a Catholic, I believe that the bread and wine, are, in fact, the actual Body and Blood after the Consecration. Also, nothing in the Bible says that EVERY word in the Bible is absolutely literal, so to assume otherwise violates the (also unbiblical, yet ironically assumed by many) tenet of Sola Scriptura.

3. If you accept premise number 3, you are no scientist. Theists, atheists, and agnostics can all be good scientists. Since we cannot disprove the existence of God, it is an irresponsible (and unscientific) person who claims that only atheists can be real scientists. We are free to discuss problems in logic of the various religions, but to dismiss out of hand the possiblity of the existence of a Creator is to be in denial.

4. This may be the most ridiculous premise of all. Of course this book is only this man’s opinion. He does not claim it to be a religious text. He only says that he is trying to find a way to reconcile what seem to be completely exclusive opinions. Also, in the same vein, of course his postulates are untestable. So is Darwin’s theory of evolution, as it would take millions of years from now for us to observe any real macroevolution. That does not mean that Darwin was wrong, nor does it mean that this author is wrong. On the other hand, Einstein’s theory of relativity has been tested. Without a counterexample, it cannot logically be assumed to be false. Certain parts of evolutionary theory, such as microevolution, HAVE been tested and shown to be true as well.

I, as I said, am a Catholic. In reading this book, I find my faith greatly strengthened. Not because this man or his work is specifically Catholic in nature (I think he is an Israeli Jew), but because his work lends scientific backing and independent credibility to what the Catholic Church has always taught. St. Augustine, in the 4th century AD, said that we should always have “faith seeking understanding”. He also said that if science or OUR UNDERSTANDING of Scripture are at odds, then one of them is incorrect. For many years, Creationists have said that science was wrong, and Evolutionists have said that Scripture was wrong. What is beautiful about this book, is that it shows that both of these groups could be wrong about their assumptions, and all the while both groups could be right about their core beliefs. Does this mean that both might have to modify their worldviews to accept this thesis? Yes, however, this modification neither endangers faith nor science, but should strengthen both. Because of the fact that Catholic teaching is bolstered by these ideas, this is definitely a must-read for Catholics. Actually, I think it is a must-read for all who seek truth.

Those who say that nothing in this book changes their minds about anything (unless, of course, they already agree 100% with the author), are either not actually reading the book, or their minds are SO closed that they believe they already know everything worth knowing. (If the latter is the case, why bother reading? Reading a book only to create a straw man is not evidence of a person seeking truth, but only that of a person with a closed mind. Only God knows everything.)

Obviously, as this man is not God, nor is inspired directly by Him, this work is not perfect. But it is definitely gourmet food for thought.
Rating: 5 / 5

As a scientist in an ongoing search for truth, I have been disappointed by ham-handed efforts of the creation crowd to cling to extreme minority viewpoints of credentialed scientists from diverse fields of science that would collectively be required to support a *literal* interpretation of Genesis. Similarly, I have been mystified by scientists who reflexively dismiss the idea of some kind of intelligent design outright by way of circular reasoning, arguing that since intelligent design can never be disproven, it is not scientific and thus could not be truth, since only science can properly assess truth.

It is hard to understate, then, the moxie of Schroeder’s innovative attempt to reconcile with Genesis scientifically DOMINANT paradigms (i.e. universe many billions of years old, terrestrial life hundreds of millions of years old, species variation to extensive degree by alteration or differential expression of genes). Schroeder introduces his intent thus: “In the following chapters, I attempt to avoid the subjective tendency of bending Bible to match science or science to match Bible.” (softcover p.19) Whether he was successful or not is in the eye of the reader, but the explicit intent is refreshing.

This book, then, would be of particular interest to two groups:

1) Scientists who wonder how their mainstream conclusions could possibly be reconciled with ancient accounts of creation from the Hebrew Torah.

2) Jews and Christians who are discomforted by the apparent incompatability between the text of their faith versus the observed truth about our planet and universe as collected and interpreted by the VAST MAJORITY of professional scientists.

The prime example of this reconciliation is Schroeder’s attempt to fit a 15-billion year old universe with the six-day account of Genesis by arguing that: 1) from a collective, “Creation-wide” perspective, time advanced differently in the primordial hot universe (time dilation), and 2) that “days” in the ancient hebrew text only adopted the terrestrial perception (instead of universal perception) of time passage upon the creation of man late in the “creation” process.

Later chapters address other issues, such as the likelihood that genetic variation by mutation at rates observed in today’s laboratories (or even much greater rates) were sufficient to generate the speciation evidenced in the fossil record within the abbreviated time-frame indicated by the fossil record itself.

By virtue of his theological background and professional training (MIT-trained physicist), Schroeder is uniquely qualified to attempt such a reconciliation. However, as evidenced by several previous reviews, this training is not enough– at least not enough to win over skeptical scientists. It may be that the sheer enormity of burgeoning data within each of the fields (molecular genetics, population genetics, paleontology, geology, as well as cosmology and particle physics) is simply too great for one individual to incorporate into solid perspective within *each and every* discipline to present an airtight case on all scientific fronts.

Previous reviewers have asserted gross inaccuracies with the science presented in this book. As a clinical neuroscientist, I am not in a position to assault or defend Schroeder on evolution, genetics, particle physics or cosmology. However, I would argue against throwing the baby out with the bathwater. For example, the latest data on cosmic background radiation indicates an accelerating expansion of the universe, and an approximate age of 13.7 billion years instead of the 15 Schroeder cites. Must this nullify the core of his whole premise? Maybe so, but not enough to discard this book out of hand.

The strength of this work is in its innovation. Schroeder rightly notes that the Bible is silent on many subjects, and actually leaves room for many observed phenomena, such as speciation and niche-filling by DNA alteration. It is only the rigid mindset of many religious individuals that closes this possibility.

The weaknesses of the book lie in the specific physical science undergirding Schroeder’s arguments, as well as in his over-reliance on conjecture. I thus was left with the same mind-set I had before I read the book, namely that the simplest explanation for why the Genesis account is not borne out by the findings of mainstream science is that Genesis was inspired and spoke great *truth* on a metaphorical and didactic level– but not at a literal level.

On the whole, I found it a fascinating read. In accord with previous reviewers, I liken this effort to a Model-T. Crude in the light of today, yet innovative at its introduction, with the potential to be honed with further investment in this line of reasoning. This whole line of inquiry would benefit enormously by some kind of COLLABORATIVE work, with each chapter penned by a bona-fide expert in that field of the physical sciences, where this expert can build a much more solid case in conjunction with the totality of data in his or her field. I could even envision anonymous contribution, inasmuch as publicly arguing for some kind of intelligent designer is probably not conducive to garnering tenure in the Paleontology Department of Secular State University….
Rating: 4 / 5

Schroeder’s book does a superb job of evoking new thought on this subject and ongoing debate of exactly how God created the earth. There are many theories, such as Day-Age, Gap, Flood and Literal-24 Hour Day. But, Schroeder brings another idea into the equation, that of Einstein’s relativity. A very interesting read.

While Schroeder’s scientific approach is novel, his theological sources are suspect. Maimonides, a 13th century Jewish philosopher, was one of his major sources for theology. Conservative Christian teachings of all congregations today would disagree with these ideas. Nahmanides, also from the 13th century, was a Jewish Biblical commentator and kabbalist. His ideas are closer to today’s beliefs, but both of these sources were in a theological no-man’s land of time. They were far removed from the authors, the cultural/linguistic aspects behind the Torah of Scripture and they did not benefit from the scholarship of the past 150 years. While these are good sources of reading, they are not the place to rest ideas of theology regarding Creation because of these issues.

Schroeder brings up a SUPERB observation regarding those involved in the debate of Creationism versus Atheistic Macro-Evolution. Very few people involved in the debate are highly knowledgeable regarding both sides of the argument. Most scientists have a “high-school level” or lower understanding of theology and most supporters of Biblical Creationism have the same level of understanding of science. Very few are well-versed in both.

Schroeder delves deep into scientific discussion supporting Creation and Biblical accounts. This is interesting and is much too deep for those not trained in science. There is some superb theory put forth, but this is really for graduate level study.

This is not the book to start an investigation in the theories of Creation and Evolution, but after much reading, this could be an interesting book to read to get deeper inputs.
Rating: 3 / 5