Re: The Science of God

Robin Mandell (
Sun, 06 Dec 1998 09:53:59 -0600

At 04:39 AM 12/6/98 PST, Adam Crowl wrote:
>>Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 09:18:11 +0100
>>Subject: The Science of God
>Sorry for the late response Ole. Gerald Schroeder's book is an expansion
>of his "Genesis and the Big Bang". Both examine the evidence for God as
>active and obvious in the process of evolution, creation and the Bible's
>[specifically the Torah, since Schroeder is a Jew] formation. He first
>tries to reconcile the six days of Genesis with the ~15.75 billion years
>since the Big Bang. He doesn't present the exact cosmological model that
>he uses. Instead he merely assumes a geometrically decreasing series of
>periods for each day and postualtes that God's clock would read "six
>days" even if Earth time clocks it in the billions of years. A kind of
>reversal of Russell Humphrey's "white hole cosmology" which tries to age
>the Universe billions of years while six days passes from a terrestrial
>perspective. The lines of demarkation between the "days" in the Earth's
>geological history contain egregious errors. He places the creation of
>land animals after the Permian Catastrophe - even though mammal-like
>reptiles were abundant prior! I suggested, on the "Torah and Science"
>web-page, that he redate the beginning of that day to the appearance of
>the amniotes.
>The rest of his book casts doubt on the standard materialist picture of
>evolution by using the usual arguments about improbability and lack of
>transitional fossils. It also uses the findings of various researchers
>that the names of famous rabbis are encoded in the Torah - the original
>"Bible Code". Neither argument convinces me, though the rabbinic names
>thing is interesting. By usual ASA usage we could call him a strong
>concordist - Genesis and science must agree at all costs. I like his
>discussion of various Hebrew words in Genesis, and his use of the
>opinions of the sages is interesting, though he could also mention the
>Universe's age calculation that gets discussed at the "Torah and
>Science" page.
> All in all his work is interesting and annoying - his insights are
>helpful, but his errors are painful. He knows his physics and Talmud,
>but his biology and palaeontology stinks. I like his ideas, but I remain
>sceptical, especially when he insists on dating Adam to 3761 BCE. He's
>trying to create a middle ground between fundamentalism [of the Orthodox
>Jewish variety] and science, and that deserves recognition.
Hi Adam,
I liked and disliked Schroeder's books for pretty much the same as above
though I didn't catch the early mammal bit cause I not that raed up on
dates yet.Thanks for the review. Being a jew and a follower of Christ
myself I guess hearing the old sources give freedom to various outlooks on
the beginings is reassuring.(too bad they had such a hard time seeing the
messiah but they are in the hands of a most trustworthy judge now )Anyway,
one last question.I was pretty lost in the math in ch. 4. Is he arbitraily
picking these day lengths or is there some objective correlation he is
lining up with.I think my grasp of physics is so poor that I can't form the
question well.Is there a solid idea in his time frame or is it all just
numbers you can crunch at will.I am not really that high on strong
concordance I am just curious and want to get this a little better.Thanks
p.s. Where did you see Schroeder strongly backing the bible codes? I must
have missed that and would not have expected him to.>