The Science of God

Rating:
Summary: Too much Kabalah and not enough bible.
Review: Dr. Schroeders books are generally well written. Scientific facts are generally presented clearly and just enough without going too much into the deep. However, he leans too much on the Kabalah and 'traditional' interpretations which are not recorded in the Bible to make his points. This tendency detracts from his material for those from Christian or Jewish backgrounds who uphold the Bible or Torah as the supreme writings to believe.

His hypothesis of the age of the universe mapped into the six days of Genesis was given enough coverage but is still tenuous as the equations themselves cannot be proven 100%. Nothing but direct observation can confirm what he accepts and promotes in this mapping of time.

Rating:
Summary: insightful
Review: I thoroughly enjoyed this book from start to finish. It took me several weeks to read because of all the material I had to digest. I will say now that no I did not agree with 100% of Mr. Schroeder's views, however, it opened up my mind to some of the answers I had been looking for. As with any book I read, some of it you discard and some of it you retain in your mind as another piece of the puzzle. Rarely does anyone read a book on God and completely agree with it. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is searching for answers about God and creation. It helped bridge the gap between science and my faith in a personal God.

Rating:
Summary: Thought Provoking
Review: There are some issues described in this book and others that I do not agree to, other than the book was well written. It seemed to explain using Einstein's relativity that 6 days could equal 15.75 billion years, it shows that Evolution is not contradictory to the Bible. I recommend this book to anyone not knowing if they should accept Darwinism or the Big Bang, or any anyone or has thought the only conclusion from these is atheism, which it is definately not.

Rating:
Summary: Good read, well worth the time needed to read.
Review: Schroeder's book presents clear arguments that the Bible's explanations of the beginning can be explained with modern science particularly the physical and cosmological views. His arguments on the biological are good but to me were not as compelling. He shows in reason detail the parallels and backs up his arguments with numerous other sources, in particular the works of other scientists of today and many Biblical scholars. I found the references to the Torah, the Hebrew translations and the many Rabbis of great interest. I believe that any one who is interested in the Bible and if or how modern science can be used to explain the beginning will find this a valuable read.

Rating:
Summary: Cool book
Review: This book is good to read. If you are interested in connections between Genesis and the Big Bang Theory together, then read it. His ideas are loosely supported and should be taken as ideas that you can keep locked up somewhere for future reference, not dogmatic laws of the cosmos. All in all, it's a quick good read with some neato ideas.

I didn't notice any huge errors in this book, but if you check the numbers he does tend to round off. I guess since the value of the hubble constant is still in doubt his ideas are probably still valid.

Rating:
Summary: refreshing
Review: this book was an excellent change of pace from many books which unlike this, attempt to prove the existence of God. Schroeder, instead of doing the scientifically impossible, and theologically irrational, in trying to "prove" God, rather simply provides a reassuring insight into how modern science does not contradict, or disprove God, and that it is possible to be both a good scientist and believe in God. his physics are a bit complex, but the scientific community seems to be the intended audience, and yet even a high school student would be able to understand the basic concepts of his arguments. over all i think that this is a wonderful book that finally expresses my longstanding sentiment that if the church and science would simply take a while to listen to one another, they would see that there need be no conflict.

Rating:
Summary: More Poor Scholarship
Review: "The Science of God" is another example of the combination of wishful thinking and poor scholarship.

One example of this is Schroeder's misleading characterization of Richard Dawkins. Schroeder dismisses Darwinian evolution (as presented by Dawkins in "The Blind Watchmaker") by claiming that randomness cannot generate meaningful order. In dismissing Dawkins, he states, "Convergent evolution by random mutations of the DNA nucleotides becomes statistically so highly improbable as to be functionally impossible."

In fact, Dawkins never claims that ramdomness is the primary driving force in evolution. In "The Blind Watchmaker," page 49, Dawkins states unequivocally, "Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom."

Schroeder, in beginning with a cherished position and then elaborately constructing a shaky supporting framework by setting up a straw man in Richard Dawkins, does a disservice to both science and religion.

"The Science of God" does not deserve any stars, but one star was the bottom choice. "The Blind Watchmaker," on the other hand is a delight to read and qualifies as "real science." I recommend you read that instead.

Rating:
Summary: A thought-provoking examination of the Bible
Review: I bought this book because I had the honor of seeing Dr. Schroeder lecture, and was fascinated by what he had to say. I am a Reform Jew, who believes the Torah was written by human beings. My companion to this lecture was an Orthodox Yeshiva student, who has never questioned the divine nature of the Bible. Incredibly, Dr. Schroeder found things to say which inspired both of us. I felt I had no choice but to buy and read this book.

I will not say that this book revolutionized my views on religion. I did not abandon my Reform doctrines and race to join my friend's Yeshiva. Nevertheless, what Dr. Schroeder writes provokes thought, and, perhaps more importantly, provokes a re-evaluation. It is too easy for me to say, "all this God-stuff is nonsense," just as it was easy for my Yeshiva friend to insist that all science that contradicts Torah is just sophistry.

I do not agree with everything in this book. I am not even sure that the basic premise of it is sound. But I think everyone should read it. I guarantee it will change the way you view both religion and science (for better or worse).

Rating:
Summary: James O. Dritt got it backwards
Review: He explaination of Schroeder making a mistake actaully stated it exactly as it happened according to the book. At the center of the universe, time was moving much slower due to the intense gravitational forces after the big bang. Time on "earth" was moving much faster yeilding the millions and millions of years for the directed evolution. Viewed from the center of the universe, a day had passed on earth, but on earth, millions of years were passing.

Rating:
Summary: A tremendous effort
Review: This book is far from perfect. It has some reasoning that is a bit ad-hoc. However, as a whole it is filled w/great information. It is an especially good book for atheists who believe they have it all figured out. From reading some of the negative reviews that accused Schroeder of being a bad scientist for believing in God, I must question their reason for reading the book in the first place (if they did, in fact read it). Also, it seems to me that people who are so narrow minded are doing nothing more than manipulating the terms. In other words, to them, being a good scientist = being an atheist. Even if your theories are incoherent & non-sensical, you're still a great scientist so long as you disbelieve in God. (Richard Dawkins would be a great representative of this motif). On the other hand, being a believer = being a bad scientist (or pseudo scientist). Even if you make revolutionary insights into the nature of the universe, but believe in God (Albert Einstein and Sir Isaac Newton would be examples of this), you are STILL bad scientists - by default. Now, if one rids oneself of silly pre-suppositions such as this, he might just learn something from Schroeder's book. If not, then there is no reason to read it. Furthermore, there is no reason to read any book as it means that the individual who subscribes to such an absurd set of "rules" has closed his mind to reason. One of the things this book does quite well is dis-inter so much "embarrasing" data that the august "scientific community" has decided to sweep under the rug. The Wistar Institute is a great example of this. Contrary to popular belief, science is hardly an "objective enterprise seeking the truth." To the contrary, metaphysical pre-suppositions run amok & theories are often based on them more than the data itself. Any philosopher of science knows this all too well. Thoughtful people who choose to read this book may find out as much for themselves.