Rating: 
Summary: More than just an 'interesting' read
Review: I began this book one evening and couldn't put it down until it was finished about four or five in the morning. Page after page I was dazzled by logic and reason that defied everything I knew about literal Creationism, and scientific evolution. What happened was, the layers of comfortable acceptance of traditional views were peeled back, and I realized for the first time that in my heart, they had been merely ideas, accepted because "they" told me so.
Schroeder's book scared me. For the first time in my life I suddenly *knew* that the biblical creation account was true. It was no longer just a because-the-Bible-says-so acceptance.
Far too many religious people shun scientific examination of their faith, locking themselves in ivory towers where even facts and evidence can "go to hell", if it disagrees with their traditional understanding. Scientists really have found evidence of a universe billions of years old though. Do we just shove our heads in the sand and ignore it?
We no longer need to. Gerald Shroeder's book makes perfect sense of both science and religion, without detracting from the purity and truth of either of them. He doesn't have to; the truth is, God really did create in six days the universe scientists now understand to be billions of years old, and the Genesis account describes this creation to the letter. There is no contradiction. It's enough to make you cry.
Both science-oriented readers and believers will be shaken up by this book, because ultimately it gives honour to God who created all science. It's essentially a search for the whole truth, and that's something we should all respect.
Rating:
Summary: A wonderful book, and a must read.
Review: 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: 
Summary: Very interesting, but...............
Review: I have to agree with others that this book does little in convincing or even reconciling any disparate views between science and religion. Obviously Mr. Schroeder is a man of strong faith, but possibly even stronger scientific beliefs. He seems to be trying to prove to himself that they can both reside peacefully in his mind.
His book deals only with a few aspects of the Hebrew bible, mainly the book of Genesis, (ie; the creation of the universe in 6 "days" and of creation of man (Adam)). As well there is a philosopical explanation of the nature of God, a paleontologic explanation of Adam (and Eve?) with respect to Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man, a biologic and quantum mechanical explanation of free will, and on it goes.
"Proven" scientific facts are never disputed and even the theory of evolution (albeit modified) is admitted to. But unlike other enlightened scientists Mr Shroeder appears to take the Bible literallly at it's word, no allegory or parables here. Hence he goes on to show how Adam was "created" 6000 years ago (by Bible estimates) and how that relates to known facts of early hominids (150,000-40,000 b.c.e.) and evolution. How the 400 to 900 year ages of early biblical figures are actual. And although he admits the account of Noah and the flood has problems he does not discredit it.
There is a LOT of interesting physics and mathematics in the book, although I must admit it was way over my head, so he could have proven to me that the earth was flat. And a lot of just plain good scientific research (he knows a lot about a lot). But in the end it just didn't gel into a believable "scientific" theory of God, just a slew of interesting assumptions.
A couple of far reaching assumptions made me question the authors reasoning. One was a reference to archaeopteryx (a reptile/bird evolutionary link of the late Jurassic period) which he states is mentioned in the book of Leviticus as "tinshemet" in a list of animals that are considered ritually pure or impure. I wondered why an animal which had been extinct for 100 million years would be mentioned as fit or unfit for sacrifice. And second was his quantum (pun intended) leap of deduction that a single word in the Hebrew writing of the book of Genesis can be shown to be a round-a-bout proof that dinosaurs are mentioned in the story of creation.
Long and short is that the book is interesting, not authoritative by any means in my opinion, and that Mr. Schroeder should be commended for being among that group of scientists and theologians with wide open minds, of which we need so many more. Now if I could just get a quantum mechanical explanation of how Jonah made it through those 3 days in the belly of the great fish.........
Rating:
Summary: well i thought it was simply amazing...
Review: now, i'm no scholar, i'm only 18 for crying out loud, but i found this book to be absolutely amazing. all i ever knew growing up was what they taught in church, and they certainly don't teach this! but i found no contradictions between the bible and evolution. i particularly found the part about adam interesting, the whole neshama thing. i liked it so much that i bought his following book, the hidden face of god. i recommend this to anyone wanting to "broaden their horizons". the scientific jargon was sometimes hard for me to follow, but i blame that on me being young and well.. not a scientist. but for the most part it was easy to read and absolutely fascinating. makes you wonder how far the rabbit hole really goes...
Rating:
Summary: What about Eve?
Review: While I started and finished the book convinced there is a God- so I certainly understand Schroeder zeal for the topic. Unfortunately, I took very little away from his book. To keep the review short I will mention a few pros and cons.Pros- 1- The statistical analysis (While very tedious to read, and often very dull). Provides significant insight in to how "Life randomly occurring" doesn't quite add up.
2- the scientific evidence provided by the Big Bang shows that this theory of conception may not contradict the teachings of the Bible.
3- That seven days can actually be translated over many eons of time using Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
4- Evidence found in the entire fossil record doesn't fare well for those who beleive in Darwin's theorys on evolution. Cons-
1- What about Eve? While Schroeder goes into great detail on how Adam may have been the first human with a "Soul" (meaning there may have been humans prior to Adam, but they were without a soul so they don't count) he completely neglects to mention Eve. Didn't God create Woman so that man wouldn't go through life alone? What about the concept of birth as being a punishment on women for Eve's sin? Did the "souless" pre-Adams not give birth? I point this out because it follows a disturbing trend of only pointing out the details that fit within the theory.
2- When talking in big numbers it can be very annoying when they are described as "a billion billion billions" or a "Billion Millions". Come on.... people who understand math (and you must understand math in order to learn ANYTHING from the book)hate this type of notation. While I found the work to be fact filled I certainly didn't find it to be overly enlightening. Therefore, I have a hard time believing that non-beleievers would ever be convinced from any of his arguements.
|
