Rating: 
Summary: great book
Review: I just bought this book. Just by reading few paragraphs it dawn on me why this two theorie are important to most people, especialy me and the author. He got great explaination on both side. I myself have a lots of question about the begining of mankind. Science and religion don't answere my questions. I wonder wish came first science or religion or vise-versa. For anybody who is interisted in this two theory here a great start.
Rating: 
Summary: Making the data fit
Review: I love a good midrash, but this is not one of them. Schroeder's attempt to mesh science and theology is to say the least a real stretcher. For comic effect (comic, not cosmic), though, it is amusing and I laughed out loud at several passages wondering if Schroeder was writing a parody of creationist "science". He's not. This book will convince no one who is not already convinced of the creationist credo, or has no capacity to think criticially.
Rating:
Summary: Simple and straightforward
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Are modern views of Genesis right?
Review: 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
Rating: 
Summary: World-wide acceptance by Jews and Christians,
Review: Now in six languages, this book speaks to experts and laypersons in religion and science alike. If you have questions concerning how the Six Days of Genesis match with the 15 billion year old age of our universe, how fossils fit with the Bible's concept of evolution, what about cavemen from the Biblicial perspective, this book provides the answers, leading the reader by the hand through Biblical interpretation and scientific theory. Always the Bible's point of view, as understood in ancient Talmudic and kabalistic commentary is presented, with no modern bias attempting to bend the Bible to match the science or the science to match the Bible. These's no need to bend. They match
Rating:
Summary: Opinions. You know what they say.
Review: One person from New Joisey is most definately clueless!!! But of course that is his opinion. Thank the very God of the Genesis for free speech rights. There are some folks that do KNOW the Truth. Hooray to Mr. Schroeder.
Rating: 
Summary: Chance Chance Chance
Review: Schroeder's book is well written, informative, seemingly objective and I can find very little in it to disagree with. However, at times, he seems to imply that chance is the sole operating mechanism in abiogenesis by using mathematics to illustrate evolution-by-chance-alone impossibility (by high improbability). The fact that ribozymes can catalyze RNA splicing is not due to chance. The fact that clay and other minerals can concentrate amino acids and other organic monomers is not due to chance. It occurs because the monomers bind to electrically charged areas on clay particles! There are chemical and physical laws at work in the universe as on early earth! To his credit he goes to a great length to show that life has a common ancestor. He understands the second law of thermodynamics (unlike most creationists), recognizes that life shares a common ancestor, admits that there were hominids existing before Adam, rejects biblical literalism, accepts the Big Bang, and the old earth.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant reconcilation of Science and Bible
Review: Schroeder's idea is fascinating and challenging. I find that the argument is plausible. I am inclined to say that some of the previous reviews do not reflect a serious attitude on the part of the reviewers. For one thing, our universe is expanding, and that's why the recent trend is towards believing that there is a beginning. Then, the book's argument is that IN THE BEGINNING, just after the big bang, the universe was expanding at a very fast rate, so that the passage of time would appear to be much slower that our present situation. This is how we arrive at the 6 days to 16 billion years correspondence. It is well known that our universe is ever expanding, yet the rate of expansion keeps on decreasing. And I don't see that the author is wrong in this respect.
Rating:
Summary: Finally, an approach in the right direction!
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Divine Evolution!
Review: The author goes to great lengths in this work to bridge the gap between science and the bible (particularly Genesis) calling upon astrophysics, the Theory of Relativity, and the theory of the Big Bang. But if you do not have a background in physics or math then you might find 'God, Science and the Cosmic Jigsaw', by Jonathan Kingsley, an easier read. The latter covers the same ground, but in a very different way, and one in which any reader can get to grips with by the simple application of logic. Kingsley's hypothesis is that there was a two-phase creation - evolution followed by divine intercession as part of God's overall plan - and Genesis is shown to agree with this very well. Thankfully, he also debunks Erich von Daniken's theories about us being descended from spacemen, as fall-out from his own theory, by providing the evidence that Adam (son of God) was God's divine creation from the 'dust of the earth' - in fact, divinely created using the genetic blueprint of evolutionary man - and that the Fall of Man resulted from interbreeding between the divine and evolutionary races. Heady - but interesting - stuff. So you may care to read both these books - but don't overlook Kingsley's, if this is an area that intrigues you!
| 
