counter create hit The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom - Download Free eBook
Hot Best Seller

The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom

Availability: Ready to download

Comparing the key events of the Old Testament with the latest findings in physics, biochemistry, and paleontology, a physicist and theologian shows that science and the Bible can be reconciled to resolve the age-old debates about God.


Compare

Comparing the key events of the Old Testament with the latest findings in physics, biochemistry, and paleontology, a physicist and theologian shows that science and the Bible can be reconciled to resolve the age-old debates about God.

30 review for The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom

  1. 4 out of 5

    Wesley Wade

    Let me start here: I am a Christian. I love science. I do not see how these things do not go together, and why there is so much argument about being content with scientific explanations and simultaneously loving God. If you fall into that boat, or if you are agnostic, atheist, or another religion curious about Christianity, you will enjoy this book. If you are a Christian that cannot stand to read anything about evolution, the Earth being older than 10K years, and... well... science, then you wo Let me start here: I am a Christian. I love science. I do not see how these things do not go together, and why there is so much argument about being content with scientific explanations and simultaneously loving God. If you fall into that boat, or if you are agnostic, atheist, or another religion curious about Christianity, you will enjoy this book. If you are a Christian that cannot stand to read anything about evolution, the Earth being older than 10K years, and... well... science, then you won't like this book. Schroeder does an amazing job as he weds science and God in a big embracing sigh of amazement. He is a physicist, and breaks things down in a complicated but not overly complicated fashion. The book raises questions about things all around us, and goes to science and the bible to elaborate on these things. This book helped me to answer, and to accept my curiosity of wanting to seek answers, to the questions I've had for years. It opened up my eyes to patterns in nature, and to the infinite detail of God's glory. My words fail in doing this book justice.

  2. 5 out of 5

    Shayna Abrams

    This is a book that actually compares physical science with biblical teachings. I read this a long time ago and have since evolved in my spiritual mentality, but this was the first book that I read on my journey to the place I am now. It enlightened me by speaking to sense of reality as opposed to trying to relay hard to understand (and sometimes accept) spiritual conceptions. Even those that are waivering between belief in a Creator or not will have hard time disputing some of the solid argumen This is a book that actually compares physical science with biblical teachings. I read this a long time ago and have since evolved in my spiritual mentality, but this was the first book that I read on my journey to the place I am now. It enlightened me by speaking to sense of reality as opposed to trying to relay hard to understand (and sometimes accept) spiritual conceptions. Even those that are waivering between belief in a Creator or not will have hard time disputing some of the solid arguments IN FAVOR of the idea that there must be a Creator. This was another book that you cannot just flip pages and get the idea. It takes some concentration as the material is scientifically based.

  3. 5 out of 5

    Toe

    In The Science of God, Gerald Schroeder takes on a tremendously difficult task: he attempts to reconcile his modern scientific knowledge with his traditional religious beliefs. One would be hard pressed to argue he doesn’t know his science considering he earned a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In an unusual scholarly combination, Schroeder is also well-versed in the Torah and the Jewish religious tradition. He has clearly spent a lifetime studyin In The Science of God, Gerald Schroeder takes on a tremendously difficult task: he attempts to reconcile his modern scientific knowledge with his traditional religious beliefs. One would be hard pressed to argue he doesn’t know his science considering he earned a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In an unusual scholarly combination, Schroeder is also well-versed in the Torah and the Jewish religious tradition. He has clearly spent a lifetime studying and analyzing the specific wording of the Old Testament in the original Hebrew. This solid grounding in both fields puts Schroeder in a very rare position indeed. He is able to comprehend and fully grapple with the issues in a way that scientists who haven’t studied the Torah or religious people who haven’t studied the science can't. Anyone with the slightest bit of intellectual curiosity or who has ever asked “the Big Questions” will be fascinated by the subjects Schroeder covers. For this reason, whether convinced by his arguments or not, one should read the book. Additionally, Schroeder has an uncanny ability to simplify complex subject matter for the layperson. This accomplishment is particularly impressive considering the topics covered are not at all intuitive or readily accessible. For example, Schroeder covers Einstein’s relativity, the nature of an omnipotent God, the mechanics of DNA, statistical probabilities of certain mutations occuring, the origin of mankind, quantum mechanics and its relation to free will, the limits of human knowledge, and unknown and potentially unobservable dimensions. Schroeder’s thesis is that much of the perceived difference between ancient biblical teachings and modern science stems from misconceptions held by advocates on both sides. His approach is to explain the agreed upon modern science, identify any misconceptions held about the science or the religion, and then explain how the Jewish interpretation of the Torah matches the science. His sources for the Jewish interpretation of the Torah are Maimonides, a 12th century Rabbi; Nahmanides, a 13th century Kabbalist, philosopher, and biblical commentator; and the Torah, itself. He intentionally selects Jewish commentators writing before the modern scientific discoveries so that they cannot be accused of chicanery such as altering their interpretation of the Torah to fit the modern scientific findings. As recently as the early 1960’s, two thirds of the leading U.S. scientists believed in an eternal or steady-state universe. Einstein even claimed to have proven it, though via a bit of fudging with a cosmological constant. Eventually, mounting evidence from cosmic background radiation and other sources could not be denied. The debate ended with scientists catching up to what Genesis claimed all along: there was a beginning. Schroeder reconciles the 7 days creation claim with the billions of years through Einstein’s theory of relativity. The faster one moves, the slower time passes relative to another person who is stationary. Schroeder says that both billions of years passed and mere days passed depending on whose perspective one takes. Earth time moves at a different pace than the time that would be observed at another location in the universe. Skeptics once claimed that determinism as put forth by Marquis Pierre Simon de Laplace in the 18th century, the theory that all choices are predetermined by physics and chemistry, left no room for free will. If we’re all automatons without free will, what room is there for good and evil? Schroeder reveals the death of determinism through a discussion of quantum mechanics and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which defines the limit to the precision by which the position and momentum (mass times velocity) of any particle could be measured. Matter and physics, it turns out, have many possible alternative paths until one is determined through observation. But the observation itself changes the process, meaning that any given outcome is not predetermined. If those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still, then the skeptics can easily rationalize away a God by referring to some events as “insufficiently caused”. The Torah calls these events miracles. The limits of human knowledge are indeed humbling. Schroeder explains that an opaque plate placed infront of a screen to capture light reveals as yet unexplained laws of nature. When a thin slit is made in the opaque piece of glass, a fuzzy band of light will shine through onto the screen. However, when two slits are made parallel to one another, there are not two fuzzy, equal sized bands. Instead, there are a series of alternating light and dark bands. The dark bands have no light because the wavelike nature of light cancels itself out. The trough of one wave combined with the crest of another causes both to disappear. However, even if you use a maser gun to shoot one atom or one photon of light at a time with an hour between each shot, the same dark bands appear when both slits are open. Meanwhile a different, fuzzy pattern appears when only one band is open. Why does another open slit elsewhere impact the single atom or photon going through the first slit? The atom can only go through one slit or the other, yet it is somehow impacted by the other slit being open. Also, simply observing which slit the photon goes through changes the pattern too! It reverts back to the fuzzy bands if a particle monitor is set next to one of the slits. Not only that, but nothing is thought to travel faster than light. There isn't time for the light to check to see if the other slit is open and return with this information to the photon traveling through the first slit. This was my first exposure to the double slit experiment, and I found it to be one of the most interesting parts of the book. For more information see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-s.... The double slit experiment leads Schroeder and other physicists to speculate that there are alternate dimensions that humans can't observe. The idea is that the atoms or photons are traveling through some passage that we don't know about, some warp or rift in the space/time continuum. He uses the analogy of people confined to the circumference of a circle. Assume they can only move forward and backward around the circle with no knowledge of moving left or right or up and down. If another person, not confined to the circumference traveled across the diameter, the confined people would not understand how he traveled so quickly. Schroeder says we are confined to our 4 dimensions, but he speculates that nature (or God) operates in potentially 26 dimensions. Schroeder mentions the Cambrian explosion, when viewed in combination with the improbability of independently evolved organs such as eyes, as evidence that evolution is directed or guided. If nothing else, we must acknowledge that evolution does not occur gradually over very long periods of time. When Darwin wrote, “natura non facit saltum,” he would have been more accurate to write, “natura sola facit saltum”. That is, the claim that nature does not make sudden jumps is contradicted by the evidence. The data reveal that nature only makes sudden jumps. Schroeder theorizes that the information necessary for alternate body shapes or organs is stored in the latent library of DNA. In the end, I am disappointed in myself for not having the background or ability to critically analyze the scientific or biblical claims made. Nonetheless, the clarity of the writing combined with the methodical presentation of the material make for a plausible if not compelling case. Moreover, Schroeder does not explicitly argue that there is a God. He is a believer and he specifically believes in the Jewish God of the Old Testament, but he goes out of his way to restate that his arguments are not offered as proof of God. For example, on page 22 he says, “While a beginning does not confirm the existence of a Beginner, it does open the way for that possibility.” His intent in this book is to simply remove perceived differences between science and religion and open up the dialogue. That he refuses to make the stronger claim (God certainly does exist) is evidence of his thoughtfulness and reserve. It’s also a refreshing contrast to the cocksure atheists who refuse any possibility of a deity and ignore, manipulate, or downplay contradictory or inconvenient evidence. Schroeder’s credentials make him an intellectual force to be reckoned with. To blithely dismiss him as ignorant, wishful, or misguided would be a grave mistake. He makes the arrogance of some other authors, notably Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, much less appealing. It’s easy to disregard the straw man or distract with humor poked at the absurd. It’s much more difficult to contend with Schroeder’s cogent arguments. Memorable quotes: “This is one of those questions they only tell you the answer to when you get your PhD, and they make you promise not to tell anyone.” – John Baez of MIT “Convergent evolution by random mutations of the DNA nucleotides becomes statistically so highly improbable as to be functionally impossible.” “For the first time, the scientific community admitted that there was a limit to scientific knowledge. Not being able to know the present exactly obviously meant that the future could not be foretold. Heisenberg’s theory was rapidly developed by such giants of physics as Wolfgang Pauli, Max Born, and particularly Niels Bohr into what became known as the Copenhagen interpretation of the uncertainty principle. In essence, they saw the uncertainty principle as leading to a realization that there is no one specific reality in the physical world. All the possibilities for existence that fall within the uncertainty of the measurement might actually exist, and only when we make an observation at one specific point do the other possibilities vanish.” “Christopher Marlowe wrote in “The Jew of Malta,” ‘There is no sin but ignorance.’ Ignorance is the breeding ground of error. And error is the source of sin. In biblical Hebrew, the generic word for sin is het. It means to err, to miss the mark. It does not mean to do evil.”

  4. 4 out of 5

    Adam Ross

    Not at all a good book. Schroeder lets science take the lead over Scripture as he attempts to merge Old Earth Creationism, Six-Day Creationism, and the Big Bang through the theory of relativity. He argues that time is not a constant, so that the six days of creation were six days, but from our perspective, after time increased in speed, as 16 billion years. Some interesting things said, but ultimately his view means that Genesis, the foundation of the Bible, would have been completely misunderst Not at all a good book. Schroeder lets science take the lead over Scripture as he attempts to merge Old Earth Creationism, Six-Day Creationism, and the Big Bang through the theory of relativity. He argues that time is not a constant, so that the six days of creation were six days, but from our perspective, after time increased in speed, as 16 billion years. Some interesting things said, but ultimately his view means that Genesis, the foundation of the Bible, would have been completely misunderstood until the theory of relativity was posited. Indeed, it would have been impossible to understand until less than fifty years ago. All it is doing is causing confusion.

  5. 5 out of 5

    Amy Lynn

    This book is not exactly accessible to those blinded to the truths of science. Neither is it accessible to those steeped solely in so-called faith in the unseen. The Science of God is for the thinker with faith enough to understand and believe that science and God are complimentary in nature rather than polar opposite concepts. For anyone seeking truth, this is a must read.

  6. 5 out of 5

    Alicia

    I want to say he's a hack, but he is unfortunately simply unable to think outside his sphere of spirituality. His reasoning is circular and some of what he writes contradicts other comments he makes. I am in the process of rebutting this book. I want to say he's a hack, but he is unfortunately simply unable to think outside his sphere of spirituality. His reasoning is circular and some of what he writes contradicts other comments he makes. I am in the process of rebutting this book.

  7. 5 out of 5

    Scott

    You should read it. Though you may not agree with it (I didn't), it is a worthwhile perspective. You should read it. Though you may not agree with it (I didn't), it is a worthwhile perspective.

  8. 5 out of 5

    Mark

    Schroeder desocnstructs the rift between science and religion, showing how the Bible and current theory compliment each other. Most of the conflict, he suggests, is caused by people from one camp failing to have a clear grasp of what the other camp is saying. For all his talk of leaving behind preconceived notions he makes a few errors, but for the most part his work is sound. Any rational person who thinks religionists are idiots needs to read this book. Any religious person who thinks scientis Schroeder desocnstructs the rift between science and religion, showing how the Bible and current theory compliment each other. Most of the conflict, he suggests, is caused by people from one camp failing to have a clear grasp of what the other camp is saying. For all his talk of leaving behind preconceived notions he makes a few errors, but for the most part his work is sound. Any rational person who thinks religionists are idiots needs to read this book. Any religious person who thinks scientist are evil needs to read this book. Any person who teaches or is on a school board, anyone who advocates intelligent design, anyone who's had to deal with the problem of evolution or Biblical litteralism in the classroom or the town hall needs to read this book.

  9. 5 out of 5

    Eddie

    The author takes to task both Christian fundamentalists and secular fundamentalists for their errors in relation to science. A lot of fun but sometimes the quantum physics stuff is over my head.

  10. 4 out of 5

    Alvin Franzmeier

    I'm a great Schroeder fan. He forces me to take a very, very careful look at the text of the Bible—for him the O.T. I loved his previous Genesis and the Big Bang. It fascinated me to see this pious Jew and former MIT prof say here, "it is instructive to note that Ussher's and Keppler's calculations of an approximately six-thousand-year-old universe are infintely closer to our current estimate of time since the big bang than was either Aristotle's opinion of that of two thirds of the leading U.S. I'm a great Schroeder fan. He forces me to take a very, very careful look at the text of the Bible—for him the O.T. I loved his previous Genesis and the Big Bang. It fascinated me to see this pious Jew and former MIT prof say here, "it is instructive to note that Ussher's and Keppler's calculations of an approximately six-thousand-year-old universe are infintely closer to our current estimate of time since the big bang than was either Aristotle's opinion of that of two thirds of the leading U.S. astronomers and physicists, who in a 1959 survey agreed with Aristotle." Another sample: "The Talmud deduces . . .that following the trauma of Cain murdering Abel, Adam and Eve separated. It was not until 130 years after Can and Abel that "Adam new again his wife" (Gen. 4:25). . . during those 130 years of separation, Adam had sexual relations with other beings (the nature of those beings is not clear). From these unions came children that "were not human in the true sense of the word. They had not the spirit of God . . . It is acknowledged that a being who does not possess this spirit is not human but a mere animal in human shape and form! . . . These less-than-human creatures had human-like skills. What they lacked was human spirituality." Agree or disagree, you'll not easily dismiss what he says.

  11. 4 out of 5

    Joseph Gambin

    Schroeder takes on both the religious fundamentalists as well as the scientific ones in this book. He explains that the biblical book if Genesis and science are not giving fundamentally different explanations of the creation of the universe. He criticizes those who think the world is only 6000 years old as well as those who believe that science has disproven the bible. We'll grounded in both the natural sciences as well as Jewish theology Schroeder provides an easy to read explanation on why mode Schroeder takes on both the religious fundamentalists as well as the scientific ones in this book. He explains that the biblical book if Genesis and science are not giving fundamentally different explanations of the creation of the universe. He criticizes those who think the world is only 6000 years old as well as those who believe that science has disproven the bible. We'll grounded in both the natural sciences as well as Jewish theology Schroeder provides an easy to read explanation on why modern science is actually proving the Genesis account of creation. If you believe in God this book will reaffirm your faith, bur I doubt it will convince agnostics and atheists that there is a God. Even if it happens to convince more people of the existence of God it does not answer the question of "so what?". It does however provide interesting theories on the big question of why are we here.

  12. 4 out of 5

    Zac

    the first chapter relating the 7 days of genesis to the big bang had some interesting relationships... after that, a physicist talking genetics and biology? not that is can't be done, but he should've focused on his specialty. it just got goofy after that. the first chapter relating the 7 days of genesis to the big bang had some interesting relationships... after that, a physicist talking genetics and biology? not that is can't be done, but he should've focused on his specialty. it just got goofy after that.

  13. 5 out of 5

    Mark Polhamus

    an honest, accurate and readily read masterpiece a stringently honest, scientifically sound work which encourages us to use our minds to evaluate the facts. Deals unflinchinly with topics often skirted by scientists and theologians.

  14. 5 out of 5

    Christopher Mocella

    This book is the reason that I no longer believe creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

  15. 5 out of 5

    Linda Branham Greenwell

    Schroeder is a physicist and student of the Hebrew text. He maintains that if one takes both sides seriously and deeply, there is perfect continuity between the two at foundational levels of each.

  16. 4 out of 5

    Ned

    This book made me believe it would be illogical to be an atheist. The bold nature of the book blew me away. The physics was intriguing.

  17. 4 out of 5

    Matthew

    This is a fantastic work that attempts to meld the teachings of the Old Testament of the Bible (and other religious texts) with modern scientific theories. Gerald Schroeder does a great job keeping the reader involved in the process. The most fascinating part of this book to me was how the author explained how the 6 days of creation as told in the Bible actually matches up almost perfectly with the accepted ages of the universe, the earth, and life upon the earth. By applying Einstein's theory of This is a fantastic work that attempts to meld the teachings of the Old Testament of the Bible (and other religious texts) with modern scientific theories. Gerald Schroeder does a great job keeping the reader involved in the process. The most fascinating part of this book to me was how the author explained how the 6 days of creation as told in the Bible actually matches up almost perfectly with the accepted ages of the universe, the earth, and life upon the earth. By applying Einstein's theory of relativity, Schroeder shows how time would move at a different rate relative to the observer during the different periods of the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe. Time, as measured on the fast moving particles from the Big Bang, would move at a much slower rate than time as measured by a stationary observer. So, the first day, as told in the book of Genesis, was when God created light and separated it from the darkness. One day. But because the particles from the Big Bang were moving so quickly, one day as measured at the speed those particles were traveling would equate to billions of years relative to a stationary observer. The first day would equate to roughly 8 billion years. The particles obviously slowed down, so the 2nd day equates to roughly 4 billion years. The 3rd day is 2 billion years. Day 4 is 1 billion years. Day 5 is 500 million years. And day 6 is roughly 250 million years, which gives us a 6 day period that equates to roughly 15.75 billion years, which is in the range of accepted ages for the universe. So the 6 day creation story fits perfectly well with modern scientific theories. There are several points made like the one above, to help blend scientific teachings with religious documents. The book is a great reference book, but the writing is a bit redundant at times. I found myself feeling as though I had read a certain passage before, but soon found that Schroeder simply repeats himself several times throughout the book. This book is packed with so much interesting information, however, that such flaws in writing are quickly dismissed.

  18. 4 out of 5

    Chris Jesse

    Wow! The author undertakes the task of reconciling the beliefs of science and Biblical theology. It might seem impossible, but he succeeds. True, you are going to have to wade through some science that you might have forgotten, but it is so worth it. Beware, this is not a Christian book in that the author is Jewish. Accordingly, his focus is on the Old Testament. That said, I cannot imagine Jesus not enjoying this book.

  19. 5 out of 5

    Keith

    Whatever ;-) This book tries to overlay science onto the book of Genesis. Author says he takes no sides, but using a Christian scripture as a basis says otherwise. It is well written, but unconvincing.

  20. 4 out of 5

    Jessica

    One of the best books about religion and science. Plus I learned so much new science!

  21. 5 out of 5

    Jen

    Great food for thought. The Bible and science can co-exist after all.

  22. 4 out of 5

    John Martindale

    Schroeder claimed they've found micro-fossils of algae and bacteria that date from 3.5 billion years ago and organic carbon that is 3.8 billion years old, which he says corresponds to around the time they believe the earth cooled enough to support life. Therefore, he points out that there were no billions of years for (lightening created?) amino acids to randomly amalgamate into life. The idea is that the moment the earth was cool enough, there was life. After this he claimed there is no fossil Schroeder claimed they've found micro-fossils of algae and bacteria that date from 3.5 billion years ago and organic carbon that is 3.8 billion years old, which he says corresponds to around the time they believe the earth cooled enough to support life. Therefore, he points out that there were no billions of years for (lightening created?) amino acids to randomly amalgamate into life. The idea is that the moment the earth was cool enough, there was life. After this he claimed there is no fossil evidence for any change, until 530 million years ago, when all of the sudden we find 34 of the basic body plans (phyla) with fully developed organs and eyes. It's all the more mysterious he says, that during the five million years of the Cambrian explosion their is no evidence for evolutionary development or transition (of course, I am sure plenty of other scientist would disagree with him on all of thi). Now I thought it interesting that the fossil evidence of the Cambrian explosion was held in obscurity under the Smithsonian for years by Charles Walcott (A Darwinist), perhaps because it didn't meld well with Darwinian explanation of slow and gradual change? Schroeder continues claiming there are problems considering the time frame between the Cro-Magnon and the modern human. Though random mutations and natural selection can give a natural explanation, he I think feels one is forced to embrace absurdities considering the narrow time frame. For even if mutations happened at a much faster rate in the past and every mutation was helpful and successfully passed on to future generations, still there is JUST NOT ENOUGH TIME he explains. If Schroader is correct, I feel the neo-darwinist are trying to cram a square peg into a round hole. Sure they have found a naturalistic explanation for the appearance of design and complex genetic information, but the fossil evidence doesn't allow for enough time for the transitions to happen. Even if it did, the probabilities for it all are so astronomically miniscule, that one needs to check ones brain at the door and completely deluded oneself to say that random mutations plus natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the complexities of life, especially of DNA. There may be other naturalistic explanation that can fully explain the data, but it's yet forth coming, so I think scientist are clinging by dear life to an absurdity because, as of yet, the only other explanation for what we find is that is that intelligence is behind it (sometime they refuse to accept even if God showed up in person). After finishing Stephen Jay Gould's "Mismeasure of men" and seeing the extend that renowned scientist deluded themselves and were controlled by biases and their political agenda and moreover how many people blindly went along with their racism and eugenic schemes based on "Scientific FACT", all this shows there needs to be some objective criticism within the scientific community. The problem with evolution is it's held with the same fanatically biased, dogmatic (Don't confuse me with the facts) militaristic zeal, that the raving Fundamentalist Baptist hold to their beliefs. People are not being objective here. The way the science community responds, proves to me, that IDers must be touching their sacred cow. I really think scientist though are doing themselves a misfavor, for finally some people come along that are critical of the unquestioned status quo and here scientist are unwilling to even acknowledge the glaring problems in their own theory. If only they were seriously considered, they could lead to the advancement of science. But yeah, nothing has changed, Kuhn's "The structure of scientific revolution" is so right on, Lord forbid anyone question, doubt or be skeptical of the widely accepted theory. But yeah, the bigger problem is when considering origins, we are dealing with HISTORY. Therefore, there is tons of speculation based upon scanty evidence, many of the theories can't be falsified or proved, so much is based upon everything being the same back then as it is now and problems are compounded by the fact that how one interprets the evidence is based upon ones perspective. So yeah, I think much of evolutionary STORY belongs in the realm of philosophy, for it is assumptions built upon untestable assumptions. But alas, scientist get to speculate and it's called science, because they do it within the current paradigm which isn't to be doubted or met with skepticism. Scientist freely make assumptions, speculations and wildly absurd assertions, and it all passes because it's within the naturalistic worldview. Now think with me, since scientist get a free pass to do philosophy and to call it science, it seems only fair that IDers get to do this as well. The scientific community has a blatantly OBVIOUS Double standard. They recognizes ID for what it is, philosophy rooted in a bias interpretation scientific evidence, but they are COMPLETELY BLIND to how they're doing the same thing. So if schools get to teach the evolutionary story (much of which truly belongs in philosophy class, NOT the science class room), than teachers should equally be free to share the ID slant to balance things out. So yeah, summed up, science has a monopoly on origins, for they teach their philosophy as if its scientific FACT, which can't be questioned or doubted. It's horrible that they've been allowed to do this, but it requires there to be a struggle for other philosophies to sneak into the science class room, to show things are not so clear. If the current scientific community insist on doing philosophy, then hell, they shouldn't be so freaking incensed when someone with a different presupposition wants to do philosophy too! But of course, it all makes sense, this is their way to make their speculative philosophy to pass off as scientifically objective reality. It's a lovely way to delude oneself into a feeling of certainty. There dogmatism and security is based upon their philosophy being called science and not being exposed for what it is.

  23. 4 out of 5

    Gina

    Although I don't agree with all of his ideas and interpretations, I appreciate his observations and arguments. It is good to recognize how much we don't know in science but appreciate what we do. I also welcomed the intellectual perspective that the divine and science are not exclusive of one another and that both scientists and theologians can try to understand one another better. Although I don't agree with all of his ideas and interpretations, I appreciate his observations and arguments. It is good to recognize how much we don't know in science but appreciate what we do. I also welcomed the intellectual perspective that the divine and science are not exclusive of one another and that both scientists and theologians can try to understand one another better.

  24. 5 out of 5

    Jim

    It seems to me that the author, well qualified apparently in both science and religious study, used science as justification for his convictions and prejudices. These he explains in a forthright manner to the layperson. However, some explanations come full circle and some do not support his argument. In several (the evolution of pink daisies for example), he runs rapid fire through a series of explanations that pinwheel away from the core of his argument to confuse the reader into accepting his It seems to me that the author, well qualified apparently in both science and religious study, used science as justification for his convictions and prejudices. These he explains in a forthright manner to the layperson. However, some explanations come full circle and some do not support his argument. In several (the evolution of pink daisies for example), he runs rapid fire through a series of explanations that pinwheel away from the core of his argument to confuse the reader into accepting his conclusions on evolution --major evolution that is rather than the simple micro-evolution capable in a London museum. Without evidence that can be subject to testing and verification, explanations are more fanciful speculation than scientific method. On that note, science is about finding answers and errors are never a sin (Het he calls them but spoilers...) but part of the process. I appreciate his identification of his bias but I think he let it get in the way of good writing. Or perhaps it was my biases as a reader. Most likely, some of both. In any case, it is well written and an interesting, if inconsistent, read. I do admire the author for being willing to write a book that both secular and religious will agree is wrong. While not a convergence, it is solid bridge-building middle ground and I think Schroeder succeeded.

  25. 4 out of 5

    Adam Balshan

    3.5 stars [Paleontology] Schroeder presents the most thorough argument for Old-Earth Creationism that I have ever heard. The Science of God is very similar to Francis Collins's The Language of God (see my review), in that an apologetic element is conspicuously at work. Schroeder succeeds moderately more than Collins does. Good 1) An amazing mathematical reconciliation of OEC and YEC universe timelines according to quantum physics, specifically due to the nature of space-time. 2) An above average re 3.5 stars [Paleontology] Schroeder presents the most thorough argument for Old-Earth Creationism that I have ever heard. The Science of God is very similar to Francis Collins's The Language of God (see my review), in that an apologetic element is conspicuously at work. Schroeder succeeds moderately more than Collins does. Good 1) An amazing mathematical reconciliation of OEC and YEC universe timelines according to quantum physics, specifically due to the nature of space-time. 2) An above average refutation of determinism. Bad 1) Chapter 9 and parts of Chapter 11 seem completely specious, relying on kabbalistic commentary and interpretation on some Old Testament meanings. 2) Despite being the most thorough OEC testament, it is not actually thorough. A few aspects of the argument were not forwarded, and almost no counterarguments to anticipated rebuttals, either. Take Away As far as my limited knowledge has sojourned, no one has attempted to reconcile OEC and YEC universe timelines. Everyone should read Chapters 3 and 4 on that topic.

  26. 4 out of 5

    Mary-Jane

    A very insightful book. I found clear descriptions and overviews of Einstein's breakthroughs in understanding matter, energy, and the universe; paleontology discoveries; age of the universe calculations; quantum mechanics; big bang theory. Main insight: with an expanding universe, the creation in 6 24 hour days matches the 15 billion years of our universe because we look back at those days as much longer time (relativity of time). The author challenges some traditional evolution theory, citing t A very insightful book. I found clear descriptions and overviews of Einstein's breakthroughs in understanding matter, energy, and the universe; paleontology discoveries; age of the universe calculations; quantum mechanics; big bang theory. Main insight: with an expanding universe, the creation in 6 24 hour days matches the 15 billion years of our universe because we look back at those days as much longer time (relativity of time). The author challenges some traditional evolution theory, citing there would not be enough time for what is asserted to take place. Evolution is the process, but he has refined what it means. In general, the book could have used another good edit. I also found that he often did not thoroughly go through a topic or argument and tie it up, then moved on to something else. Then later, even in another chapter, a previous argument or topic would come up again. I am planning to read another of his books.

  27. 4 out of 5

    Mike Harmon

    This book attempts to explain how modern scientific theory has the potential to blend with the Old Testament Bible. Another reviewer described it best as, "for the thinker with faith enough to understand and believe that science and God are complimentary in nature rather than polar opposite concepts." It is not a book for either Christian or secular fundamentalists who aren't prepared or willing to think. This book attempts to explain how modern scientific theory has the potential to blend with the Old Testament Bible. Another reviewer described it best as, "for the thinker with faith enough to understand and believe that science and God are complimentary in nature rather than polar opposite concepts." It is not a book for either Christian or secular fundamentalists who aren't prepared or willing to think.

  28. 4 out of 5

    Manute

    I thought that this was great take on the Bible from a scientists point of view. The purpose of the book was try and apply scientific principles to parts of the Bible and also to show that the Bible may have predicted some scientific discoveries. I found it to be original and entertaining.

  29. 5 out of 5

    Melissa Soto Mejia

    Very good. Gives you different perspectives as both a Scientist and a man of religion. Shows you that Science and The Bible go hand in hand. Some chapters were hard to understand with all the Science words, however the author simplifies almost everything for everyone to understand.

  30. 4 out of 5

    Don Gubler

    There could be a synergy of science and religion and you might even find some of it here but it is still apologetic in nature rather than cooperative.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.