A nuclear physicist clarifies some of the most FAQ about the Jewish approach to science.

Dunamai ^ | June 19, 2003 | Dr. Gerald Schroeder

[AAABEST]

I come in here for a lively discussion about the j00s and I get a bunch of military jargon I haven't seen in years.

[Lazamataz]

No, I recognized the terms, I just wondered why you didn't say more than that. But you explained it in the last sentence....

[AAABEST]

Not only that, you both left out SALUTE and SALT reports. Oy!

[Lazamataz]

OY, of course, being NBC jargon for Operational Yield.

But you meant it that way.

[Alamo-Girl]

Hugs and *smooches* to both of you!!!

I know you didn't ask me, RadioAstronomer, but if you don't mind I'd like to field the question you posed to PatrickHenry:

Why is it that some folks (yes even some scientists) try to force fit the observed data into a story written thousands of years ago instead of using that data to formulate a model that best fits the gathered/observed data.

My experience is that it is never necessary to force the observed data to fit the Scriptures. They faithfully agree; not so however with some hypotheses, but that is another discussion.

I can't speak for the Jewish side, like Gerald Schroeder, but from the New Testament, we have this admonition which may be in the minds of a number of the Christian scientists:

And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; - Romans 1:28

A healthy mind and all that...

[Uncle Miltie]

We need a black, latino, and native american approach to science, or it doesn't meet our criteria.

- The Supremes

[PatrickHenry]

My experience is that it is never necessary to force the observed data to fit the Scriptures. They faithfully agree;

A-Girl, permit me to give my opinion of that. Sometimes they do agree, which is fine. But sometimes they don't; and wherever they don't agree, that is our signal that scripture is to be understood as metaphor, or sometimes poetry. That's how I avoid going crazy when I encounter passages likke "the four corners of the earth," and the "foundations of the earth," and all those geocentric passages that were hurled out at Galileo during his heresy trial.

I think it's a disasterous error that some people make to belive that the bible is a science book. Such people hunt for occasional passages to be taken out of context so they can exclaim that the bible was a heliocentric book all along, etc. This is nonsense.

God could have dictated the bible as a science book. I don't accept the argument that those simple shepard folk weren't ready to receive the truth. We can take an ignorant six-year-old, start him in the first grade, and ten years later that kid is ready to do college-level physics. And if we can do it in only ten years, God could have done it better, and faster -- if that were God's intention. Clearly it wasn't.

We don't need the bible as a science book. We have God's other work for that. We have the whole universe, given to us to study. That's where our information about physical things is supposed to come from. The bible is for moral and spiritual instruction. It's for the things we can't learn by doing science. Or so it seems to me.

[Massive hugs!]

[RadioAstronomer]

Hugs! AG. :-)

It depends on which scripture you attempt to take literally. For example did the entire world flood or was it a local flood that encompassed the world as they understood it at the time?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post and for sharing your views!

I was not speaking to the worldview held in the early 1600’s – the time of Galileo. I was speaking to this time and my experience when I said:

My experience is that it is never necessary to force the observed data to fit the Scriptures. They faithfully agree; not so however with some hypotheses, but that is another discussion.

In the days of Galileo, truth and governance was determined by the Catholic Church, through its hierarchy. My understanding of Catholic doctrine, even to this day, is that whatever the Pope says when he sits in a particular place (or something like that) is to be taken as equal to Scripture.

IOW, in the Catholic view, the Pope is the vicar of Christ, and speaking in that capacity his word would be the same as if Christ Himself had spoken. Combine that doctrine with political governance and human error and you have the potential for all kinds of problems, such as are recorded in history – forced conversions, for instance.

Rolling the calendar forward, there are precious few theocracies outside the Islamic world. People believe according to their own conscience. Some are more comfortable under the hierarchy of a church authority and many of these are Catholic. Some of us Protestants (I am a Southern Baptist) value the opinion of the Pope no more or less than any other mortal, including you.

So when I speak of my experience, that I never have to force observed data to fit Scripture – I speak truly of my experience. Everything fits perfectly and faithfully. I contrive nothing. And as you know I’m willing to discuss it to whatever detail you wish from either side – science or Scripture.

I cannot make that claim for anyone else in this year, must less back in 1633.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply! Many hugs to you!

It depends on which scripture you attempt to take literally. For example did the entire world flood or was it a local flood that encompassed the world as they understood it at the time?

I've assembled four threads with my views on various "hot" topics; the flood discussion is in the second on the list, which I've included for any Lurkers who might want to know why.

In sum, based on the Word, ancient manuscripts and science - I see the Noah flood as targeted and worldwide in scope.

Origins, emphasis on Genesis
Patriarchs, emphasis on the Noah flood
Soul, emphasis on Jewish mysticism
Evolution through the back door (physics, math, information theory)

[Lev]

To calculate the effect of that million-million compression, divide the 15 billion years we observe looking back in time by the million-million.

Hmm, very convinient. 15 billion years sounds right. Now, can anybody tell me where the million-million factor comes from?

Regards,
Lev

[Alamo-Girl]

In answer to your challenge, from Gerald Schroder's website:

(In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power. That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy: 10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That's the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.)

Age of the Universe

[f.Christian]

Shock (( soon )) -- revelations (( designed universe )) ... awe --- you haven't seen anything - yet !

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post and for the link! Hugs and blessings!

[tracer]

I have noticed over the years that the strategy is to dominate a scientific discipline and then help their pals out with good grant reviews, post-docs and jobs, but, then, such is the way of the world....
...

[ALS]

re: post #32

In your personal experience, how many people, when presented with that link, come out of it truly understanding (from your perspective) what they've just read?

In regards to this question, what explanation can you give, for those with the ability, to not truly understand what they've read?

thanks in advance

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post and your questions!

In your personal experience, how many people, when presented with that link, come out of it truly understanding (from your perspective) what they've just read?

It seems to me that even scientists have a difficult time understanding space/time, so it is no wonder the concept is difficult for others. But it doesn’t need to be difficult:

The essential fact of the inflationary model is that space/time does not pre-exist. Space/time is created as the universe expands. And it expands exponentially.

When people say the universe is billions of years old, they usually don't finish the sentence. The universe is 15 billion years old from our position in space/time. From God's position, the point of inception, the universe is 6 days old. The math works great with the inflationary model!

Also, God is the author of Genesis and the only observer of Creation, so we ought to expect the days to be expressed from His position as Creator in space/time, not ours --- i.e. six days and not n billion years.

In regards to this question, what explanation can you give, for those with the ability, to not truly understand what they've read?

Those who do understand the inflationary model and space/time would surely understand everything at that link. The only resistance would have to be their own contempt for God, especially the Judeo/Christian belief.

[dennisw]

btttttttttttttttt

[ALS]

"Those who do understand the inflationary model and space/time would surely understand everything at that link. The only resistance would have to be their own contempt for God, especially the Judeo/Christian belief."

This is what I thought. What a tragedy that those calling themselves "opened-minded" scientists would limit available data.


Thanks!

[Alamo-Girl]

You're quite welcome! Hugs!!!