Fitting the 6 days of Creation into current scientific theory

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

It is good to know that you do not put your faith in science because many people do. You may deny it but it is true. 

Ill tell you right now I work in science and I have never met someone like that so I don't know what they would sound like.  Science is an academic discipline. It cannot be worshipped or replace faith any more than history or english literature can.  I think a lot of my colleagues would think some of the things you are saying (and warning against or bemoaning as a belief in others )sound nuts or only ideas that a nut would have.

Sometimes it seems you over react when I point out that science is not carved in stone, and it has been used for political and often times anti ethical goals.

Actual science as a discipline (there also many types of science for example biology) is by definition not political.  The scientific method for rigorous establishment of reproducible results is what defines science and it is not a political process.  Sometimes people try to use science or certain scientific studies (both good ones and bad ones) toward political ends.  That doesn't make it science.  And big difference there.

One must never believe that the scientist has the answer to every problem.

This is a very strange idea and I don't know what you are so paranoid or worried about that every time a scientific matter is brought up you post this kind of disclaimer.  Maybe you yourself once had these kind of weird ideas about science? 

why would a scientist have the answer to every problem?  If they did they wouldn't do science.  The whole purpose of science is to try to arrive at answers to questions which we do not currently know how to answer.  A big part of the scientist's job is to ask questions.

And your example about oxygen is not something we need science to prove.

Um.  It already was proven by science.  Yes we did need science to prove it.  People did not know what oxygen was at one point.  You only say this now because it's become so obvious that it is self evident.  But that was exactly my point.  Some science deniers try to discredit all of science by saying " it changes therefore we cannot trust it, maybe it will all be overturned" - an argument that is truly pathetic. As an example, biology knowledge will continue to grow and evolve and be refined especially in certain disputed or unclear processes/systems people are currently studying.  These become more understood as time goes on and more experimentation produces additional evidence for things.  But it does not make sense to say the entire discipline of biology willl be thrown in the trash bin one day (thus my obvious comment about oxygen ) because they are still trying to master the creation of antibody-drug conjugates and how to link these molecules, for cancer treatments. some things are so well established by science that it would be unreasonable to expect them to change and "reinvent the wheel" - certain basic facts and evidences we can be very confident about.

Regarding dinosaur fossils... There is no doubt that there will be dinosaur fossils 20 years from now, but I have every reason to believe that those same fossils will now be classified differently and the date is was supposed to have lived will have changed. What I was taught about dinosaurs when I was a kid {about 20+ years ago} has been invalidated. Many of those dinosaurs are now thought to have looked different, or not have existed at all.

Glad you brought this up because this is a common misconception and one of the frequent arguments by people trying to discredit scientific knowledge.  It may be that some details of the classification will be altered as scientists dig up more findings and can better place them (especially certain specific findings which are less certain than others.  And that's because a classification system is simply a limited human model put together by the disparate facts that have been uncovered - some things will fit better than others.  But it would not make sense to expect that the entire system of classification will be discarded and thrown in the trash because some specific details need refining and additional experimentation or additional evidence to clarify

I'm no dinosaur expert but I'm not aware of people thinking tyrannasaurus or teradactles to no longer existed.  Dinosaurs certainly did exist and are now dead.

[muman613]

Many people do not believe in Hashem simply because there is no science which can prove that he exists. If science is the ultimate truth then why has no scientist ever proven that Hashem's existence in the world is the truth? Most people are willing to trust scientists who say that there is no Hashem simply because the word 'scientist' is associated with their title..

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Many people do not believe in Hashem simply because there is no science which can prove that he exists. If science is the ultimate truth then why has no scientist ever proven that Hashem's existence in the world is the truth? Most people are willing to trust scientists who say that there is no Hashem simply because the word 'scientist' is associated with their title..

 Science itself is proof that their is a Creator and Director of the world.  Do you think that certain laws just create themselves?
 And about discovering G-D (that is in the physical sense) is the same as asking to discover G-d through a microscope. A microscope shows you something that G-D created (the bacteria for example) but the fact of the bacteria, what is does, how it comes into being etc. etc. all point (without physically pointing) to the Creator and Director of the Universe.

[edu]

Quote from Kahane-Was-Right BT

The Rambam classifies what are called "days" of creation in Bereshit as categories and heirarchies of creation, rather than literal days or periods of time.  Edu, is this, in your opinion, also "denying the literal truth of Genesis chapter 1?"

I downloaded Moreh Nevuchim at Hebrewbooks.org and searched for the Hebrew terms six days and days of creation. I found in my limited computer search nothing in the Rambam's book that I implied heirarchies of creation. So if you know of a source in the Rambam that I have overlooked let me know.

[edu]

The Scientist I am about to quote is Prof. Nathan Aviezer
His credentials as summarized by Wikipedia
Nathan Aviezer is an American-Israeli physicist who writes on creationism, evolution and cosmology from an Orthodox Jewish perspective. He is a Professor of Physics and former Chairman of the Physics Department of Bar-Ilan University.
Aviezer was born in Switzerland and raised in the United States. He received his doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago, and subsequently held a research position at the IBM Watson Research Center near New York. In 1967, He and his wife Dvora made aliyah to Israel. He is the author of more than 100 scientific articles on solid state physics. In recognition of his important research contributions, he was honored by being elected as a Fellow of the American Physical Society (1984) and a Research Professor of the Royal Society of London (1992).
He wrote a book In the Beginning trying to defend Genesis 1 as accurate on a science level if you accept the view, which has precedents in some (but not all) of the words of our Sages that the six days of creation weren't 24 hour days.

[edu]

After quoting from a Web site which details some of R. Slifkin's views that the events of Biblical day 5 do not in his opinion, fit in with the chronological order of things as held by Science, Prof. Aviezer responded to those viewpoints in the following way.

On the Fifth Day of Creation, the Torah reports the appearance of (i) the large “tanninim”, (ii) marine species (most marine species are NOT fish), and (iii) winged creatures.

              In the chapter “Fifth Day – Part III” in my book, “In the Beginning”, I present a detailed discussion of each group of animals.  Since the criticism of Rav Slifkin that you mentioned refers only to the third group of animals, I will limit the discussion to the “winged creatures”.

              I understood the earliest “winged creatures” to mean the insects (p. 84), writing: “The biblical commentator Radak emphasizes that the phrase ‘every winged creature’ refers to all winged creatures, including the insects (almost all insects have wings) as well as the birds…  It is certainly to be expected that the biblical account of the formation of the animal kingdom would mention the all-important insects.”

              In reference 28 (p. 88), I expanded on this, writing: “Rashi and other Commentators make a similar statement, but Radak is most explicit. This important point has also been noted by Rav E. Munk (“Seven Days in the Beginning,” p. 79).”
              Rav Slifkin claims that this understanding of the Torah words is in error and “winged creatures” refer only to the birds.  In this claim, he dismisses the views of Radak, Rashi and the other major Rishonim whom I quoted.  I believe that I am in good company.

              The final point to be made is that the major Commentators who understood the Torah words “winged creatures” to also mean the insects did not do so to avoid embarrassing questions related to the fossil evidence.  In their day, there was no fossil evidence.  The Commentators were presenting the true meaning of the Torah words.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Many people do not believe in Hashem simply because there is no science which can prove that he exists. If science is the ultimate truth then why has no scientist ever proven that Hashem's existence in the world is the truth? Most people are willing to trust scientists who say that there is no Hashem simply because the word 'scientist' is associated with their title..

"The ultimate truth?"   That is something you said, not something I said.

[muman613]

"The ultimate truth?"   That is something you said, not something I said.

It was a theoretical statement, "If A then B'...

If everything which exists is observable according to science, and that which is not observable must not exist or we do not have the ability to observe it at this time. It is part of Jewish belief, according to my understanding, that Hashem will always be hidden in this world {which is why we call this world 'Olam' which also means hidden}. We learn about 'Hester Panim' the hidden face of Hashem...

If Hashem will always remain hidden then there is no science which will be able to prove his existence, and thus everything which we observe has no creator and thus no purpose other than random mutation. If this is extended to the logical conclusion then there is no way a person who calls himself a scientist could accept the commandments of Hashem. We learn about the kinds of laws which our Torah contains. These are Mishpatim, Chokim, and Mitzvot. Remember that Chokim are laws which do not have a rational explanation. How could a rational person perform laws which are not rational?

I don't want to argue with you because I understand where you are coming from. I do not accuse you of putting 'faith' in Science. I am sorry if you feel I do that.

I believe in science to the point that I must be able to understand the data, the theory, and the conclusions. In Physics and Chemistry I do have faith that these are sciences based on our understanding of natural laws. When it comes to being able to project these laws into the future or into the past then I start to doubt that science. I understand the complexity of systems, as a software engineer who has worked on some very complex real-time software responsible for decoding video and audio streams for display on HDTV screens. I understand that the human is a limited creature who has limitations which were given to us in order for us to learn about our relation with our G-d.

Anyway, just take this as my opinion...

http://www.torah.org/learning/maharal/p1m1part3.html

The Torah is composed of three types of laws: mishpatim (laws that are logical and which man can figure our for himself) chukim (laws that do not have any rational reason that is accessible to us), and mitzvoth (laws that need to be revealed by G-d, but that we can then find reason for). The Anshei Knesset HaGedolah gave instructions that cover the range of Torah laws. "Be deliberate in judgement" refers to the rational laws, of which monetary judgements are the quintessential ones. Having many students improves the quality of the Torah study, facilitating our ability to better understand the reasons for the Mitzvoth that we study. Creating fences around the Torah is especially important for the laws about which we lack any understanding. (Yes, the Midrash does tell us that it was the fact that reasons were given for certain laws that led Shlomo Hamelech to violate them with confidence that the reasons didn't apply to him. But the intention of the Maharal here is that the better we understand a law the less likely an added stringency may be to ensure that we faithfully adhere to the letter of the law.)