Fitting the 6 days of Creation into current scientific theory

[edu]

There are different approaches on how to fit the account of the 6 days of Creation in
Breishit/Genesis Chapter 1 with current scientific theory.
According to the view that the 6 days of Creation represent periods of millions or billions of years, I would like to ask, is someone familiar with a good article that plugs in all the details of the creation story, into something that fits the Chronological Order of things that occured on the Earth as accepted by Science today.
This is not to say that above approach is definitely the correct approach towards the
religion-science issue, nor am I sure that what the scientists say today won't be reversed tommorrow by new discoveries. I am just asking are you aware of someone who at least has made a reasonable attempt to put the details of modern science into the Creation Story.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

I am just asking are you aware of someone who at least has made a reasonable attempt to put the details of modern science into the Creation Story.

 Yes, Rabbi Natan Slifkin. http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/
 And his book which deals precisely with this issue (including even more controversial- evolution)

The Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter with Science, Cosmology, and Evolution [Hardcover]
Natan Slifkin (Author) 
 

- He brings down many sources from CHazal and big Rabbis past and present including the Rambam and Rav Kook.

[edu]

I strongly disagree with Rabbi Slifkin's approach to this issue.
His approach in my humble opinion is to deny the literal truth of Genesis Chapter 1.

I will also add that he supported the insane, Trade Gilad Shalit for a Thousand Terrorists Deal, which also lowers his credibility in general.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

I strongly disagree with Rabbi Slifkin's approach to this issue.
His approach in my humble opinion is to deny the literal truth of Genesis Chapter 1.

I will also add that he supported the insane, Trade Gilad Shalit for a Thousand Terrorists Deal, which also lowers his credibility in general.

 Those are separate issues. And I don't agree with everything he has said, but you asked
"I am just asking are you aware of someone who at least has made a reasonable attempt to put the details of modern science into the Creation Story."
 
 And I told you that he does.

- Anyway did you read the book? And about the literal meaning he also provides (possible) answers bringing down from Chazal. Personally I don't know either way and this isn't my most boiling question but if you are looking for a book on science and Torah and the different approaches presented (he includes many of them not necessarily choosing them all), this is the book.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

There are different approaches on how to fit the account of the 6 days of Creation in
Breishit/Genesis Chapter 1 with current scientific theory.
According to the view that the 6 days of Creation represent periods of millions or billions of years, I would like to ask, is someone familiar with a good article that plugs in all the details of the creation story, into something that fits the Chronological Order of things that occured on the Earth as accepted by Science today.
This is not to say that above approach is definitely the correct approach towards the
religion-science issue, nor am I sure that what the scientists say today won't be reversed tommorrow by new discoveries. I am just asking are you aware of someone who at least has made a reasonable attempt to put the details of modern science into the Creation Story.

I believe the wisest approach on this matter is that of Rabbi Meir Triebitz, who explains that creation ex nihilo preceded any scientific facts and therefore the earliest presumed event accepted by scientists (the big bang) has absolutely nothing to do with creation because matter already existed prior to the big bang, and the sscientific modeling of the big bang retrofits and assumes the existence of einstein's laws prior to the event (which enabled it to happen).  People who say that the big bang coincides with God's creation of the world are actually denying creation ex nihilo and asserting that einsteins equations created the world rather than God.  True creation ex nihilo literally means from nothing - nothing physical existed prior - not time, not matter, not anything.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Furthermore he quotes the Rambam in asserting that assigning any kind of "date" or timepoint to the world's creation is a form of paganism because it limits God within time.  (Thus the entire debate on the "age of the world" misses the point!).   So as to what is scientifically measurable, the world is billions of years old, but we cannot put a precise date on it.

As to the question then of how can the account in genesis be made to fit scientific theory - that account is not a scientific description and neither is Torah a science book.  The point of the account of creation is not to tell us what order and on what date conifer trees and hippo's began to exist.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

I believe the wisest approach on this matter is that of Rabbi Meir Triebitz, who explains that creation ex nihilo preceded any scientific facts and therefore the earliest presumed event accepted by scientists (the big bang) has absolutely nothing to do with creation because matter already existed prior to the big bang, and the sscientific modeling of the big bang retrofits and assumes the existence of einstein's laws prior to the event (which enabled it to happen).  People who say that the big bang coincides with G-d's creation of the world are actually denying creation ex nihilo and asserting that einsteins equations created the world rather than G-d.  True creation ex nihilo literally means from nothing - nothing physical existed prior - not time, not matter, not anything.

 I don't know much about this, but from what I heard, the claim by scientists (I heard in a program) is that time and space started together during the big bang. Personally this is mind boggling to even think about.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I agree with Tag Mechir Tzedek that Rabbi Natan Slifkin is also a great resource for various approaches to this subject.   I have gained a lot from his writings and I own a few of his books.   

Edu, while you might not follow his approach, Rabbi Slifkin cites statements from chazal, rishonim, and acharonim to support his position (actually, the multiple potential approaches to the subject that he offers to the reader).   
On the subject of Shalit, if I remember correctly, his opinion of the matter was far more nuanced than you give him credit for (he did point out both positive and negative aspects, didn't he?), but that really has no bearing on the subject of this thread anyway.    Rabbi Slifkin has an expertise in zoology and he studied the issue of creation and science in depth to produce his books including surveying the classical sources within Judaism.    Either the sources are valid, or they are not.  To date, no one has disputed any of his citations.   His own speculative ideas (which if memory serves me, are relegated to separate sections in his book where he makes it clear that he is synthesizing his own possible theories as opposed to other sections of the book where he merely quotes different approaches of historical figures in Judaism to various questions and explains them) are built off of these citations.

I think one of the main reasons that Rabbi Slifkin's work is necessary and why he himself does not use an approach like the one you asked about (ie "that plugs in all the details of the creation story, into something that fits the Chronological Order of things that occured on the Earth as accepted by Science today"), but offers additional sources instead, is that the details in chronological order and on the timeline of the creation narrative do not fit with the order as proposed by scientific knowledge.



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?"

[edu]

For those that understand Hebrew, I found a video that in part gives the type of approach that I was looking for:
http://www.hidabroot.org/MediaDetail.asp?MediaID=860
Although, I might not agree with every comment he (Rabbi Zamir) makes in the video, at least it's a starting point. The same can be said for the writings of Prof. Natan Aviezer on the subject.
To Kahane-Was-Right Bt
Here is the link where Slifkin endorses the insane Gilad Shalit deal
http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/10/gilad-is-not-number.html

I think Slifkin also misrepresents Rambam. Rambam said if the Science of Aristotle was indeed proven to be correct without a doubt, he would be forced to reinterpret the Torah. However, he didn't think Aristotle's Science was beyond a shadow of a doubt and did not agree with Aristotle, on such issues as the eternity of matter. In fact, science now says Rambam was right and Aristotle was wrong.
Slifkin uses Rambam's theoretical willingness to change the interpretation of the Torah in light of absolute proof, as confirmation for his willingness to tamper in strange ways with the literal meaning of the Torah, based on certain Scientific Theories, which I personally don't believe are so solidly based, for example, proofs or lack of proofs from so-called fossil records.
Finally you mentioned:

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?"

Before commenting I would like to see the exact statement of the Rambam, to see if you are representing it properly. Where exactly is it found?

[edu]

To avoid confusion the Rabbi's Full name in the Hebrew movie link I brought above is
Rabbi Zamir Cohen.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Again, his opinion on shalit has nothing to do with this.  He brings valid sources in his books.

What you are asking me about in Rambam is found in Moreh nevuchim.  And if you read Ramban's commentary on chumash where he stresses that it means days, he is actually arguing on Rambam there (without saying so explicitly).  I am not reinventing the wheel here by claiming this about Rambam, it is well known by those who have read his works (although many have not).  I would have to look it up to find exact locations where he expresses these ideas.

About rambam and aristotle, what Rabbi Slifkin said is correct, I've read that with my own eyes in the Rambam.  He says that if aristotle's opinion (about eternity) was proven by fact he would reinterpret the Torah and that that view could possibly be made to fit with it (based on minority opinions and certain statements in chazal, and because in general the gates of interpretation are never closed).  But it was not proven and was merely theoretical (ie philosophy) and therefore not unassailable.  So there was no need for that.
YOU may not accept fossil evidence, but many people do and many people accept the plethora of coinciding evidence which only upholds the fossil record, which by the way are physical facts not philosophies or conjectures, and for people like that - myself included - the approach of rabbi aviezer and others like him who choose to cast doubt on scientific facts is not an acceptable approach.

I am not familiar w rabbi zamir cohen.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Edu, on the one hand you are asking for an approach that fits scientific facts with the creation narrative order, but on the other hand you are saying you disbelieve science.  To each his own, but IMO its a fruitless exercise to try to fit some details that are convenient but then on the other ones that don't fit to say science lied (or whatever).

[edu]

Quote from Kahane-Was-Right BT

Edu, on the one hand you are asking for an approach that fits scientific facts with the creation narrative order, but on the other hand you are saying you disbelieve science.  To each his own, but IMO its a fruitless exercise to try to fit some details that are convenient but then on the other ones that don't fit to say science lied (or whatever).

Not everything that goes under the name of science has equal weight or credibility. Some scientific facts are strongly supported, while others are educated guesses that can be easily overturned.
But in any case, a major scientist who is an expert in this field has contacted me and said
 

I will prepare a detailed rebuttal of Rav Slifkin's points and send it to you in a few days.  But let me say now that there is nothing substantive to his criticism.

He also contends that R. Slifkin is familiar with the rebuttals that can be made against his viewpoint, but does not present them. I will withhold naming the scientist until, I actually get his response, (without vowing).

[muman613]

'Science' is not carved in stone. It is the result of theories and experiments and opinions of man. I do not place any trust in Science as science is based on the observation of nature and nature is only one aspect of Hashems influence on this world. Nature is just another miracle through which Hashem exerts his divine providence in this world.

I am one who only trusts science which is verifiable. Sciences such as electrical engineering and computer science {which is actually more art than science} are the kind of science where most of the time experiments are reproducible. But when it comes to relating what happened thousands or millions of years ago I don't trust them any more than I trust the weatherman to tell me the weather next week. Sometimes the weather report is correct but other times it is completely wrong.

I am old enough to have witnesses major changes in scientific understanding and I have no reason to believe that everything so-called 'science' says today will be valid within 20 years.

Those who place faith in science are just as much Idolators as those who place their faith in stone and wood...

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Those who place faith in science are just as much Idolators as those who place their faith in stone and wood...

 I was going to let your post slide, and just say okay because the book is not for everyone. But this last line is wayyy off. Sorry, that is not what the Torah teaches and not how the true Hachamim (for example the Rambam) looked at the world, about knowledge obtained etc. Your comparing observable knowledge and the knowledge obtained through experiments and other such methods to worshiping idols? Idolatry is rooted in foolishness and the imagination, science is rooted in knowledge and whats obtained through the G-D given intellect (Not that science and the current conclusions are perfect, but who's knowledge is? )

[muman613]

I was going to let your post slide, and just say okay because the book is not for everyone. But this last line is wayyy off. Sorry, that is not what the Torah teaches and not how the true Hachamim (for example the Rambam) looked at the world, about knowledge obtained etc. Your comparing observable knowledge and the knowledge obtained through experiments and other such methods to worshiping idols? Idolatry is rooted in foolishness and the imagination, science is rooted in knowledge and whats obtained through the G-D given intellect (Not that science and the current conclusions are perfect, but who's knowledge is? )

Science is created by man. Do not put faith in it.

Nature is great to learn the ways of Hashem from. Nature is the way that Hashem interacts with the world. But ultimately all this is is observation and theories which try to fit the observed facts into ideas.

Those who think that Science will provide all the answers are fooling themselves. There are great gaps in understanding and often these gaps are filled with 'bunk science' like the conclusion that global temperature changes are man made. Science is a tool in the hands of the scientists and often it is not for the best for humanity.

If you feel that science answers all your questions you are free to place  your trust in it. But I call it foolishness to do so.

[muman613]

http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/551,2168255/What-is-the-Jewish-view-on-science.html

What is the Jewish view on science?
by Rabbi Tzvi Shapiro

Judaism holds science in high esteem.

G-d created a world, and He created humans with the potential to explore it. And today’s science and scientists are maximizing that potential to explore the world in unprecedented ways.

Today’s science has tremendously enhanced the quality of life, as well as the quality of Jewish life.1

There is no question that science currently knows more than we ever knew. There is equally no question science will know even more in twenty years from now. This, in effect, means that much of what science thinks it knows, it really doesn’t know. And Judaism knows that about science too.

So as much as Judaism holds science in high esteem, it also approaches it with a sense of caution.

This doesn’t mean Judaism is dismissive of science. To the contrary, Judaism takes science literally. And since science defines itself as the most probable hypothesis, (which can remain for one hundred years, or be disproved tomorrow), Judaism adheres to that.

Whereas many people get swept away with science as if it were some sort of dogma, blindly believing that its every word and finding is an absolute fact, Judaism remembers that much (if not most) of science is merely theories.

Very intelligent, analytical, and result-producing theories; but theories nonetheless.

Put in the words of the American Heritage Dictionary: "Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."2

Judaism respects science for what it is: knowledge resulting from timely human achievements. And objective scientists respect Judaism for what it is: knowledge resulting from an eternal Divine mandate.

It is our Divine mandate to utilize our scientific achievements for the purpose of bringing ourselves and this world closer to G-d.

Footnotes

    * 1. Scientific findings and inventions have helped in the understanding of certain Torah topics, improved the ability to perform Mitzvot, and advanced the knowledge of and appreciation for G-d. For this very reason, (and perhaps for this reason only) numerous Jewish scholars throughout the ages studied and excelled in the sciences.
    * 2. Emphasis added by editor

[muman613]

I was going to let your post slide, and just say okay because the book is not for everyone. But this last line is wayyy off. Sorry, that is not what the Torah teaches and not how the true Hachamim (for example the Rambam) looked at the world, about knowledge obtained etc. Your comparing observable knowledge and the knowledge obtained through experiments and other such methods to worshiping idols? Idolatry is rooted in foolishness and the imagination, science is rooted in knowledge and whats obtained through the G-D given intellect (Not that science and the current conclusions are perfect, but who's knowledge is? )

I also think you misunderstood when I said 'put faith in science'... Anyone who believes that Science will save them as opposed to Hashem will save them are acting just as an Idolator. Science is not something to put 'faith' in... No more than putting 'faith' in nature....

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

I also think you misunderstood when I said 'put faith in science'... Anyone who believes that Science will save them as opposed to Hashem will save them are acting just as an Idolator. Science is not something to put 'faith' in... No more than putting 'faith' in nature....

 Why are you putting words unto others? Who ever suggested such a thing? All I was/am saying is that their are different approaches and to those who are interested and can handle it they can go and learn.

[muman613]

Why are you putting words unto others? Who ever suggested such a thing? All I was/am saying is that their are different approaches and to those who are interested and can handle it they can go and learn.

My response was not intended for you personally. I am talking about the generic 'you' as those who put 'faith' in science over faith in Hashem...

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Quote from Kahane-Was-Right BTNot everything that goes under the name of science has equal weight or credibility. Some scientific facts are strongly supported, while others are educated guesses that can be easily overturned.
But in any case, a major scientist who is an expert in this field has contacted me and said
  He also contends that R. Slifkin is familiar with the rebuttals that can be made against his viewpoint, but does not present them. I will withhold naming the scientist until, I actually get his response, (without vowing).

If you are talking about R I. Betech, he has proven himself incompetent and misleading on Rabbi Slifkin's blog.  I also seriously challenge the title of "major scientist" if you are using it on whom I suspect.  (Of course I could be wrong but I'm just guessing because betech has made a personal obsession out of attacking r Slifkin and he fancies himself an expert).

I have found that Rabbi Slifkin is pretty honest and open minded and does present contrary views.  In fact he admits that he is not 100% clear or convinced on the mechanism by which evolution took place, however the facts point one unmistakably to the fact that it did take place.   Nonetheless he is not trying to convince a single person to believe evolution took place or didn't.  Anyone who reads his work and is not trying to distort his views for the sake of ridicule and attacking him, knows that.  His work is intended for those educated Jews who already accept the facts of evolution but also seek a Torah approach that can jive with that.  His work is for them, not for someone who doubts the most basic tenets of scientific study and who calls things "just theory" as a way to discredit what is obviously true.  Such people can keep on keepin on.  And thus, saying its "his viewpoint" or talking about "rebuttals" completely misses the point.   He is targeting a readership which accepts certain premises already based on their own knowledge and thought process and proceeding from there.  He doesn't care if someone does not believe evolution of species happened, even if he personally thinks they are wrong, he would wish them well and has no interest convincing them.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Those who place faith in science are just as much Idolators as those who place their faith in stone and wood...

I don't see anyone in this thread who has put "faith in science" but thanks for playing.
We have faith in God only.  Simultaneously, we accept the true and evidence which points us to the truth because that is what we are limited to with our limited senses.  We have no reason to deny what appears factual.

Oh and science says that living tissues need oxygen to continue living and meeting energy needs, and there is no reason to believe this idea will change in 20 years or ever.  Actually, we have every reason to believe that will not change.

And dinosaur fossils will still be dinosaur fossils 20 years from now.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I don't see how modern "scientific" theory can be reconciled with the Creation account in Genesis regardless of how you justify the billions of years gap because plants were created before the sun, moon and stars, and modern scientists claim the heavenly bodies were around before plants.  However, there's no telling how many years the earth was in its chaotic form (covered in water and darkness) before the time that G-d created light.  If you were going to put the billions of years in, I'd say they would fit in most easily before the creation of light.

That being said, one book written by a Jewish scientist that tries to reconcile the 2 accounts is "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Gerald Schroeder

True, very good points.  Let's also not forget that some "days" happened before the sun was created, as I believe the Rambam points out in his discussion of why days are not considered days.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Btw I was intrigued by the author's quote you posted, edu (from the supposed scientist).
When he says that "there is nothing substantive to Rav Slifkin's criticism" - I'm just wondering, his criticism of what?

[muman613]

I don't see anyone in this thread who has put "faith in science" but thanks for playing.
We have faith in G-d only.  Simultaneously, we accept the true and evidence which points us to the truth because that is what we are limited to with our limited senses.  We have no reason to deny what appears factual.

Oh and science says that living tissues need oxygen to continue living and meeting energy needs, and there is no reason to believe this idea will change in 20 years or ever.  Actually, we have every reason to believe that will not change.

And dinosaur fossils will still be dinosaur fossils 20 years from now.

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. 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.

One must never believe that the scientist has the answer to every problem. One thing I do wish is that some day these scientists will figure out a cure for the common cold, because that one has been looked forward to for many generations.

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

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.

I did quite well at many physical sciences including Chemistry and Physics. I took advanced classes in these topics in High School and I attended a very good Computer Science school in New York. I understand science and I also know its limitations. This is why I advise to be careful about placing trust in science.