Genesis & The Big Bluff

Please click the title to download:

Genesis & the Big Bluff

by Yoram Bogacz

A comprehensive critique of Genesis and the Big Bang by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, and an introduction to the Torah and science interface.

טבת ה’תש”ע

January 2010

Readers’ Feedback & Comments

Summary of Genesis & The Big Bluff

by Yoram Bogacz

A summary of the above book review created to allow the reader a general overview of the contents of Genesis & The Big Bluff.

6 Responses to “Genesis & The Big Bluff”

  1. Chiquita Loze Says:

    I don’t know what I would’ve done if I hadn’t discovered such a step like this.

  2. Tal Says:

    Hello Rabbi do you have a haskamah from Rav Moshe Meiselman?

  3. Jonathan Fishman Says:

    Dear R’ Yoram ,
    I just thought that I’d share these Ikarim against Darwinism which I found.

    Criticism of Darwinism.

    In this article;-

    ” Failures also apply to Darwinists:

    Failure to explain the Cambrian Explosion since Darwin.
    Extrapolating natural selection far beyond the evidence.
    Continuing to exalt Darwin and his Origin.
    Scheming to keep criticisms of Darwin out of journals and classrooms.
    Flimsy assertions that “it evolved,” with little rigor.
    Refusing to hear or publish scientific critiques of Darwinism.
    Use of homology as evidence and explanation for adaptation.
    Inventing terms like “kin selection” and “evo-devo.”
    Attributing the whole biosphere to undirected causes.
    Claiming the consensus accepts evolution in every meaning of the word.
    Applying natural selection recklessly to everything, even the universe.
    Scheming to prevent intelligent design from gaining a hearing.
    Always saying “more research is needed.”
    Misappropriating genetics, computer science, and development to support it.

    To the extent that these kinds of criticisms should debunk psychiatry as a science, they should also debunk Darwinism as science. Science is a noble word. Its standards should be high. Often, however, the word is applied too broadly; it stands for too little because it stands for too much. Having a degree in science, belonging to a scientific society, or getting one’s ideas published in a journal are no guarantee you are “getting the world right” when it comes to describing entities as complex as human behavior or the biosphere.

    If psychiatry doesn’t survive its current crisis, it will demonstrate that an entrenched, respected field can collapse, even after over a century of trying to act like a science. We shouldn’t think that Darwinism is impregnable. Many of the same criticisms apply. Darwinism’s collapse will occur when insiders are no longer afraid to level the same long-standing criticisms that outsiders have lodged for decades. Keeping those critiques alive is key. A true science endures criticism. A pseudoscience ignores it or tries to squelch it. Darwinists should invite scrutiny, for as Darwin himself said, “A fair result can only be obtained by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” ”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/05/how_a_scientifi071931.html

  4. Are Roster Says:

    I enjoyed your points about non-overlapping magisteria (in your magisterial book).
    I remember a few years ago I emailed Israel Finkelstein a couple of critiques on his conclusions. My based point was: Many of his arguments assumed a NON-MIRACULOUS exodus. I wrote my questions to him without vitriol.

    He responded: We are starting from two very different points — faith is one and scientific research is the other. I respect faith and expect a similar attitude toward research. There is no need to try bridge the two…
    All best,
    Israel Finkelstein
    In other words, he was asking me to “respect” = “accept” his scientific conclusions, because he shows “respect” to faith. But, obviously, his “respect” for faith doesn’t include believing in the conclusions of “faith” (I assume he respects how faith can give a person a purpose in life, can give a person a sense of community, etc. etc.), yet he wants us to accept his conclusions, not merely to agree that his research can give a scientists a purpose in life, a sense of unity with other scientists, etc. etc.

  5. Dovid Says:

    Your book is excellent and the best I’ve seen in this area. Do you have a critique for Dr Schroeder’s calculations using relativity to sync the scientific proposed age of the earth with the 6 days of creation?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: