[porphy]

Hi

I'm not very fund of "link-wars" but to put something on the other end of the scale, concerning DR Gerald Schroeder's articles you can try this.
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfm

Personally I think the article about "The age of the universe" was a really weak piece. It's educating to read though, but not in the way the author wants to... Mr Schroeder writes early on in the article that

"I refuse to use modern Biblical commentary because it already knows modern science, and is always influenced by that knowledge. The trend becomes to bend the Bible to match the science."

And then he goes on and on and finds how Torah and it's early commentators that did know no modern science fits very well (or does at least not contradict) part of todays cosmology...

Avon Lady, you say that

"The Torah's goal is not to be a science book. The purpose of the writers of the articles I linked to is to show how the Torah's minimal and abscure discussion on creation does or does not contradict this or that theory.

By the way, get used to the word "theory."

But if the Torah contains no science or any theory worth its name, how could it possibly contradict or even not contradict a scientific theory? Perhaps it is a kind of poetic way of putting things, but than again, why drag in science and theory at all in this? I see no sign of theory whatsoever in the Torah references, so I agree with you that Torah has nothing to do with physics, cosmology or other branches of science. To bad that Dr Schroeder seems a bit confused on this part.

Cheers Porphy