Of course this is a perfectly legitimate position but it suffers from the fact that it is an artificial conglomeration of mutually antagonistic narratives. No scientist that I am aware of has ever agreed to accept the Biblical chronology if all scientific theories were placed into the "Six Days," nor do any of them grant the historical reality of the Flood, the Dispersion, the genealogies, etc.
Schroeder's conglomeration is like (as pointed out on another thread) mixing Calvinism with Pentecostalism or something.
And as Forrest Gump said, that's all I have to say on this topic.
“Dr. Schroeder is a “concordist,” that is, he seeks to make modern scientific theories conflate with the text of Genesis.”
This article, and its replies, have given me two conflicting insights.
One is that it may now be possible to reconcile science with a reading and understanding of the bible. I thank Dr. Schroeder.
The other insight is that both today’s science and any particular understanding of the bible may be erroneous. Trying to reconcile the two may be like trying to shoot at a moving target, when you should be shooting at a different target. I thank the readers/posters for their replies.
Overall, I have to thank Dr. Schroeder again for his valiant attempt. Rather than snidely dismissing Genesis, as many academics do, he has given serious thought to both Genesis and science.
In general, I think religion has been dismissed by many academics for reasons of fashion, conformity, free will, due to outdated Newtonian understandings, and over-inflated Darwinian “certainties.” These people claim to speak with the “authority” of science.
True scientific thinking is a process, not a product. Dr. Schroeder, and many of the posters on this site, are contributing to the process of science. It’s kind of like the difference between thinking and repeating a thought. People think. Parrots repeat. A spoken thought and a repeated thought may sound the same, yet be worlds apart.