The Big Bang Theory was created by Georges Lemaître in 1927. This contradicts the story of creation in the torah, written over 3000 years ago. Rabbis and commentators as early as the 1500’s, before the Big Bang theory was created, worked to explain how science, and later the Big Bang theory fits into the torah. In order to answer this question, we have to understand what was created, when it was created, and how we can understand the discrepancies between the age of the universe in the torah and science.
How was the universe created?
The first part of the Big Bang theory where we find a discrepancy between it and the torah is what was the first thing that was created. The torah says it was light and the Big Bang Theory says it was Quarks (matter) which eventually formed atoms.
(א) בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
All commentators agree that ה׳ did something in בראשית א:א, but we can interpret what he did in multiple ways.
(ג) וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים יְהִ֣י א֑וֹר וַֽיְהִי־אֽוֹר׃
According to the Pshat ה׳ created light on the first day.
הקב"ה ברא כל הנבראים מאפיסה מוחלטת. ואין אצלנו בלשון הקדש בהוצאת היש מאין אלא לשון "ברא"; ואין כל ה"נעשה" – תחת השמש או למעלה – הווה מן האין התחלה ראשונה. אבל הוציא מן האפס הגמור המוחלט יסוד דק מאד, אין בו ממש, אבל הוא כוח ממציא, מוכן לקבל הצורה ולצאת מן הכוח אל הפועל. והוא החומר הראשון, נקרא ליוונים "היולי". ואחר ההיולי לא ברא דבר, אבל יצר ועשה, כי ממנו המציא הכל והלביש הצורות ותיקן אותן. ודע, כי השמים וכל אשר בהם – חומר אחד, והארץ וכל אשר בה – חומר אחד. והקב"ה ברא אלו שניהם מאין, ושניהם לבדם נבראים, והכל נעשים מהם. והחומר הזה, שקראו היולי, נקרא בלשון הקדש "תֹּהוּ"
Ramban believes that light is used as a metaphor for the creation of matter. He believes that ה׳ used the energy he created in בראשית א:א to create a substance that he called "a very thin substance-less substance". He goes on to say that this thing, known in the language of the Torah as "nothingness", was the same substance discovered by the greek scholars.
(1) והארץ היתה תהו ובהו, “this very center which was created at that time was composed of a mixture of raw materials, known as tohu, and its original external appearance is what is described as bohu. The reason is that the whole expanse of tohu was comprised of a uniform appearance. This explained that the first raw material was something entirely new. It is described as tohu to indicate that at that point it was merely something which had potential, the potential not yet having materialised, been converted to something actual. When we read in Samuel I 12,21 כי תהו המה, the meaning is that these phenomena did not exist in reality, they existed only in someone’s imagination. [a reference to pagan deities. Ed.] The appearance of this primordial raw material is described as bohu, meaning that as such it came to exist in actual fact, in real terms. Isaiah 34,11 “weights of emptiness.” This describes any phenomenon that does not retain its appearance for any length of time. It constantly changes like a chameleon
Soforno gives an explanation similar to Ramban. He believes that the entire universe was created out of a single matter known as Tohu. The Soforno goes on to say that these particles had potential to be converted into anything. This is similar to the modern understanding of quarks. He also says that the particles only exist in the imagination, similar to today when they exist in scientists imagination but they are not something easily found in nature.
Age of the Universe
The second discrepancy we find between the Big Bang Theory and the torah is how old the universe is. Before we can figure that out, we need to know when light or matter was created.
Rabbi Gedalyah Nadel, BeToraso Shel Rav Gedalyah
The expression "one day" that the Torah uses, according to its literal translation, refers to one [conventional] day. Maimonides and the other early authorities truly held of this view, that each of the six days of creation lasted for one [ordinary] day, because they had no reason to believe otherwise. However, for us, there are indeed such reasons.
Nathan Aviezer, In the Beginning… Biblical Creation and Science
Any attempt to correlate the biblical text with scientific knowledge must necessarily understand the term "day" to mean a phase of a period in the development in the world, rather than a time interval of twenty-four hours. This idea is, of course, not new. The sages of the Talmud long ago called attention to the fact that one cannot speak of a "day" or of "evening and morning" in the usual sense if there is neither sun nor moon in the sky… There is no consensus of traditional opinions about the definition of "Day" in the Seven Days of the Beginning… The view adopted in the present book is that the six days of creation do not refer to a time interval of 144 hours, but rather to six specific phases in the development of the universe – from the initial creation to the appearance of man.
(ג) ויהי ערב ויהי בקר - אין כתיב כאן ויהי לילה ויהי יום, אלא ויהי ערב, שהעריב יום ראשון ושיקע האור, ויהי בוקר, בוקרו של לילה, שעלה עמוד השחר
The Rashbam tells us that day was really created before night, and when it says "ויהי־ערב ויהי־בקר יום אחד" it is talking about the completion of the first 24 hour period.
ואחר שאמר שהאור יקרא יום לא יתכן שיקרא הערב יום רק פי' היה ערב גם היה בקר של אחד. ואילו היה הערב והבקר יום אחד מה טעם שני
The Iben Ezra disagrees with the Rashbams idea that the days start in the morning because it would suggest that other days, and ultimately shabbos would start in the morning instead of at night.
ואמרו קצת המפרשים, כי האור הזה נברא לפניו של הקב"ה, כלומר במערב, ושיקעו מיד כדי מידת לילה, ואחרי כן האיר כמידת יום. וזה טעם "וַיְהִי עֶרֶב וַיְהִי בֹקֶר" (פסוק ה), שקודם היה לילה, ואחר כך יום, ושניהם אחרי הויית האור. ואיננו נכון כלל, כי יוסיפו על ששת ימי בראשית יום קצר. אבל ייתכן שנאמר, כי האור נברא לפניו יתברך, ולא נתפשט ביסודות הנזכרים. והבדיל בינו ובין החשך, שנתן לשניהם מידה. ועמד לפניו כמידת לילה, ואחר כך הזריח אותו על היסודות. והנה קדם הערב לבוקר.
(1) And God saw the light, that it was good: Our Rabbi Shlomo (Rashi) wrote, "Here too, we need the words of the Aggadah (homiletical teachings): He saw it, [and saw] that it was not proper for the wicked to use it; so He separated it for the righteous in the future. And according to its simple meaning, explain it as follows: He saw it, that it was good, and it was unseemly that [light] and darkness should serve in a mishmash; so He established for this one its boundary by day, and for that one its boundary by night." And Rabbi Avraham said, "Like 'I myself saw' (Ecclesiastes 2:13); it is [seeing] in [one’s] thought. And the meaning of 'and He separated,' is [that they were separated] through the calling of [their] names." And the words of both of them are not correct - since; if so, it would appear to be a matter of new deliberation and counsel, that after God's having said, "Let there be light" and there was light, it would state that He saw it, that it was good, and hence, He separated between it and darkness; like the matter of a man who did not know the nature of something until it [existed]. But the order in the story of creation is that the taking of things into actuality is called 'saying,' - [as per] "And God said, 'let there be light;'" "And He said... 'let there be a firmament'" (verse 6); "And He said... 'let the earth bring forth grass'" (verse 11) - and their [continued] existence is called 'seeing;' as with the matter of "I myself saw" in Ecclesiastes; and so [too], "The woman saw that the tree was good for eating" (Genesis 3:6). And it is like the matter, [when] they said (Ketuvot 109a), "I see the words of Admon;" and similar to it is "And the king said to Tsadok the priest, 'do you see? return to the city in peace.'" And the matter is to show their maintenance in His will, and if the Will should separate from them for an instant, they would turn to nothing. And when it stated, with the act of each day, "and God saw that it was good," and on the sixth day when everything was completed, "And God saw everything that He had done, and behold it was good," so [too] did it state on the first day with the existence of light, "And God saw... that it was good," [meaning] that He wanted its existence forever. And it added here, [the phrase,] "the light," since had it simply stated, "And God saw that it was good," it would have referred back to the creation of the heavens and the earth, and He had not yet decreed [continued] existence upon them; since they would not be maintained as they were, but [rather] from the material that was created on the first [day], the firmament was made on the second [day] and the waters were separated and the dirt was made into the dry land that He called earth on the third [day]; and then He decreed their existence and He said about them, "And God saw that it was good." and God separated between the light and between the darkness: This is not the darkness mentioned in the first verse, which is fire, but [rather], it is the absence of light; since God gave a measure [of time] to the light, and that it should be absent after [that measure] until its return. And some of the commentators have said, that this light was created in front of the Holy One, blessed be He - meaning in the West - and He immediately had [the light] set for the measure of night; and afterwards, He had it shine for the measure of day. And this is the meaning of, "and it was evening and it was morning" (verse 5), that first was the night and afterwards the day, and both of them were after the coming forth of the light. And this is not correct at all, since they would be adding to the six days of creation, a short day (before the sun set completely and the first night began). But it is possible for us to say that the light was created in front of Him, may He be blessed, and it did not spread to the elements mentioned - but He separated between it and between the darkness, by giving them both a measure - and it stood in front of Him according to the measure of night; and afterwards, He made it shine over the elements. And behold, [this way] the evening was before the morning. And it is also possible for us to say, that time existed from when the heavens and the earth came out from the void into the existence mentioned in the first verse. Since even though our time is in minutes and hours, which are [dependent upon] light and darkness, once there is existence, it [is] within time. And if so, the heavens and the earth were created, and they stood like that according to the measure of the night - without light - and He said, "let there be light, and there was light;" and He decreed upon [the light] that it should stand like the first measure [of night], and afterwards, it should become absent from the elements; "and it was evening, and it was morning."
The Ramban says that some commentators say that the light was out for 10 minutes before setting, but the Ramban disagree with this approach because it would add a fractional day to creation. Instead he believes that ה׳ created light but did not release it until the next morning.
While both the Rashbam and the other commentators mentioned by the Ramban understand the torah literally as "וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים יְהִ֣י א֑וֹר וַֽיְהִי־אֽוֹר...וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם אֶחָֽד" and therefore explain light as being created before darkness, both the Iben Ezra and the Ramban reject these opinions because it would add a fractional day to creation and mess up the Jewish Calendar. To solve this the Ramban offered an approach based off the knowledge that night must come before day and light was created before darkness that said light was created but not released into the earth before morning. Following the Rambans idea we learn that the first day of creation was the same length as all the other days. With that knowledge in mind we can understand the approaches about how old the world is.
(א) יום אחד לְפִי סֵדֶר לְשׁוֹן הַפַּרְשָׁה הָיָה לוֹ לִכְתּוֹב יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בִּשְׁאָר הַיָּמִים שֵׁנִי, שְׁלִישִׁי, רְבִיעִי, לָמָּה כָתַב אֶחָד? לְפִי שֶׁהָיָה הַקָּבָּ"ה יָחִיד בְּעוֹלָמוֹ
(1) יום אחד THE FIRST DAY (literally, one day) — According to the regular mode of expression used in this chapter it should be written here “first day”, just as it is written with regard to the other days “the second”, “the third”, “the fourth”. Why, then, does it write אחד “one”? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, was then the Only One (Sole Being) in His Universe, since the angels were not created until the second day. Thus it is explained in Genesis Rabbah (Genesis Rabbah 3:8).
According to רש׳׳י the first day of creation the torah calls calls "one day", while all the other it calls "second day" "third day" etc. רש׳׳י explains that the reason for this is because ה׳ was all alone until he created angels at the end of the first day, and since there was no concept of time when ה׳ was by himself the entire discrepancy of time happened before the end of the first day.
Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein says that time is relative to the gravitational system to which it is observed. Because we believe that ה׳ is outside this universe, from his place looking down at earth 15.5 million god years could fit into 5 man days
Both רש׳׳י an Albert Einstein propose ideas that could solve the discrepancy of the age of the universe between the Torah and the Big Bang Theory. רש׳׳י uses his knowledge of the creation story to answer the discrepancy form a religious point of view, Albert Einstein uses his knowledge of science to explain an scientific idea that could lead to a solution.
Prior Worlds Approach
(ז) אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר סִימוֹן, יְהִי עֶרֶב אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא וַיְהִי עֶרֶב, מִכָּאן שֶׁהָיָה סֵדֶר זְמַנִּים קֹדֶם לָכֵן. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּהוּ מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹרֵא עוֹלָמוֹת וּמַחֲרִיבָן, עַד שֶׁבָּרָא אֶת אֵלּוּ, אָמַר דֵּין הַנְיָן לִי, יַתְהוֹן לָא הַנְיָן לִי. אָמַר רַבִּי פִּנְחָס טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּהוּ (בראשית א, לא): וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה וְהִנֵּה טוֹב מְאֹד, דֵּין הַנְיָין לִי יַתְהוֹן לָא הַנְיָין לִי.
(7) Rabbi Judah bar Simon said: it does not say, ‘It was evening,’ but ‘And it was evening.’ Hence we derive that there was a time-system prior to this. Rabbi Abbahu said: This teaches us that God created worlds and destroyed them, saying, ‘This one pleases me; those did not please me.’ Rabbi Pinhas said, Rabbi Abbahu derives this from the verse, ‘And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good,’ as if to say, ‘This one pleases me, those others did not please me.’
This Beratia is the earliest record of the approach of multiple worlds. it implies that ה׳ created and destroyed worlds until he was happy, and that can explain the difference in time. This can slo explain fossils such as dinosaurs that have been found- they came from previous worlds.
Departing from Literalism
In order for us to be able to use these ideas, we must depart from the notion that the torah is literal
(10) For Ezra had dedicated himself to study the Teaching of the LORD so as to observe it, and to teach laws and rules to Israel.
These two sources teach us that we must delve into the torah as Ezra did and explore its deeper meaning. These sources seem to allow non-literal interpretation
(14) Truly, I shall further baffle that people With bafflement upon bafflement; And the wisdom of its wise shall fail, And the prudence of its prudent shall vanish.
According to this passage in Isiah, it can be hard to interpret complicated portions of the torah and the original meaning may be lost. For this reason, we may reinterpret sources in the torah as long as it doesn't effect any laws
The discrepancy between the Torah and Science in regard to the creation story has a much broader affect then just the creation story. We can learn from the commentators and scientists who show us that there is really no difference between what science says and what torah says that we should view science as explaining what the torah says, and not as a contradiction.
Talmud Bavli
There are 4 times when we can reinterpret the torah. They are:
1. When the plain meaning is rejected by common experience.
2. Where it is repudiated by obvious logic.
3. Where it is contradicted by obvious scripture.
4. Where it is opposed by clear Talmudic tradition.
Creation could fall under both 1 and 2 because we have widely accepted scientific theories telling us how the world was created
The Gemara relates that one of the Sages sat before Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani and he sat and said: Job never existed and was never created; there was never such a person as Job. Rather, his story was a parable. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said to him: In rebuttal to you, the verse states: “There was a man in the Land of Utz whose name was Job” (Job 1:1), which indicates that such a man did indeed exist.
The above גמרה seems to imply that Job never existed, but the entire story was a parable. This interpretation would allow us to see other portion of tanach as a parable and not a literal story.
Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler, Collected Essays and Notes, London 1959, no. 33
Creation, by definition, is outside our world and outside our frame of thought. If time exists only as a mode of our thought, then the act of creation is necessarily non-temporal: "above time." Every non-temporal act is interpreted in our frame of thought as an infinite time-sequence. This is the reason why creation is interpreted by scientists as a process of evolution extending over vast eons of time. Since creation does not take place in time we must ask why the Torah describes it as taking six days. The answer is that the Torah wishes to teach us a lesson in relative values. Everything has value only in relation to its spiritual content. Vast physical masses and vast expanses of space and time are of little significance if their spiritual content is small. The whole physical universe exists as an environment for the spiritual life of the human being; this is its spiritual content. When interpreting non-temporal creation in temporal terms the Torah deliberately contracts the time-scale compared with that which presents itself to the scientist, in order to convey to us the relative insignificance of the material creation compared with the spiritual stature of man.
This source, from Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler gives a totally different approach. he says that the act of Creation is so far out of our range of thought that ה׳ provided a symbolic time frame of days so we could better understand that ה׳ created the world.
Rabbi Israel Lipschutz, Derush Or ha-Chayyim
From all this it is clear that everything that the kabbalists have told us for hundreds of years, that the world had already once existed and was then destroyed, and then it was reestablished four more times, and that each time the world appeared in a more perfect state than before – now in our time it has all become clear in truth and righteousness. And would you believe, my brothers, that this wonderful secret is clearly written in the first section of our holy Torah
Rabbi Lipschutz gives an approach that allows us to understand extinct species or those not mentioned in the torah He believes that we can rely on the Kabablistic source that the world was destroyed and rebuilt multiple times, and skeletons of dinosaurs and other large animals can be left over from that time period
Chazal's Incorrect Interpretation of Science and Medicine
In addition to the torah, Chazal was often wrong in their rulings regarding science and medicine
כרוב שנו תנו רבנן טחול יפה לשינים וקשה לבני מעים כרישין קשין לשינים ויפין לבני מעים כל ירק חי מוריק וכל קטן מקטין וכל נפש משיב את הנפש וכל קרוב לנפש משיב את הנפש כרוב למזון ותרדין לרפואה אוי לו לבית שהלפת עוברת בתוכו: אמר מר טחול יפה לשינים וקשה לבני מעים מאי תקנתיה נלעסיה ונשדייה כרישין קשין לשינים ויפין לבני מעים
Cabbage for nourishment and beets for healing. The Gemara asks: Is cabbage good for nourishment and not for healing? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Six things cure the ill person of his disease and their cure is an effective cure, and these are: Cabbage, beets, chamomile water, honey, stomach, heret, and liver. Evidently, cabbage is also good for healing. The Gemara responds: Rather, say: Cabbage is even for sustenance and all the more so for healing, which is not the case with beets.
The Rabbis thought here that Cabbage and other foods could cure a person from illness. This is wrong
(ז) אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר סִימוֹן, יְהִי עֶרֶב אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא וַיְהִי עֶרֶב, מִכָּאן שֶׁהָיָה סֵדֶר זְמַנִּים קֹדֶם לָכֵן. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּהוּ מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹרֵא עוֹלָמוֹת וּמַחֲרִיבָן, עַד שֶׁבָּרָא אֶת אֵלּוּ, אָמַר דֵּין הַנְיָן לִי, יַתְהוֹן לָא הַנְיָן לִי. אָמַר רַבִּי פִּנְחָס טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּהוּ (בראשית א, לא): וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה וְהִנֵּה טוֹב מְאֹד, דֵּין הַנְיָין לִי יַתְהוֹן לָא הַנְיָין לִי.
(7) Rabbi Judah bar Simon said: it does not say, ‘It was evening,’ but ‘And it was evening.’ Hence we derive that there was a time-system prior to this. Rabbi Abbahu said: This teaches us that God created worlds and destroyed them, saying, ‘This one pleases me; those did not please me.’ Rabbi Pinhas said, Rabbi Abbahu derives this from the verse, ‘And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good,’ as if to say, ‘This one pleases me, those others did not please me.’
Woe unto the house through which the turnip passes, as it is extremely damaging. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rav say to his servant: When you see a turnip in the market, do not ask me with what will you eat your bread today? Buy the turnip and bring it for the meal. Apparently, the turnip is a significant and appropriate food. Abaye said: The turnip is harmful only when it is eaten without meat. And Rava said: Without wine. It was stated that Rav said: The turnip is harmful when it is eaten without meat. And Shmuel said: Without wood, meaning when it is not properly cooked. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Without wine. Along the same lines, Rava said to Rav Pappa: Farmer (ge’onim) we break the harmful aspects of the turnip with meat and wine. You, who do not have a lot of wine, with what do you break its harmful aspects? Rav Pappa said to him: With wood. As that is what Rav Pappa’s wife would do. After she cooked the turnip, she would break it with eighty pieces of wood from a palm tree.
In this section of the גמרה Chazal believes Turnips are dangerous. It is then mentioned that Rav eats Turnips. Chazal then argues if you need to eat something with the Turnip to make it safe. Different rabbis propose wine or meat. It is then mentioned that Rav Papa doesn't have meat or wine, so his wife cooks his turnips with 80 pieces of palm tree.
All of this is wrong. If a food is toxic it will always be toxic no matter what else it is eaten with. Additionally, cooking with wood doesn't take any toxins out of a toxic food. And, Turnips are not toxic so non of this is even necessary.
לה אמר ליה בציבי כי הא דביתהו דרב פפא בתר דמבשלא לה תברא לה בתמנן אופי פרסייתא תנו רבנן דג קטן מליח פעמים שהוא ממית בשבעה בשבעה עשר ובעשרים ושבעה ואמרי לה בעשרים ושלשה ולא אמרן אלא במטוי ולא מטוי אבל מטוי שפיר לית לן בה ודלא מטוי שפיר לא אמרן
On the topic of foods, the Gemara cites what the Sages taught in a baraita: A small salted fish sometimes kills, specifically seven days, seventeen days, and twenty-seven days after it was salted. And some say: Twenty-three. And we only said this when it is roasted and not roasted well, but when it is roasted well, we need not be concerned. And when it is not roasted well, we only said this when one does not drink beer thereafter; however, when one drinks beer thereafter, we need not be concerned.
Here Chazall believes you can't eat a fish on certain days (7, 17. 27 and possible 23) after it is cooked if it isn't cooked extremely well. However, they believe that if it isn't roasted well you can eat it if you drink beer with it.
This is wrong. A food cannot alternate between toxic and non-toxic depending on the day. Again, as in the previous source, If a food is toxic it will always be toxic no matter what else it is eaten with.
דתניא אכל ולא שתה אכילתו דם וזהו תחילת חולי מעיים אכל ולא הלך ארבע אמות אכילתו מרקבת וזהו תחילת ריח רע
The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: One who ate and did not drink at all, what he ate becomes blood and that causes the onset of intestinal disease. One who ate and did not walk four cubits after eating, what he ate rots and that causes the onset of bad breath.
The גמרה here believes that if you eat without drinking the food will turn to blood. It then says that if you ea without walking 4 cubits the food will rot.
Both of these are wrong.
Here Chazal thinks the sun rises in the northeast and sets in the southwest. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Chazal is wrong again
§ The Gemara discusses the source of rain. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: The entire world drinks from the waters of the ocean [okeyanos], i.e., evaporated ocean water is the source of rain. As it is stated: “And there went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground” (Genesis 2:6). Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: But the waters of the ocean are salty, whereas rainwater is sweet. Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Yehoshua: The waters are sweetened in the clouds, before they fall to the earth.
Here Chazal believes that everyone gets their waters from the ocean. When Rabbi Yehoshua said the ocean is slaty, Rabbi אליאזר ays they are sweetened by clouds. This is not true. Clouds do not sweeten water
Approaching Conflict
In the past, science was viewed as a challenge to religion, especially Judaism. Recently, however, that has begun to change. Scientific principles are being accepted by many religious communalwafs the case. In some extremely religious communities such as the Hassidic community in New York, words such as Dinosaur are backed out of the textbooks and visiting the Museum of Natural History is forbidden. In some cases, the religious community could be wrong such as when the Catholic Church forbade Galileo from teaching that the earth revolves around the sun, because they believed that everything revolved round the earth. According to the Rambam "Let a thousand fools die, but let the one wise man live". By applying this principle to conflicts between torah and science, we can attempt to figure out how science and torah work together, instead of accepting that the torah is right and science must be wrong.
Some questions about torah and science are still unanswered. A Yiddush expression states "From a question, a person doesn't die". This teaches us that it is allowed to have unanswered questions, even about the Torah. These unanswered questions shouldn't cause someone to abandon their belief in the torah. Modern science has many unanswered questions of its own yet we still study and belie in it. However, this approach should be used as little as possible. If someone is concerned about creation or another aspect of science and a Rabbi tells them "You don't die from a question" instead of answering, it may cause the person to abandon their faith if they feel the Rabbi doesn't understand the seriousness which they view that conflict between torah and science. This should only be used when there is no answer to be found, but the rabbi should work on searching for an answer.
Rabbis must be more open to answering questions, even difficult questions that challenge beliefs of Judaism. A study showed 51% of people who left Orthodox Judaism felt that they were unable to ask questions, and 64% felt they were given unsatisfactory answers. Despite this, there are still rabbis today who don't answer questions if they are not within the system of Jewish beliefs. This causes many students, especially those in Ultra-Orthodox communities to go off the Derech when they have questions.
Some question the reliability of Science. After all, if they can't predict what the weather will be like in two weeks, how can they predict what happened at creation? There is a difference between major principles of science and minor facts. Major principles that have been proven over and over, will jot change. Smaller facts such where a cloud will move, can change. There is proof that the Major principles of seen work. They have been used to put Humans on the moon and clone animals. His also works for prehistory. Archeologists are able to predict what fossils they will find based on the dirt they are digging in.
In Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto's book, he writes that when ה׳ created the universe, he did it in a way not meant for us to understand. Because of this, he did not write the exact way he created the universe in the Torah. Instead, he wrote a shorter version that בני ישראל at the time could comprehend. Now with science, we are able to understand what he did and interpret the Torah's version of creation accordingly.
In the times of the sages, there was no reason to understand creation as anything different then what the Torah said, because science was still in its infancy and not very reliable. Today, however, science has improved dramatically and can give us a clear picture of what happened at creation. We are now obligated to understand how science fits in with creation, because that will improve our faith, not destroy it.