It seems that the previous post needs some clarification.
First of all I am not comparing the G-dly Torah with any system that was created by humans. As well I am not talking about synthesis of physical science and history. It is obvious that they are describing different lines of life.
My point was about bigger disagreements and contradictions that talk about the same matter. Such as views of Torah and Science on the origins of life for instance. It is very important to mention that science is often misinterpreted as something that is set in stone. I heard many times that science proved this and that, science says this and that so if Torah says something different we need to revise the Torah in order to bring it closer to science. And most probably Torah meant this and that because the science today proved it.
First of all science doesn’t prove ANYTHING. It is simply not what science is about. Science builds models of processes based on the observations. The better the technology the more sophisticated are scientific discoveries. With the development of technology the results of scientific research can come to total disagreement with the previous results and it can be changed again and again. The examples are plenty.
We can take the following one: quantum entanglement challenges special relativity – since dis-entanglement appears to occur simultaneously. It means in simple words that contrary to previous belief our world is non-local, that there doesn’t have to be a direct communication between two objects in order for them to be affected by one another. It doesn’t have to be even a sequence of events in a manner that smoothly spans the distance between them.)
More than that, Leonard Susskind, the co-founder of the string theory, suggested to get rid of the term”reality” altogether.:) Because, he says:” The problem is that what people tend to mean by “reality” has more to do with biology and our neural architecture than it has to do with physics itself. We’re prisoners of our own neural architecture. We can visualize some things but can’t visualize other.”
And the more modern science develops with the help of technology the closer it comes to ideas that are written in Torah. There is no point to bring sacred texts to modern science when new researches can change tomorrow’s scientific approach.
However even in Torah we know there are many commentaries that sometimes contradict each other. All the discussions in Talmud. R.Eliezer who challenged the Sages is not considered “wrong”. The final halachic rulings are according to Hillel, while Shammai’s instructions are totally opposite, but still in some dimension both are right. Another example. Rejecting and opposing astrology by Rambam (one of the most prolific and influential Jewish scholars of the Middle Ages) on one hand and understanding and accepting of astrology by Ramban and other great rabbinic authorities on another. We know from Midrash (commentaries on the Torah ) that there are 70 faces (facets) of the Torah and they are all valid.
I also would like to mention the idea of M-theory, that modern physicists strive to develop as ( oh, so elusive) theory of everything. It is not a theory strictly speaking but a network of theories. It is more like a map. It is understood by its developers that when you’ll try to create 2D map of the 3D globe and make it in a most precise form you’ll need to use not just one map but a collection of several ones that will cover the particular region. These maps will overlap each other in the places they share. However none of them will work alone to give you the whole picture at once.
Then with this understanding even a paradox that everything is predicted but we still have a free will would not be a paradox any longer.