Contradictions between science, Torah, and faith

Hello. Questions that require expansion and there is no space here. So forgive me for being brief. 1. There are several solutions to this. In my opinion, the most likely is that the Torah does not give us historical information. It is intended to convey to us the halakha and everything else in it is an educational myth (see the first Rashi on the Torah, who wonders why the entire book of Genesis was written at all). From the perspective of the Torah, the description of the creation of the world is in six days, but there is not necessarily a description of what actually happened. These are stages that are metaphorically described as days. The order perhaps expresses the hierarchy between the various creatures. From the day the plants were created, evolution began, and the following days describe evolutionary stages in a popular way. Various commentators (such as the Ramban on the Torah) have already insisted that the chapters of creation contain no plainness but only a secret, and their intention is to say that they do not come to tell facts as they are, but to convey a message. 2. The claim not to dig into such questions because it could lead to heresy is ridiculous and stupid. In fact, what they are telling you is that you don’t really believe (because if you dig, you will discover that you don’t believe) and therefore it is better to bury your head in the sand and not be aware that I don’t believe. To the same extent, the pagan sages tell them not to dig because they might discover that monotheism (and Judaism in particular) is true. Is this a reasonable demand? A person needs to form a position. The fact that I was born in a certain place does not guarantee that my educators are right. Everyone is born in a certain place, and even the conservatives who scold you will admit that most of the world was born in places that do not educate in the truth. So who said that I was born in a place that does educate in the truth? I must discover that through thought and study. See columns 6 and 576. See also column 74. Those “spiritualists” who don’t have to think and dig are usually (though not always) people who are deceiving themselves and are less believing than you. 3. I don’t know. The connection between the philosophical God and the religious God is explained in the fifth conversation in my first book. Of course, it’s not the same thing; it’s possible to believe in the first without the second (and perhaps the other way around). But after I came to the conclusion that there is a philosophical God, the tradition regarding a religious God already sounds much more reasonable. There’s no room here to elaborate on this further.