In his controversial work, Rabbi Slifkin tries to go through many places where Judaism encounters science, most notably, age of the universe and evolution. He brings down an interesting point to show the necessity for such a study. In a survey of people who left Judaism, half the people left because they felt they couldn't ask questions and almost two-thirds of them said they left because they didn't get good answers to their questions when they posed them. Based on this and other issues, Slifkin argues that it is of utmost importance both to allow and to show how Judaism can live with science. Before he does that, he talks about how religion is actually the basis for scientific inquiry. Before this, I had always thought that the reason to study science was to see G-d's world for what it really is and marvel at how well it functions. Slifkin shows that there is much more to it than that. As science has progressed, it has become clearer and clearer that the forces in the universe are working together. For this reason, scientists have begun looking for the one "Theory of Anything". Many Jewish sources state that the entire universe was created out of the unity of G-d. It seems that science is starting to believe in this unity, weather or not they agree to its being. Since hearing one of his lectures while in yeshiva (2008), I have been a very big Dr. Gerald Schroeder supporter. In his books, Schroeder works to concord the biblical account of creation with the scientific account of creation. Personally, I find great faith when an ancient text could very well be accounting for scientific discoveries unearthed in the last couple of years (See Science of G-d, and Genesis and the Big Bang). As, Schroeder himself said in a lecture at Bnei Yeshurin in Teaneck, "discovery of the Big Bang was the best thing to happen for G-d in this world, since Moses came down from the mountain". Slifkin, decidedly disagrees with Schroeder's approach. He posits that the Torah was not meaning to give us a scientific story of creation, but rather, it is telling us a conceptual approach to the order of creation. He bases this idea on two important points. He quotes the Ralbag, Rambam and R Saadya Gaon as essentially saying that when the text disagrees with scientific observation, we must, and should read the text allegorically. For example, the Rambam reads the anthropomorphism in the Torah as allegories, because G-d has no physical form. Secondly, The Torah was written for the peopl of ancient times and the people of the modern times alike. While the science of the world has been changing dramatically, the Torah has not. Therefore, the Torah must have written in allegorical terms to accommodate readers throughout the centuries. Slifkin uses this theory to then show that there cannot be inherent disagreement between the Torah and science, because the Torah is simply not talking in those terms. However, I find issue with both of the proofs Slifkin raises. True, the authorities state that one can read the Torah allegorically when necessary, they only do so when it is impossible otherwise. Furthermore, an infinite G-d could very well write a text that would cater to the sensibilities of many different readers. In this fashion, Schroeder shows how when the ancient people could read seven days of creation and accept it, we can see that seven days from the viewpoint of an early universe, in which it is accepted that time moved much quicker, the first 5.5 days of creation can actually be 14 billion years (See Genesis and the Big Bang). Slifkin, however, does address a number of problems for Schroeder. Most importantly, on page 185, Slifkin shows many incongruities between science's perception of the order of Genesis and the Torah's. I don't know how Schroeder deals with these issues, but seemingly it makes his full position hard to hold by. The problem I find is, Slifkin disregards the entirety of Schroeder's approach of concordance, and fully acknowledges the allegorical approach of reading Genesis.
Perhaps a third mediatory view can be posed. The days of creation were in fact days yet also eons as Schroeder argues, and in this way the Torah was able to write Genesis in such a way that both ancient and modern readers can read the account and find it to be true. At the same time, the Torah is a theological work. The exact order of Genesis need not be the exact order in which it happened. In other places the Torah does this as well (at least according to many), and the famous stance of Rashi and others of ain mukdam umeuchar batorah, the Torah can leave the chronological order of things to teach lessons to those reading it. What lessons can we learn from the Torah's order in Genesis?
The order that the Torah gives seems to be methodical, building up and up, where each day seems to be the next step towards something. That something, the Torah says, is man and his relationship with his Maker. The creation itself leads up to man, but it does not stop there. The story of the creation of the world ends in the Sabbath, where G-d rested. We can believe in scientific inquiry, the big bang and evolution, but we cannot subscribe to the "blind watchmaker" idea of a world absent of G-d. The story of Genesis is there to teach us that man, the pinnacle of creation, is supposed to look upon the creation and see its majesty, but not forget G-d while doing so. It is for this reason that the Torah in Exodus 31:16-17, says the Sabbath is a sign between G-d and the Jewish people. We must see G-d in the nature around us. It does not contradict Him, it shows Him. 
