For Maimonides, the Talmudic idea that the Torah speaks in human language means the Torah uses not just metaphors, but is to be understood from a human point of view. Nowhere is this idea more apparent than in the dual depictions of creation that begin the Torah.
In the first, God creates humanity as just a part of the universe. While the idea of science is millennia in the future, the story adopts a primitive materialism.
In a materialistic world everything is casually related. All the great scientific discoveries, physics, thermodynamics, evolution, public health, antibiotics, neuroscience stem from the idea that one can reason from cause to result. Since everything is causally determined, the world could not be anything other than what it is today. There is no human agency.
In the second narrative, everything revolves around human action. The first human starts to classify the world - the first step in science, but becomes disenchanted, overcome by feelings of alienation from a world without companionship, and without God. Human freedom and agency appear as well as human fallibility.
In a human-centered world, creativity predominates. All the great artistic discoveries, literature, music, plastic arts, theatre, film, architecture stem from the idea that humans have agency. Nothing is casually determined. Human agency can change history.
The second story also illustrates the creative ambiguity that appears in every crucial narrative in the Torah. Erich Auerbach, in his famous essay Odysseus' Scar, compares Greek and Hebrew narrative style. The former proceeds with clarity, leisurely, with little suspense. The Biblical narrative specifies only the critical points; thought, feeling and background are only suggested. Homer can be explained. The Bible cries out to be interpreted.
The subsequent story of Cain and Abel continues this theme that dominates the Bible - human agency in an imperfect world. Even books that engender skepticism (Job, Ecclesiastes), are composed from the perspective of the second approach - there is no Sartre or Camus here.
The first approach does linger in the background. The Jews in the time of the First Temple expected divine intervention to save them. It did not come.
The paradox, or dialectic if you wish, for the scientist or technologist in general, and a denizen of MIT in particular, is that you require the viewpoint of the first story to do your research, but you require the viewpoint of the second story to live your life. This is an irresolvable tension. The Torah does not resolve it because, as the Talmud puts it, the Torah does not reside in heaven, it is written in human language from the human perspective. We have to live with this dilemma.