Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach

Recently was in a class on astronomy in order to fulfill the requirements for my major in business. All throughout the course a huge amount of information was provided to prove that the earth's age is ancient. This belief went against the young earth idea that I grew up on. There seemed to be an insurmountable amount of evidence against the idea that the earth indeed was only a few thousand years old. A difficult phase in a young theologians life is when two sources are received and they contradict. -The Bible teaches a young earth. -Science makes a claim for an ancient earth. The class made an argument that my hermeneutic was wrong in my interpretation of scripture. If there truly is that much evidence for an old earth, then my innate presupposition is that the Bible is correct so it must be my interpretation of scripture that is flawed. Vern Poythress wrote Redeeming Science for me and my other friends who are struggling connecting science and the Bible. Poythress is well aware of these intellectual battles and seeks to provide answers for a struggling thinker in a scientific culture that is rabid in its denunciation of scripture. Poythress begins by establishing the presupposition that God exists and that he chose to speak to us through the Bible. The information in the Bible is 100% accurate and worthy of respect. After making his initial point he begins to establish a logical framework. Science is underneath scripture it is not outside. If any issues in science contradict scripture than the idea is wrong. Once this is established he begins to put scientific ideas through the filter of scripture to see if they prove to be correct. He works through the young earth old earth controversy by exegeting Genesis 1. Was it the author's intent to speak allegorically in Genesis 1? This does not seem to be the case. Is there a separation between 1:1 and 1:2? There are no textual proofs of such a division so why should a theological concept creep into our interpretation? Genesis 1 must be examined in the same literary vain as the rest of Genesis. Same form. Same interpretation. If the scientific ideal lies within the range of scripture then by no means is it wrong to hold to the position. Poythress lists a variety of views that fit in with what scripture teaches such as the 24 hour day view as well as the mature creation view. Both of these views can be seen through scripture. Poythress does have his druthers with which one of these he thinks is more scientifically accurate and more Biblical but it does not make either position necessarily wrong. Poythress also brings to light the hermeneutical truth that what was written years ago cannot mean something new for those of us who read in the future. This fallacy especially influences our understanding of the Old Testament. He gave for an example that when a person from ancient history thought the word "world" he thought region not the entire globe. He was not aware that there was more

Some would say that science and theology are antagonistic to each other, especially since the 19th century's movements of higher criticism in theology and naturalism in science. To some degree, this reflects a larger issue in Western Civilization, that of a loss of unifying purposes that has been lost. Some would prefer to ignore any relation between science and theology, saying they take up such completely different spheres, you cannot even speak of them at the same time, one belongs in the classroom and laboratory, the other belongs in the sanctuary. Dr. Vern Poythress has taken what can be called a more traditional approach to understanding the role of science as a way to understand God, take care of creation and help man, almost hearkening back to the scientific revolution of the late 17th century. Poythress has math degrees from Cal. Tech and Harvard, and college teaching experience; and for the last 25 years he has been a New Testament professor at Westminster Seminary, so he brings a unique perspective in how he understands scientific thought and theology, at a high level. His goal in Redeeming Science is two fold. He wants the reader to understand scientific philosophy and inquiry as a good thing, that as a Christian he wants the reader to embrace science as a way to adventure, govern and take care of a creation that God is actively cultivating. He also wants to call for a higher, unifying element in how we understand knowledge and inquiry, that individuals would see all true knowledge as God's knowledge. Poythress begins his book with a clear worldview statement, that all scientists, whether proclaimed atheists or traditional Christians, believe in God, because he says you have to operate with certain assumptions in how the universe works and how you perceive it to work, that flow out worldview consistent with how God describes himself in the pages of the Bible. So he says there is no such thing as neutrality, no position that allows the observer of nature to stand apart and make statements. Due to its large importance, especially since the rise of scientific naturalism in the 19th century, Poythress spends several chapters discussing different theories for understanding creation, and with a sound attempt at a hermeneutical analysis of Genesis 1 and 2. Poythress takes an analogical view of understanding creation. He does a fine job of pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of various understandings of how we understand creation, but is most of all concerned with not making the Bible say things it does not say, nor making our understanding of creation inconsistent with what we know about God. Where the book is its strongest, is Poythress' explanation of why science should have the influence of the redeeming effect of Christ. He takes a traditional understanding of the effects of sin, and points to how that distortion makes knowledge murky and hard to comprehend. Poythress makes the case that Christ came to fulfill the creation mand

I'm 2/3 through this book, and it is wonderful. Poythress makes so many great points. I just keep saying "Amen!" It is extremely heartening to have a book out there written by someone who not only loves both science and the Bible, but who also trusts both and understands both. BTW, I am not Reformed, and I have a PhD in Physics. I wish I could get every Christian and every scientist (Christian or not) to read this book.

This is the first time I have read Vern Poythress and he is delightful. His style is measured and I have enjoyed the humility with which he approaches this sometimes volatile topic. He stresses that we are sinful humans with our own predjudice and bias and we need to recognise that before we start. Then he stresses his view of the inerrancy of scripture from the one true God who has revealed himself to mankind. In introducing science Poythress appeals to the reader to recognise that the pursuit of science assumes an underlying belief in order and systematic development, which the Christian recognises as the creative hand of God. Where science and the bible appear to contradict one another he asks us to ask ourselves: a. is the scientific evidence credible? b. have we created the contradiction by mis-interpreting the scientific evidence? c. have we created the contradiction by mis-interpreting the bible? I notice some reviewers object to this, preferring their own dogmatic views (I'm being volatile ;-) ), but this sounds like a pretty sensible approach to me. Vern Poythress believes the bible to be the true Word of God, but he suggests that we must read it within its own literary context....poems were never meant to textbooks. There are extensive footnotes to the text which will point the interested reader off to deeper discussions of various issues. It is a pleasure to read a well thought out conservative evangelical theologian who can engage deeply with modern science.

I have only read chapter 10 of this book so far, in dealing with the framework view and the analogical day theory view (and have skimmed through other chapters as well) and so far I believe it to be an excellent and deeply insightful book. In response to the above review, I have to say that the whoever wrote that review seems to have read the book with in unchangeable bias. I can almost guarantee that he is a young-earther and maybe even believes that Scripture "always trumps" our understanding of general revelation (whatever that means). But what Poythress tries to do is challenge our assumptions. In the case of Noah's flood, he asks why we assume that "water" has a liquid form. "But how does one know this?" says Poythress, "Is it not possible that, on the mountains we might find snow, sleet, and ice? The water might cover this area, and snuff out the life of animals, whether it took liquid or solid form. The later receding of the waters (Gen. 8:3) might include melting." His point is that grant that the flood was a supernatural act of the Triune God, how are we so sure that it all took place exactly how we imagine it? I believe that Vern is correct in pointing out that our modern glasses cloud the way we view Scripture. We might quickly assume that Genesis 1:1 is talking about the globe we live on when it speaks of God creating the "heavens and the earth." But the Hebrew is literally land, and Moses and his audience may have merely understood "God created everything" rather than "space, clouds, and this globe I am currently standing on." It is a faulty assumption to say that the ancient peoples understood things in this vein, and it is an illegitimate expectation to have God speak to his people through terms and imagery that they wouldn't understand. In theology, this is called phenomological language; the sun rises, the sun sets, the waters covered the land. All within their understanding. I know this is a bit long-winded, but I just get steamed having to read bad reviews about excellent authors/theologians written by those who do not care to sift through the facts with an open mind. Though you may not agree with Poythress, he will challenge your assumptions to their core.